Search

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Secondary prevention programmes for Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) aim to reduce cardiovascular risks and promote health in people with heart disease. Though programmes have been associated with health improvements in study populations, access to programmes remains low, and quality and effectiveness is highly variable. Current guidelines propose significant modifications to programmes, but existing research provides little insight into why programme effectiveness varies so much. Drawing on a critical realist approach, this article argues that current research has been based on an impoverished ontology, which has elements of positivism, does not explore the social determinants of health or the effects on outcomes of salient contextual factors, and thereby fails to account for programme variations. Alternative constructivist approaches are also weak and lacking in clinical credibility. An alternative critical realist approach is proposed that draws on the merits of subjectivist and objectivist approaches but also reflects the complex interplay between individual, programme-related, socio-cultural and organizational factors that influence health outcomes in open systems. This approach embraces measurement of objective effectiveness but also examines the mechanisms, organizational and contextual-related factors causing these outcomes. Finally, a practical example of how a critical realist approach can guide research into secondary prevention programmes is provided.