Patients' experiences of behaviour change interventions delivered by general practitioners during routine consultations: A nationally representative survey

Enhancing making every contact count (MECC) training and delivery for the third and social economy (TSE) sector: a strategic behavioural analysis

OBJECTIVE

To enhance Making Every Contact Count (MECC, an opportunistic approach to health promotion), training in the Third and Social Economy (TSE, all groups and organisations primarily working towards social justice, outside of the government or household) by examining the degree to which the behavioural content of MECC training tackled significant factors influencing MECC delivery.

METHODS AND MEASURES

A strategic behavioural analysis design. Semi-structured interviews with service providers (n = 15) and users (n = 5) were coded for barriers and facilitators of MECC delivery using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Existing MECC training was coded for behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and intervention functions (IFs). The degree to which BCTs and IFs addressed the key TDF domains of influences on MECC delivery in the TSE were examined using prespecified tools.

RESULTS

Seven key TDF domains of influences in MECC delivery were identified. Overall, only 9/31 linked BCTs were utilised within MECC training, with percentage utilisation of relevant BCTs for each domain ranging from 0% to 66.7%. Training adequately addressed 2/7 key domains.

CONCLUSION

The TSE and healthcare share many common key TDF domains, although there are differences in how each are relevant. Limitations and recommendations for MECC training are discussed.

Impacts of the COVID-19 public health emergency on healthcare professional delivery of opportunistic behaviour change interventions: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The public health policy "Making Every Contact Count" (MECC) compels healthcare professionals to deliver health behaviour change interventions during routine consultations. As healthcare systems continue their recovery from the impacts of the COVID-19 public health emergency, supporting people to modify health behaviours is more important now than when the policy was introduced. The present study aims to: (a) examine changes in healthcare professionals' awareness of, and engagement with the policy over a five-year period, (b) examine the psychosocial drivers associated with delivering behaviour change interventions, and (c) identify targets to increase healthcare professionals' delivery of interventions.

METHODS

Comparison of data from two independent representative surveys of NHS healthcare professionals working in the UK. In both surveys (July-September 2017; N = 1387, and February-March 2022; N = 1008), participants were asked to report: (1) awareness of the MECC policy, (2) the prevalence of MECC-related practice (perceived patient benefit, how often interventions were delivered, and time spent delivering interventions), and (3) perceptions of capabilities, opportunities and motivations to deliver behaviour change interventions. T- tests (independent-samples), MANOVA, multiple linear regression, and chi-square analyses were used to generate comparisons between the surveys.

RESULTS

Awareness of the policy increased from 2017 (31.4%) to 2022 (52.0%). However, in 2022 compared with 2017, healthcare professionals reported (a) fewer patients would benefit from behaviour change interventions (49.1% versus 55.9%), (b) they delivered behaviour change interventions to a lower proportion of patients (38.0% versus 50.0%), and (c) they spent a lower proportion of the consultation time delivering interventions (26.5% versus 35.3%). Further, in 2022, compared with 2017, healthcare professionals reported fewer physical opportunities, fewer social opportunities, and fewer psychological capabilities to deliver behaviour change interventions. In the 2022 survey, perceptions of patient benefit and delivery of interventions was associated with greater perceptions of opportunities and motivations.

CONCLUSIONS

Health behaviour change interventions remain an important part of routine healthcare in the continued recovery from COVID-19 public health emergency, however reported engagement with MECC-related practices appears to have reduced over time. Future research should consider how healthcare professionals identify patients who might benefit from opportunistic behaviour change interventions, and to increase capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to deliver interventions during routine consultations.

Exploring behaviour change in general practice consultations: A realist approach

OBJECTIVES

While general practice involves supporting patients to modify their behaviour, General Practitioners (GPs) vary in their approach to behaviour change during consultations. We aimed to identify mechanisms supporting GPs to undertake successful behaviour change in consultations for people with T2DM by exploring (a) the role of GPs in behaviour change, (b) what happens in GP consultations that supports or impedes behaviour change and (c) how context moderates the behaviour change consultation.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with academic clinicians (n = 13), GPs (n = 7) and patients with T2DM (n = 16) across Australia. Data were analysed thematically using a realist evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Perspectives about the role of GPs were highly variable, ranging from the provision of test results and information to a relational approach towards shared goals. A GP-patient relationship that includes collaboration, continuity and patient-driven care may contribute to a sense of successful change. Different patient and GP characteristics were perceived to moderate the effectiveness and experience of behaviour change consultations.

DISCUSSION

When patient factors are recognised in consultations, a relational approach becomes possible and priorities around behaviour change, that might be missed in a transactional approach, can be identified. Therefore, GP skills for engaging patients are linked to a person-centred approach.

Do preventative care guidelines emphasize behaviour change? A content analysis of three commonly used Australian general practice guidelines

RATIONALE

Preventive health is a core part of primary care clinical practice and it is critical for both disease prevention and reducing the consequences of chronic disease. In primary care, the 5As framework is often used to guide behaviour change consultations for smoking, nutrition, alcohol use and physical activity.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to analyze the emphasis placed on each 5As term in commonly used guidelines in Australian general practice and compare this to behaviour change terms/concepts essential to effective consultations.

METHOD

A content analysis was undertaken to explore frequency of 5A terms and key behaviour change concepts/terms chapter-by-chapter across the three most commonly used guidelines in Australian general practice.

RESULTS

The prevalence of each 5As term differed in all three guidelines, with 'Arrange' being mentioned the least often. Behaviour change concepts and terms, such as patient-centredness, listening, trust and tailoring, were infrequently used and were often confined to a separate chapter of the guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The language and content of the guidelines contrast with known effective components of behaviour change consultations. Future revisions could reconsider emphasis of 5As terms to avoid paternalistic approaches, improve shared language across guidelines and incorporate behavioural science principles to enhance preventative care delivery.

Impact of a brief training on motivational interviewing and the 5A's approach on weight-related counseling practices of pediatricians

Background

Pediatric primary healthcare providers are well-positioned to provide healthy lifestyle and weight management related counseling but many lack training in evidence-based messages and methods.

Objectives

We assessed the impact of a brief, easy-to-access training for pediatric healthcare providers, (the Strong4Life Provider Training), designed to introduce/review current evidence-based messages and methods and improve healthy weight-related assessment and counseling practices.

Methods

Following their well-child visit, a convenience sample of children 12-17 years and parents of children 6-11 years (N = 121) of randomly selected Strong4Life trained (N = 15) and untrained (N = 15) pediatricians were administered a survey designed to assess the frequency, content, and patient satisfaction with weight management-related counseling provided. Results from parents and patients of trained pediatricians (N = 62) compared to those from parents and patients of untrained pediatricians (n = 59) were compared using chi-square tests. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for lack of independence among respondents from the same practice. P-values less than 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.

Results

Parents/patients of trained pediatricians were more likely than those of an untrained pediatrician to report having been asked about child's consumption of fruit/vegetables, 57 (92%) versus 44 (75%), p = 0.04 and sugary drinks, 50 (81%) versus 29 (49%), p = 0.005, and their readiness for behavior change, 47 (76%) versus 29 (49%), p = 0.005, and to set a behavior change goal, 36 (59%) versus. 23 (40%), p = 0.005. Regardless of training status, physical activity, screen time, and weight status were assessed for most patients, and most were satisfied with the discussion. Few (21%) were asked about barriers to behavior change.

Are interventions delivered by healthcare professionals effective for weight management? A systematic review of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

There are many systematic reviews of weight management interventions delivered by healthcare professionals (HCP), but it is not clear under what circumstances interventions are effective due to differences in review methodology. This review of systematic reviews synthesises the evidence about: (a) the effectiveness of HCP-delivered weight management interventions and (b) intervention and sample characteristics related to their effectiveness.

DESIGN

The review of reviews involved searching six databases (inception - October 2020). Reviews were included if they were (a) systematic, (b) weight management interventions delivered, at least partially, by HCP, (c) of randomised controlled trials and (d) written in English. Data regarding weight management outcomes (e.g. weight) and moderating factors were extracted. Secondary analyses were conducted using study-level data reported in each of the reviews.

SETTING

The review included studies that were delivered by HCP in any clinical or non-clinical setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Not applicable.

RESULTS

Six systematic reviews were included (forty-six unique studies). First-level synthesis showed that weight management interventions delivered by HCP are effective. The second-level synthesis found that interventions are only successful for up to 6 months, are most effective for women, non-Caucasians and adults and are most effective if they have at least six sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

As interventions are only successful for up to 6 months, they are not sufficient for achieving and maintaining a healthy weight.

Patients' experiences of behaviour change interventions delivered by general practitioners during routine consultations: A nationally representative survey

Background

Consistent with the ‘Making Every Contact Count’ UK public health policy, general practitioners (GPs) are expected to provide patients with behaviour change interventions opportunistically. However, there is a belief widely held among GPs that patients neither want or need such interventions. We aimed to understand the following: (a) the characteristics of people attending GP appointments, (b) patients' needs for health behaviour change, (c) perceptions of appropriateness and helpfulness of interventions, and (d) factors associated with recall of receipt of interventions.

Methods

Cross‐sectional nationally representative online survey of UK adults who had attended GP clinics in the preceding four weeks (n = 3028). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression.

Results

94.5% (n = 2862) of patients breached at least one health behaviour guideline, and 55.1% reported never having had a conversation with their GP about health behaviours. The majority of patients perceived intervention as appropriate (range 84.2%‐87.4% across behaviours) and helpful (range 82.8%‐85.9% across behaviours). Being male (OR = 1.412, 95% CI 1.217, 1.639), having a long‐term condition (OR = 1.514, 95% CI 1.287, 1.782) and a higher number of repeat GP visits (OR = 1.016, 95% CI 1.010, 1.023) were among factors associated with recall of receipt of interventions.

Conclusions

Patients perceived behaviour change intervention during routine GP consultations as appropriate and helpful, yet there are variations in the likelihood of receiving interventions according to sociodemographic factors. GPs could adopt a more proactive approach to behaviour change in patient consultations with the broad approval of patients.

Patient or public contribution

The questionnaire was piloted among a convenience sample prior to distribution.