What next for behaviour change professional development in general practice? insights from an environmental scan and workshops.

BACKGROUND: A key role of general practice professionals (i.e., general practitioners [GPs], and general practice nurses [GPNs]) is to support patients to change behaviours. Traditional approaches to assisting patients with, and learning about, behaviour change have modest outcomes. AIM: To explore behaviour change with GPs and GPNs and the availability of related professional development (PD) opportunities. DESIGN & SETTING: Multi-methods study comprising an environmental scan survey of behaviour change tools and PD opportunities, and online workshops with Australian GPs and GPNs. METHOD: Survey data were analysed using qualitative content analysis, informing the design of the workshops. Workshop data included: observation, note-taking, and collaborative reflection, which were analysed thematically and synthesised with survey data. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Survey responses (n=18) and two virtual workshops (W1 n=30, W2 n=8). There was diversity in awareness of existing behaviour change tools and resources. Preferences for future tools and PD opportunities related to specific aspects of its design, content, activities, and delivery. Three themes developed from the workshop data relating to relationships, continuity, and context. In the absence of tools and resources, GPs and GPNs in our study discussed behaviour change as something that occurs best through a patient-centred alliance that is continuing, respectful, grounded in trust and an understanding of their patient, and prioritises patient autonomy. Future general practice behaviour change PD should support clinicians to 'assist' patients and recognise the social and contextual influences on behaviour.

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

BACKGROUND: Priority patients in primary care include people from low-income, rural, or culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and First Nations people. AIM: To describe the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of behaviour change tools that have been tested by family doctors working with priority patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: A global systematic review. METHOD: Five 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. RESULTS: Thirteen 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. CONCLUSION: Many 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.

Screening for Unstable Housing in a Healthcare Setting.

Objectives: To describe existing tools for screening patients for unstable housing in a healthcare setting. Methods: A literature search was completed to retrieve articles published in the last 10 years on screening patients for unstable housing in a healthcare setting. Results: The current literature on screening patients for homelessness in healthcare settings describes a variety of tools administered by a range of healthcare providers, but all are based in the United States. Conclusion: The studies revealed the potential for effective screening in healthcare settings and positive engagement of patients and providers with screening. Key areas for future research include innovative methods of screening and evaluation of reliability and validity for a broader range of tools.