Creatures of habit: accounting for the role of habit in implementation research on clinical behaviour change
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Social cognitive theories on behaviour change are increasingly being used to understand and predict healthcare professionals' intentions and clinical behaviours. Although these theories offer important insights into how new behaviours are initiated, they provide an incomplete account of how changes in clinical practice occur by failing to consider the role of cue-contingent habits. This article contributes to better understanding of the role of habits in clinical practice and how improved effectiveness of behavioural strategies in implementation research might be achieved. DISCUSSION: Habit is behaviour that has been repeated until it has become more or less automatic, enacted without purposeful thinking, largely without any sense of awareness. The process of forming habits occurs through a gradual shift in cognitive control from intentional to automatic processes. As behaviour is repeated in the same context, the control of behaviour gradually shifts from being internally guided (e.g., beliefs, attitudes, and intention) to being triggered by situational or contextual cues. Much clinical practice occurs in stable healthcare contexts and can be assumed to be habitual. Empirical findings in various fields suggest that behaviours that are repeated in constant contexts are difficult to change. Hence, interventions that focus on changing the context that maintains those habits have a greater probability of success. Some sort of contextual disturbance provides a window of opportunity in which a behaviour is more likely to be deliberately considered. Forming desired habits requires behaviour to be carried out repeatedly in the presence of the same contextual cues. SUMMARY: Social cognitive theories provide insight into how humans analytically process information and carefully plan actions, but their utility is more limited when it comes to explaining repeated behaviours that do not require such an ongoing contemplative decisional process. However, despite a growing interest in applying behavioural theory in interventions to change clinical practice, the potential importance of habit has not been explored in implementation research.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Nilson et al. suggest that breaking 'bad' habits could be achieved by changing something in the context or by removing a person from that context.
“These authors suggest that breaking 'bad' habits could be achieved by changing something in the context or by removing a person from that context.”
From The role of evidence, context, and facilitation in an implementation trial: implications for the development of the PARIHS framework (2013) · cites this paper as [32]
Nilson et al. suggest that those who develop habitual behaviors are less likely to act on, or may avoid, new information that challenges current practice, particularly in contexts that remain stable.
“They suggest that those who develop habitual behaviors are less likely to act on, or may avoid new information that challenges current practice—particularly in contexts that remain stable.”
From The role of evidence, context, and facilitation in an implementation trial: implications for the development of the PARIHS framework (2013) · cites this paper as [32]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 67 · Cited by 284
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Fishbein M Ajzen I Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour 1975 New York: John Wiley & Sons
- Authors
- Nilsen, P., Roback, K., Broström, A., & Ellström, P.-E.
- Affiliations
- Linköping University (SE)
- Linköping University Hospital (SE)
- Venue
- Implementation Science
- Published
- 2012-06-09
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 53-53
- ISSN
- 1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3464791
- OpenAlex
- W2106871603
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 67
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 28.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Keywords
- habit, clinical behaviour change, implementation research, social cognitive theory, automatism, cognitive control, contextual cues, healthcare workers, behavioral interventions, clinical practice change
- MeSH terms
- Attitude of Health Personnel, Cues, Habits, Health Personnel, Humans, Clinical Medicine, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review