This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Advice (opinion). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it would be good, now or at some later point, to add a section on the (scientific) analysis of (professionally given) advice. It could include info on/from this study which I recently featured in 2022 in science:
A study systematically assesses advice given by professional general practitioners, typically in the form of verbal-only consultation, for weight-loss to obese patients. They found it rarely included effective methods, was mostly generic, and was rarely tailored to patients' existing knowledge and behaviours. [1] [2]
What do you think about such a (brief) section if this isn't the only study of this type? Is there more research like this (especially for other areas than health/medicine)?
References
Prototyperspective ( talk) 20:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Advice (opinion). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it would be good, now or at some later point, to add a section on the (scientific) analysis of (professionally given) advice. It could include info on/from this study which I recently featured in 2022 in science:
A study systematically assesses advice given by professional general practitioners, typically in the form of verbal-only consultation, for weight-loss to obese patients. They found it rarely included effective methods, was mostly generic, and was rarely tailored to patients' existing knowledge and behaviours. [1] [2]
What do you think about such a (brief) section if this isn't the only study of this type? Is there more research like this (especially for other areas than health/medicine)?
References
Prototyperspective ( talk) 20:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)