Motivational Interviewing: Counselling Behaviour Change in Family Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physicians are entrepreneurs of change, camouflaged as facilitators, catalysts, and promoters. With each prescription written, diagnostic test ordered, recommendation provided, or treatment advised, physicians foster change in patients’ states of health and well-being. The patient-centred clinical method, the core foundation upon which physician-patient interactions unfold and evolve, includes six components, the third of which is finding common ground.1 Essentially, this component represents a fundamental belief that if a physician is to facilitate change, encounters with patients must include conversations focused on a mutual understanding of the definition of the presenting problems, treatment and management goals, and patient and physician roles.1 To accomplish these goals, physicians need a tool chest that includes knowledge of the change process, accompanied by strategies and techniques to partner with patients as they begin to think about and embark on change. During the 1980s, research in the field of addictions triggered the way health care professionals looked at and thought about change, and laid the groundwork for an understanding of the complexities of change.2 Family physicians (FPs) who routinely incorporate change strategies into patient care understand the stages and processes of change, practise finding common ground, recognize that patient change behaviours include lifestyle modification, adherence to medical regimens, and the reduction or elimination of unhealthy behaviours, and use motivational interviewing techniques.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".