Health behaviour change and lifestyle-related condition prevalence: Comparison of two epochs based on systematic review of the physical therapy literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unhealthy lifestyle behaviours are primary contributors to the prevalence of lifestyle-related conditions this century. To examine the potential impact of the seminal World Health Organization-endorsed Ottawa Charter on health promotion in 1986 on physical therapy practice, we systematically reviewed articles that focused on physical activity for general health, smoking cessation, optimal nutrition, weight control, stress management, and sleep hygiene over two epochs. A search strategy was conducted in Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature to retrieve articles published between 1986 and 1989, and between 2006 and 2009 in five leading generalist physical therapy journals, and to compare numbers of relevant articles that focused on the lifestyle behaviours of interest. Articles were retrieved through title page searches of online and in print issues. Changes over time were evaluated with the Fisher exact test. Over 20 years, only the number of articles on physical activity and sleep hygiene increased. Although no benchmark exists, publication trends in physical therapy with respect to lifestyle-related conditions are somewhat consistent with epidemiological priorities, at least with respect to physical activity. Our findings could further sensitise the physical therapy community to health promotion and the prevention of lifestyle-related conditions to meet societal needs this century, specifically, the need to develop clinical competencies related to multiple health behaviour change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.058 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".