Training Australian Dietitians in Behavior Change Techniques Through Educational Workshops: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of education alone as a technique to change behavior in interventions is usually insufficient, particularly in health interventions. Behavior change techniques have been shown to be effective in fostering positive changes in health behaviors such as diet and physical activity. The upskilling of health professionals can increase perceived capability and motivation toward eliciting change in clients' behaviors. However, to date, dietitians have received limited training in behavior change and have expressed a need for continuous professional development. OBJECTIVE: The study objectives are to (1) develop and evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of two 2-hour behavior change workshops on changing dietitians behavior (ie, range of behavior change techniques used and frequency of use) across 3 time points; (2) determine if participation in these workshops will elicit changes in dietitians' perceived capability, opportunity, and motivation toward using behavior change techniques; and (3) determine the acceptability of the training and its application in practice by dietitians. METHODS: We will recruit registered dietitians (N=140) in Australia to participate in this randomized controlled trial. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the intervention or 3-month waitlist control condition and complete outcome measures at 3 time points: baseline, after the workshop, and follow-up at 3 months. Both groups will complete 2 workshops on behavior change that are guided by the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior) Model and embedded with behavior change techniques. The primary outcome is changes in behavior, (ie, the range of behavior change techniques used and their frequency of use). Secondary outcomes include changes in perceived capability, opportunity, motivation, and preparedness as a health professional toward delivering behavior change techniques. The acceptability of the workshops will also be assessed after the workshop through the postworkshop survey and semistructured interviews. A series of 2-way repeated measures ANOVAs and regressions will be used. Qualitative data will be analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participant recruitment commenced in June 2023. The results of the study are expected to be published in November 2024. The results will allow us to assess comparisons between the intervention and waitlist control groups, as well as changes in perceived capability, opportunity, motivation, and preparedness over a 3-month period. It will also provide an understanding of the acceptability of the training as a form of continuous professional development for dietitians. CONCLUSIONS: If found to be effective, the results of this 2-arm randomized controlled trial will guide future training and continuous professional development for health professionals in changing behavior in practice. Our findings will contribute to our understanding of the application of behavior change techniques in practice with clients and identify components of COM-B where dietitians may need future support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12623000525684; https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12623000525684.aspx. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/49723.
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 | 0.051 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.015 |
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".