Evaluating primary care behavioral counseling interventions - An evidence-based approach

Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
American Journal of Preventive Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.28). 06/2002; 22(4):267-84. DOI: 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00415-4
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Risky behaviors are a leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality, yet behavioral counseling interventions to address them are underutilized in healthcare settings. Research on such interventions has grown steadily, but the systematic review of this research is complicated by wide variations in the organization, content, and delivery of behavioral interventions and the lack of a consistent language and framework to describe these differences. The Counseling and Behavioral Interventions Work Group of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) was convened to address adapting existing USPSTF methods to issues and challenges raised by behavioral counseling intervention topical reviews. The systematic review of behavioral counseling interventions seeks to establish whether such interventions addressing individual behaviors improve health outcomes. Few studies directly address this question, so evidence addressing whether changing individual behavior improves health outcomes and whether behavioral counseling interventions in clinical settings help people change those behaviors must be linked. To illustrate this process, we present two separate analytic frameworks derived from screening topic tools that we developed to guide USPSTF behavioral topic reviews. No simple empirically validated model captures the broad range of intervention components across risk behaviors, but the Five A's construct-assess, advise, agree, assist, and arrange-adapted from tobacco cessation interventions in clinical care provides a workable framework to report behavioral counseling intervention review findings. We illustrate the use of this framework with general findings from recent behavioral counseling intervention studies. Readers are referred to the USPSTF ( or 1-800-358-9295) for systematic evidence reviews and USPSTF recommendations based on these reviews for specific behaviors.


Available from: Carole Tracy Orleans, Jun 03, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess consensus amongst stakeholders in adult auditory rehabilitation on what processes might support self-management. A three-round Delphi review was conducted online. Participants responded to five questions relating to living well with a hearing loss and the clinical processes that might support living well. Responses were analysed using thematic analysis. In further rounds, statements arising from the analysis were scored using a nine-point Likert scale, independently and then in the light of the collated panel responses. Statements reaching pre-defined criteria for consensus were identified. A panel of 26 stakeholders in adult auditory rehabilitation were consulted, including people with hearing loss and researchers and professionals who design and implement process change. There was consensus on clinical skills and behaviours that might help individuals live well, including processes that inform and involve the individual with the hearing loss (e.g. providing information about hearing and collaborative goal setting, respectively). The panel identified potential emotional, cognitive, and behavioural markers for living well with a hearing loss. The results of this review provide a rationale for the development and evaluation of interventions that include collaborative clinical behaviours as part of self-management support.
    International journal of audiology 05/2015; DOI:10.3109/14992027.2015.1037019 · 1.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Although prior research has shown that physicians perceive various barriers that hinder the systematic promotion of physical activity in practice, no study has contrasted the barriers reported by physicians who regularly prescribe physical activity with those who are not prescribing it. AIM: The aim of this qualitative study was to explore barriers and enablers to prescribing physical activity in primary care among family physicians who are currently prescribing it and those who are not. METHODS: This study used quantitative, to assess physicians’ prescribing behavior, and qualitative, to identify barriers and enablers within each group, methodologies. Participants were drawn from a web-based survey. For the current study, identified family physicians prescribing physical activity (n=3; prescribers) and not prescribing it (n=6; nonprescribers) participated in a face-to-face semi-structured interview. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was employed in which four researchers independently identified barrier and enabler themes. RESULTS: Various barriers hindering physical activity prescriptions were reported by both groups of physicians, with some differences noted across groups. Cross-group comparisons also led to the identification of enablers among prescribers. These included awareness of the value of physical activity prescription, positive attitude toward physical activity, recognizing physical activity prescription as part of family medicine, having access to resources (e.g., physical activity prescription pads), and developing resiliency against patient rebuttal and non-compliance. CONCLUSION: This study improves our understanding of the barriers encountered by family physicians to prescribing physical activity in primary care. Focusing on the enabling factors elucidated in this study may help family physicians counter perceived barriers and increase physical activity prescription rates.
    Quality in primary care 05/2015; 23(2):113-121.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Interventions to promote healthy eating make a potentially powerful contribution to the primary prevention of non communicable diseases. It is not known whether healthy eating interventions are equally effective among all sections of the population, nor whether they narrow or widen the health gap between rich and poor. We undertook a systematic review of interventions to promote healthy eating to identify whether impacts differ by socioeconomic position (SEP). We searched five bibliographic databases using a pre-piloted search strategy. Retrieved articles were screened independently by two reviewers. Healthier diets were defined as the reduced intake of salt, sugar, trans-fats, saturated fat, total fat, or total calories, or increased consumption of fruit, vegetables and wholegrain. Studies were only included if quantitative results were presented by a measure of SEP. Extracted data were categorised with a modified version of the "4Ps" marketing mix, expanded to 6 "Ps": "Price, Place, Product, Prescriptive, Promotion, and Person". Our search identified 31,887 articles. Following screening, 36 studies were included: 18 "Price" interventions, 6 "Place" interventions, 1 "Product" intervention, zero "Prescriptive" interventions, 4 "Promotion" interventions, and 18 "Person" interventions. "Price" interventions were most effective in groups with lower SEP, and may therefore appear likely to reduce inequalities. All interventions that combined taxes and subsidies consistently decreased inequalities. Conversely, interventions categorised as "Person" had a greater impact with increasing SEP, and may therefore appear likely to reduce inequalities. All four dietary counselling interventions appear likely to widen inequalities. We did not find any "Prescriptive" interventions and only one "Product" intervention that presented differential results and had no impact by SEP. More "Place" interventions were identified and none of these interventions were judged as likely to widen inequalities. Interventions categorised by a "6 Ps" framework show differential effects on healthy eating outcomes by SEP. "Upstream" interventions categorised as "Price" appeared to decrease inequalities, and "downstream" "Person" interventions, especially dietary counselling seemed to increase inequalities. However the vast majority of studies identified did not explore differential effects by SEP. Interventions aimed at improving population health should be routinely evaluated for differential socioeconomic impact.
    BMC Public Health 05/2015; 15(1):457. DOI:10.1186/s12889-015-1781-7 · 2.32 Impact Factor