Behavioural Change in Practice: Primary Care Providers’ Journey Towards Goal-Oriented Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The demand for person-centred integrated care (PC-IC) requires health services focused on patients' individual needs. Strengthening primary care is crucial in promoting PC-IC. Goal-oriented care (GOC) prioritizes patient goals and fosters interprofessional team-based care, optimizing PC-IC. GOC requires healthcare providers to shift from problem- to goal-oriented practices. However, how providers change their daily practice to align care with what matters most to patients remains unclear. Aim: This qualitative study explores how primary care providers (PCPs) experience behaviour change when implementing GOC in daily work after an interprofessional GOC-training. Method: Six months post-training, focus groups with PCPs were organized. A theoretical thematic analysis was conducted using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behaviour (COM-B) model. Results: Twenty-two PCPs participated in five focus groups. Motivational factors catalysed behaviour change towards GOC, including developing awareness on care actions through reflective practice. PCPs identified capabilities such as asking person-centred questions, maintaining a broad knowledge and enhancing their advocacy for patients. Opportunities stressed team support, care continuity, and reflexivity-promoting workplaces as vital for enabling behavioural change in GOC. Conclusion: Reflective practice is vital for aligning PCPs' behaviour with GOC. Involvement of all colleagues and dedicated time for reflection promote team alignment and consistency in achieving patients' personal goals.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".