MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092051320 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckaa165.1075

Training physicians in motivational communication to improve behaviour change counselling competency: A behavioural medicine approach to NCD prevention and management

2020· article· en· W3092051320 on OpenAlexafffund
Kim Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsCoachingContext (archaeology)Core competencyMedical educationBehavior changeHealth careBehaviour changeMedicineCommunication skills trainingPsychologyApplied psychologyNursingIntervention (counseling)Communication skills

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Despite the importance of changing health behaviours in the context of preventing and managing non-communicable chronic diseases (NCD's), physician use of evidence-based behaviour change counselling (BCC) is low, and BCC skills competency is generally poor. Motivational communication (MC) is a patient-centred, evidence-based BCC approach used by healthcare providers, designed to increase patient motivation to adopt a healthy lifestyle. MC-based approaches improved a range of health behaviours (smoking, diet, physical activity) in patients with NCDs, leading to increased demand for physician training. Despite the widespread dissemination of training programs, data on their efficacy in achieving competency among physicians is limited. This is likely due to a lack of consensus on the core communication competencies to be achieved, and in the absence of acceptable, valid and reliable tools to measure skill acquisition. Results Using an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) approach that engaged 199 international physicians, behaviour change experts and health administrators, we have identified 11 core evidence-based communication competencies that physicians should acquire in the context of NCD prevention/management. They have been incorporated into a basic 4 hr face-to-face MC training program called “LEARN THE BASICs”. To assess MC competency, we have also developed a reliable, engaging, efficient, 'user-friendly' case-based digital assessment tool called the MC-Competency Assessment Test (MC-CAT). Conclusions Strategies for optimizing and tailoring this program, including finding the most cost-effective training dose, the impact of supplemental training components (e.g., in person vs. digital coaching; booster sessions), and delivery modes (e.g., face-to-face vs digital/online), will be discussed in the context of optimizing implementation success.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.527
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.100 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207