Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37126578›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2023

Effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of behaviour change tools used by family doctors: a global systematic review.

Lauren Ball, Bryce Brickley, Lauren T Williams, Jenny Advocat, Elizabeth Rieger, Raeann Ng, Nilakshi Gunatillaka, Alexander M Clark, Elizabeth Sturgiss

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Lauren BallThe University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5394-0931
Bryce BrickleyMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7093-7793
Lauren T WilliamsMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7860-0319
Jenny AdvocatSchool of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7965-2244
Elizabeth RiegerAustralian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8865-5831
Raeann NgSchool of Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Nilakshi GunatillakaSchool of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Alexander M ClarkFaculty of Health Disciplines, Athabasca University, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2860-0492
Elizabeth SturgissSchool of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4428-4060

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPriority patients in primary care include people from low-income, rural, or culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and First Nations people.

aimTo describe the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of behaviour change tools that have been tested by family doctors working with priority patients. DESIGN AND

settingA global systematic review.

methodFive databases were searched for studies published from 2000 to 2021, of any design, that tested the effectiveness or feasibility of tangible, publicly available behaviour change tools used by family doctors working with priority patients. The methodological quality of each study was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

resultsThirteen of 4931 studies screened met the eligibility criteria, and described 12 tools. The health-related behaviours targeted included smoking, diet and/or physical activity, alcohol and/or drug use, and suicidal ideation. Six tools had an online/web/app-based focus; the remaining six utilised only printed materials and/or in-person training. The effectiveness of the tools was assessed in 11 studies, which used diverse methods, with promising results for enabling behaviour change. The nine studies that assessed feasibility found that the tools were easy to use and enhanced the perceived quality of care.

conclusionMany of the identified behaviour change tools were demonstrated to be effective at facilitating change in a target behaviour and/or feasible for use in practice. The tools varied across factors, such as the mode of delivery and the way the tool was intended to influence behaviour. There is clear opportunity to build on existing tools to enable family doctors to assist priority patients towards achieving healthier lifestyles.

Indexed as

DietHealth BehaviorExerciseFeasibility StudiesHealthy LifestyleHumansgeneral practicehealth behaviourlifestyle behavioursphysicians, familyprimary carequality

Identifiers

PMID37126578
PMCPMC9926293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.