Exploring behaviour change in general practice consultations: A realist approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: While general practice involves supporting patients to modify their behaviour, General Practitioners (GPs) vary in their approach to behaviour change during consultations. We aimed to identify mechanisms supporting GPs to undertake successful behaviour change in consultations for people with T2DM by exploring (a) the role of GPs in behaviour change, (b) what happens in GP consultations that supports or impedes behaviour change and (c) how context moderates the behaviour change consultation. METHODS: = 16) across Australia. Data were analysed thematically using a realist evaluation approach. RESULTS: Perspectives about the role of GPs were highly variable, ranging from the provision of test results and information to a relational approach towards shared goals. A GP-patient relationship that includes collaboration, continuity and patient-driven care may contribute to a sense of successful change. Different patient and GP characteristics were perceived to moderate the effectiveness and experience of behaviour change consultations. DISCUSSION: When patient factors are recognised in consultations, a relational approach becomes possible and priorities around behaviour change, that might be missed in a transactional approach, can be identified. Therefore, GP skills for engaging patients are linked to a person-centred approach.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it