Surfacing the causal assumptions and active ingredients of healthcare quality improvement interventions: An application to primary care opioid prescribing
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
Background Efforts to maximize the impact of healthcare improvement interventions are hampered when intervention components are not well defined or described, precluding the ability to understand how and why interventions are expected to work. Method We partnered with two organizations delivering province-wide quality improvement interventions to establish how they envisaged their interventions lead to change (their underlying causal assumptions) and to identify active ingredients (behavior change techniques [BCTs]). The interventions assessed were an audit and feedback report and an academic detailing program. Both focused on supporting safer opioid prescribing in primary care in Ontario, Canada. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with intervention developers ( n = 8) and a content analysis of intervention documents. Analyses unpacked and articulated how the interventions were intended to achieve change and how this was operationalized. Results: Developers anticipated that the feedback report would provide physicians with a clear understanding of their own prescribing patterns in comparison to others. In the feedback report, we found an emphasis on BCTs consistent with that assumption ( feedback on behavior; social comparison). The detailing was designed to provide tailored support to enable physicians to overcome barriers to change and to gradually enact specific practice changes for patients based on improved communication. In the detailing materials, we found an emphasis on instructions on how to perform the behavior, for a range of behaviors (e.g., tapering opioids, treating opioid use disorder). The materials were supplemented by detailer-enacted BCTs (e.g., social support [practical]; goal setting [behavior]; review behavioral goal[s]). Conclusions The interventions included a small range of BCTs addressing various clinical behaviors. This work provides a methodological example of how to apply a behavioral lens to surface the active ingredients, target clinical behaviors, and causal assumptions of existing large-scale improvement interventions that could be applied in other contexts to optimize effectiveness and facilitate scale and spread.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it