Web-Based Learning for General Practitioners and Practice Nurses Regarding Behavior Change: Qualitative Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supporting patients to live well by optimizing behavior is a core tenet of primary health care. General practitioners and practice nurses experience barriers in providing behavior change interventions to patients for lifestyle behaviors, including low self-efficacy in their ability to enact change. Web-based learning technologies are readily available for general practitioners and practice nurses; however, opportunities to upskill in behavior change are still limited. Understanding what influences general practitioners' and practice nurses' adoption of web-based learning is crucial to enhancing the quality and impact of behavior change interventions in primary health care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore general practitioners' and practice nurses' perceptions regarding web-based learning to support patients with behavior change. METHODS: A qualitative, cross-sectional design was used involving web-based, semistructured interviews with general practitioners and practice nurses in Queensland, Australia. The interviews were recorded and transcribed using the built-in Microsoft Teams transcription software. Inductive coding was used to generate codes from the interview data for thematic analysis. RESULTS: In total, there were 11 participants in this study, including general practitioners (n=4) and practice nurses (n=7). Three themes emerged from the data analysis: (1) reflecting on the provider of the Healthy Lifestyles suite; (2) valuing the web-based learning content and presentation; and (3) experiencing barriers and facilitators to using the Healthy Lifestyles suite. CONCLUSIONS: Provider reputation, awareness of availability, resources, content quality, usability, cost, and time influence adoption of web-based learning. Perceived quality is associated with culturally tailored information, resources, a balance of information and interactivity, plain language, user-friendly navigation, appealing visual presentation, communication examples, and simple models. Free web-based learning that features progress saving and module lengths of less than 2 hours alleviate perceived time and cost barriers. Learning providers may benefit by including these features in their future behavior change web-based learning for general practitioners and practice nurses.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".