MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205525305 · doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13481.1

Enhancing the implementation of the Making Every Contact Count brief behavioural intervention programme in Ireland: protocol for the Making MECC Work research programme

2022· preprint· en· W4205525305 on OpenAlexaff
Oonagh Meade, Maria O’Brien, Jenny McSharry, Agatha Lawless, Sandra Coughlan, Jo Hart, Catherine Hayes, Chris Keyworth, Kim Lavoie, Andrew W. Murphy, Patrick Murphy, Chris Noone, Orlaith O’Reilly

Bibliographic record

VenueHRB Open Research · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalTrinity College
FundersHealth Research Board
KeywordsPsychological interventionHealth careWork (physics)Intervention (counseling)NursingQualitative researchProtocol (science)PsychologyMedical educationHealth professionalsMedicineAlternative medicineSociologyEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Brief behavioural interventions offered by healthcare professionals to target health behavioural risk factors (e.g. physical activity, diet, smoking and drug and alcohol use) can positively impact patient health outcomes. The Irish Health Service Executive (HSE) Making Every Contact Count (MECC) Programme supports healthcare professionals to offer patients brief opportunistic behavioural interventions during routine consultations. The potential for MECC to impact public health depends on its uptake and implementation. Aim: This protocol outlines the ‘Making MECC Work’ research programme, a HSE/Health Behaviour Change Research Group collaboration to develop an implementation strategy to optimise uptake of MECC in Ireland. The programme will answer three research questions: (1) What determines delivery of MECC brief interventions by healthcare professionals at individual and organisational levels? (2) What are patient attitudes towards, and experiences of, receiving MECC interventions from healthcare professionals? (3) What evidence-informed implementation strategy options can be consensually developed with key stakeholders to optimise MECC implementation? Methods: In Work Package 1, we will examine determinants of MECC delivery by healthcare professionals using a multi-methods approach, including: (WP1.1) a national survey of healthcare professionals who have participated in MECC eLearning training and (WP1.2) a qualitative interview study with relevant healthcare professionals and HSE staff. In Work Package 2, we will examine patient attitudes towards, and experiences of, MECC using qualitative interviews. Work Package 3 will combine findings from Work Packages 1 and 2 using the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify and develop testable implementation strategy options (WP 3.1). Strategies will be refined and prioritised using a key stakeholder consensus process to develop a collaborative implementation blueprint to optimise and scale-up MECC (WP3.2). Discussion: Research programme outputs are expected to positively support the integration of MECC brief behaviour change interventions into the Irish healthcare system and inform the scale-up of behaviour change interventions internationally.

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)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1060.024

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 head0.868
GPT teacher head0.769
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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHRB Open ResearchSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207