Behavior Change Training for Health Professionals: Evaluation of a 2-Hour Workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Rates of noncommunicable diseases continue to rise worldwide. Many of these diseases are a result of engaging in risk behaviors. Without lifestyle and behavioral intervention, noncommunicable diseases can worsen and develop into more debilitating diseases. Behavioral interventions are an effective strategy to reduce the burden of disease. Behavior change techniques can be described as the “active ingredients” in behavior change and address the components that need to be altered in order for the target behavior to change. Health professionals, such as pharmacists and nurses, can engage in opportunistic behavior change with their patients, to encourage positive health behaviors. Objective We aimed to develop, implement, and evaluate a behavior change workshop targeted at health professionals in Australia, with the goal of increasing knowledge of behavior change techniques and psychological variables. Methods A prospective study design was used to develop and evaluate a 2-hour behavior change workshop targeted at health professionals. The workshop was developed based on the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior Model and had five core objectives: (1) to detail the role of health professionals in delivering optimal care, (2) to demonstrate opportunities to change behavior, (3) to describe principles of behavior change, (4) to explain behavior change techniques, and (5) to determine the most appropriate behavior change techniques to use and when to use them. A total of 10 workshops were conducted. To evaluate the workshops and identify any potential long-term changes in behavior, we collected pre- and postworkshop data on knowledge and psychological constructs from the attendees. Results A final sample of 41 health professionals comprising general practitioners, nurses, and pharmacists completed the pre- and postworkshop surveys. Following the workshops, there were significant improvements in knowledge of behavior change techniques (t40=–5.27, P<.001), subjective norms (t40=–3.49, P=.001), descriptive norms (t40=–3.65, P<.001), perceived behavioral control (t40=–3.30, P=.002), and intention (t36=–3.32, P=.002); each had a large effect size. There was no significant difference in postworkshop attitude (t40=0.78, P=.44). The participants also found the workshops to be highly acceptable. Conclusions A 2-hour, theoretically informed workshop designed to facilitate the use of behavior change techniques by health professionals was shown to be largely effective. The workshops resulted in increases in knowledge, descriptive and subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and intention, but not in attitude. The intervention was also shown to be highly acceptable, with the large majority of participants deeming the intervention to be needed, useful, appropriate, and applicable, as well as interesting and worth their time. Future research should examine the lasting impacts of the workshop on health professionals’ practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".