Perceptions on the Possessions of Health Activities on Scientific Research and Medical Practice

Angelo Cura^*
*Correspondence: Angelo Cura, Department of Paediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, USA, Email:

Keywords

Clinical • Behaviour • Implementation • Healthcare

Introduction

Perceptions on the possessions of health activities on scientific research and medical practice vary widely among different stakeholders, including researchers, healthcare providers, patients, and policymakers. Some perceive health activities as integral components of scientific research and medical practice, while others view them as secondary or even irrelevant [1]. On the one hand, proponents of health activities argue that they can have significant positive effects on scientific research and medical practice. For example, regular exercise has been shown to improve cognitive function, reduce stress and anxiety, and enhance overall physical health. Similarly, healthy eating and stress reduction techniques like meditation can improve cardiovascular health, lower blood pressure, and reduce the risk of chronic diseases like diabetes and obesity [2].

In scientific research, health activities can also play an important role in promoting reproducibility and rigor. For example, engaging in regular physical activity and eating a healthy diet can reduce the risk of bias and improve the accuracy of study results. Similarly, stress reduction techniques like meditation can improve the quality of data by reducing the impact of confounding variables like anxiety and stress. There are also those who argue that health activities are not always relevant or practical in the context of scientific research or medical practice. For example, some researchers may argue that the benefits of health activities are difficult to quantify or may not be significant enough to justify the time and resources required to implement them. Similarly, healthcare providers may not always have the resources or training to incorporate health activities into their practice, or may prioritize other aspects of care like medication and surgery [3].

Another potential barrier to the adoption of health activities in scientific research and medical practice is the perception that they are the responsibility of the individual, rather than the system. In other words, some may argue that it is up to individuals to engage in healthy behaviors like exercise and healthy eating, rather than the responsibility of healthcare providers or researchers to promote them. Despite these challenges, there is growing evidence to suggest that health activities can have significant positive effects on both scientific research and medical practice. For example, a recent study found that regular exercise was associated with improved research productivity and increased citation rates among scientists. Similarly, healthcare providers who incorporate health activities like exercise and stress reduction into their practice may be better able to prevent and manage chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease, leading to better outcomes for their patients [4].

Literature Review

Importantly, the TDF is intended to aid in the comprehension of behaviours from any potential adopter of behaviour change, including patients, providers, or other healthcare stakeholders, both individually and as teams. The TDF, as a consolidated determinants framework, provides critical information about factors that are thought to influence the success or failure of implementation or behaviour change. In 2012, the TDF was refined. The TDF revisions were intended to disperse some of the constructs in the original domains while also adding new constructs. For example, the former domain "Motivation and Goals" was split into separate domains "Intentions" and "Goals." An important issue in implementation research is determining which approaches, strategies, or interventions to employ when attempting to implement a new evidence-based practise [5].

In order to fully realize the potential of health activities in scientific research and medical practice, it is important to address the barriers to their adoption and promote their integration into existing systems and structures. This may involve investing in training and resources for healthcare providers and researchers, as well as developing policies and guidelines that prioritize the incorporation of health activities into scientific research and medical practice. Ultimately, the incorporation of health activities into scientific research and medical practice has the potential to improve outcomes for both individuals and society as a whole. By recognizing the importance of health activities and promoting their adoption, we can work towards a healthier, more productive, and more equitable future [6].

Discussion

In the absence of determinants frameworks, which catalogue the factors that have been empirically or theoretically demonstrated to affect whether implementation is successful in a specific instance, the usual practice has been to simply make the best educated guess possible, often without systematic effort to understand the underlying reasons why that practice is not already being used. Attempting to understand the underlying or root causes of gaps in practice, then using a theory to select, design, and tailor implementation interventions or strategies, has been argued as a way of achieving more effective implementation more frequently, as well as to build and tailor implementation interventions or strategies. Frameworks for determinants are one aspect of the design process. Frameworks describing implementation strategies are also included, which can be linked to key determinants that have been assessed as influential in a specific implementation problem using logic models or other approaches. To aid implementation planning, the COM-B model and related approaches combine key determinants with prescribed interventions [7].

Conclusion

Implementation strategies, as described in the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) project or the Effective Practice Organization Collaboration, are frequently fairly abstract and lack the detail needed to deploy them operationally. One advantage of behaviour change techniques is that they primarily operate at the individual level, or internally to the individual, providing the opportunity to specify and design strategies that can address specific, individual-level barriers using behavioural techniques. The clear link to a theoretical basis for its effect, or its mechanism of action, is a key advantage of behaviour change techniques. This link has been strengthened through systematic reviews and research into the evidence from completed empirical studies, which describe empirically derived links between behaviour change techniques and the theoretical mechanisms underlying them. Recent efforts have concentrated on developing a webbased tool to assist intervention designers in developing theoretically based interventions to support behaviour change, including the implementation of evidence-based practices. This begins to address a core issue in implementation research, how to find robust and accessible links between the determinants rated as high priority and strategies for dealing with these determinants, particularly negative ones.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest by author.

References

1. Berwick, Donald M. "The science of improvement." Jama 299 (2008): 1182-1184.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Wennberg, John and Alan Gittelsohn. "Small area variations in health care delivery: A population-based health information system can guide planning and regulatory decision-making." sci 182 (1973): 1102-1108.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Perla, Rocco J., Lloyd P. Provost and Gareth J. Parry. "Seven propositions of the science of improvement: Exploring foundations." Qual Manag Health Care 22 (2013): 170-186.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Standiford, Taylor, Marisa L. Conte, John E. Billi and Anne Sales, et al. "Integrating lean thinking and implementation science determinants checklists for quality improvement: A scoping review." Am J Med Qual 35 (2020): 330-340.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Schweikhart, Sharon A. and Allard E. Dembe. "The applicability of Lean and Six Sigma techniques to clinical and translational research." J Investig Med 57 (2009): 748-755.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. Chenchula, Santenna, Padmavathi Karunakaran, Sushil Sharma and Madhavrao Chavan. "Current evidence on efficacy of COVID‐19 booster dose vaccination against the Omicron variant: A systematic review." J Med Virol 94 (2022): 2969-2976.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

7. Ahlstrom, David and Linda C. Wang. "Temporal strategies and firms’ speedy responses to COVID‐19." J Manag Stud 58 (2021): 592-596.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at