Health behavior change as a primary healthcare intervention with special reference to physical therapists and smoking cessation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary physical therapists have a professional responsibility to address lifestyle behavior risk factors related to the global burden of non-communicable chronic conditions. Smoking in particular is the leading cause of preventable death and disease and is a healthcare priority. An examination of the views, barriers and facilitators of physical therapists regarding smoking cessation interventions (including counseling), and assessment of health promotion in physical therapy curricula will form the basis to help advance this professional responsibility. Chapter Two describes national survey findings focusing on the knowledge of smoking health effects, and views, barriers, facilitators and practice patterns of Canadian physical therapists with respect to smoking cessation interventions, specifically smoking cessation counselling. Chapter Three examines the factors associated with the frequency that Canadian physical therapists counsel for smoking cessation. The key factors are high self efficacy and perceived preparedness to counsel and, to a lesser extent, professional views toward smoking cessation counselling and whether other members of physical therapists’ healthcare team also counsel. Chapter Four describes the elements of effective smoking cessation advice prescribed by health professionals in clinical settings derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Advice characterized as brief, intermediate or intensive is effective for helping smokers stop smoking and is advocated as a viable component congruent with physical therapy practice. Chapter Five describes findings from an international survey that examined the scope of health promotion related to lifestyle behavior risk factors, including content and instructional methodologies, in the curricula of entry-level physical therapy programs. Overall, health promotion is viewed as an important pillar of curricula. With the exception of exercise prescription, instructional methodologies related to practical applications and clinical competencies are not well represented as health topics. Chapter Six describes current gaps at the professional, practitioner, and educational levels with respect to health promotion as a primary healthcare intervention in physical therapy practice with specific focus on smoking and smoking cessation. We conclude that physical therapists could better align their professional values with their expertise and practices to address the health priorities of the 21st century with respect to health behavior change related to unhealthy lifestyle conditions, specifically smoking.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".