Training physicians in motivational communication: An integrated knowledge transfer study protocol.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While behavior change counseling (BCC) targeting health risk behaviors has shown efficacy for improving patient health outcomes, barriers to knowledge translation have resulted in poor uptake among health care providers (HCPs). This article outlines the development of a new BCC training framework for HCPs, from inception to readiness for efficacy testing. It provides an example of integrated knowledge translation (iKT) used in alignment with the obesity-related behavioral intervention trials model. METHOD: (a) A modified Delphi process identified essential BCC skills for HCPs; (b) a survey assessed HCP attitudes and training needs; (c) an online competency assessment tool was developed using iKT mixed methods; (d) a training program was developed and refined using a logic model; and (e) the program was optimized using iterative rounds of participant feedback. A future proof-of-concept trial (f) will determine the program's readiness for full efficacy testing. RESULTS: = 11) provided key feedback, with minor changes being made to the program. CONCLUSIONS: In developing a new BCC framework, obstacles to BCC implementation were addressed through an iterative iKT process. This should improve eventual intervention uptake. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".