Facilitating Behavior Change in Plastic Surgery Patients Who Inject Drugs Through Motivational Interviewing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Plastic surgeons treat a large volume of patients with upper limb morbidity resulting from intravenous drug use. The use of motivational interviewing by health care providers has demonstrated effectiveness in eliciting behavioral change, leading to improved health outcomes. This paper aims to explore the concept and process of motivational interviewing and its role in facilitating behavior change in the plastic surgery setting. Methods: The authors reviewed the literature on motivational interviewing in various health care settings. Results: Motivational interviewing, first developed in the field of psychology, has demonstrated effectiveness in facilitating behavior change in various clinical contexts, including brief clinical encounters. Using motivational interviewing guides the patient as they move through the stages of readiness for change in dealing with unhealthy behaviors. The authors demonstrate these techniques in a supplemental instructional video. Conclusions: Motivational interviewing is an evidence-based method for facilitating behavior change. All plastic surgeons should be prepared to use this person-centred counselling method in clinical practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".