Shared Decision Making in Asthma Treatment: Using Motivational Communication to Elevate Your Consultations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extent to which patients are adherent to their medication regimen is critical for achieving good asthma control, preventing exacerbations, and optimizing the likelihood that patients can lead full and productive lives. Knowing this, physicians might perceive that their role is to convince their patients to comply with their prescribed medicines using educational or persuasive advice-giving strategies that focus on the health benefits of treatment compliance and the negative health consequences of non-compliance. However, evidence suggests that evoking fear of negative consequences is a poor motivator for both the adoption, and long-term maintenance, of good health behaviors such as medication adherence. In an effort to make the maladaptive behavior the ‘less desirable choice’, physicians often inadvertently become associated with the fear messages they share (through classical conditioning) and the negative emotions they elicit (through operant conditioning). This may result in physicians themselves becoming aversive to their patients, leading to patients disengaging from the therapeutic relationship and becoming resistant to treatment recommendations. In fact, treatment success depends not on the imperative to convince and control patient behavior (which defines compliance), but on the willingness to collaborate with the patient to co-construct a treatment plan that they agree with and want to follow (which defines adherence). The key takeaway is to recognize that non-collaborative communication is ineffective for behavior change and may actually be counterproductive, if not harmful.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".