Cited by 82Behavioral Health and InterventionsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Planning to be routine: habit as a mediator of the planning-behaviour relationship in healthcare professionals

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gaps in the quality of care provided to people with type 2 diabetes are regularly identified. Healthcare professionals often have a strong intention to follow practice guidelines during consultations with people with type 2 diabetes; however, this intention does not always translate into action. Action planning (planning when, where and how to act) and coping planning (planning how to overcome pre-identified barriers) have been hypothesised to help with the enactment of intentions by creating mental cue-response links that promote habit formation. This study aimed to investigate whether habit helps to better understand how action and coping planning relate to clinical behaviour in the context of type 2 diabetes care. METHODS: The study utilised a prospective correlational design with six nested sub-studies. General practitioners and practice nurses (n = 427 from 99 UK primary care practices) completed measures of action planning, coping planning and habit at baseline and then self-reported their enactment of guideline-recommended advising, prescribing and examining behaviours 12 months later. Bootstrapped mediation analyses were used to test the indirect effect of action and coping planning on healthcare professionals' clinical behaviour via their relationship with habit. RESULTS: Healthcare professionals who reported higher degrees of action or coping planning for performing six guideline recommended behaviours in the context of type 2 diabetes care were more likely to report performing these behaviours in clinical practice. All 12 bootstrapped mediation analyses showed that the positive relationship between planning (action and coping planning) and healthcare professionals' clinical behaviour operated indirectly through habit. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that habit mediates the relationship between planning (action and coping planning) and healthcare professional behaviour. Promoting careful action and coping planning may support routinised uptake of guideline-recommended care by healthcare professionals in the primary care setting. Given the competing demands on healthcare professionals, exploring the behavioural processes involved in promoting more routinisation of behaviours where possible and appropriate could free up cognitive capacity for clinical behaviours that rely on more deliberation.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13012-017-0551-6

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The behaviour change theories most commonly used in research to explain healthcare professionals' behaviours are based on constructs related to the reflective rather than the automatic aspect of behaviour, which could bias the frequency of the reported factors of behaviour change.

    “The behaviour change theories most commonly used in research to explain healthcare professionals’ behaviours are based on constructs related to the reflective, rather than the automatic, aspect of behaviour, which could lead to a bias in the frequency of the reported factors to behaviour change [117].”

    From Factors influencing the implementation of screening and brief interventions for alcohol use in primary care practices: a systematic review using the COM-B system and Theoretical Domains Framework (2021) · cites this paper as [117]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes fact sheet: national estimates and general information on diabetes and prediabetes in the United States, 2011. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.
  2. HSCIC. National diabetes audit 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. Report 1:care processes and treatment targets. Leeds: Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2016.
  3. NICE. Type 2 diabetes: the management of type 2 diabetes, NICE clinical guidelines 87 [NHS evidence accredited]. 2009.
  4. Epstein S. Cognitive-experiential self-theory. Theory and research. In: Pervin LA, editor. Handbook of personality. New York: Guilford; 1990. p. 165–92.
  5. Presseau J, Johnston M, Heponiemi T, Elovainio M, Francis JJ, Eccles MP, et al. Reflective and automatic processes in health care professional behaviour: a dual process model tested across multiple behaviours. Ann Behav Med. 2014;48(3):347–58. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Potthoff, S., Presseau, J., Sniehotta, F. F., Johnston, M., Elovainio, M., & Avery, L.
Affiliations
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
Corresponding author
Potthoff, Sebastian
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2017-02-21
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
24-24
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2589391013
Cited by
82
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4
FWCI
9.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TeesRep (Teesside University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
  • uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
Diabetes UK (RD06/0003342)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
habit, action planning, coping planning, clinical behavior, guideline adherence, healthcare workers, general practitioners, practice nurses, primary care, intention-behavior gap, mediation, behavior change
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, England, Female, Habits, Humans, Male, Patient Care Planning, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Prospective Studies, Quality of Health Care, Intention, Practice Patterns, Nurses', General Practitioners, General Practice

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