A study of the impact of lifestyle clinic attendance on individual behaviour modification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) accounted for 36% of all deaths in Canada in 1997 (Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, 2000). Different methods of communication have been employed to increase CVD risk awareness. The purpose of this study was to generate knowledge regarding the association between one method of communication, interpersonal communication (specifically LifeStyle (LS) Clinics) and individual behaviour modification. This study also served as a pilot project for the province-wide evaluation of this communication approach by the Newfoundland & Labrador Heart Health Program. A quasi-experimental study with one pretest and two post-tests was conducted in Stephenville, Newfoundland and Labrador. Thirty individuals participated in this study. Consenting LS Clinic participants completed 2 pre-coded questionnaires (pre-and post-LS Clinic attendance) and were interviewed one-month post-LS Clinic. Participant responses were analyzed using SPSS 8.0. A key informant interview was conducted with the LS Clinic public health nurse. Participants modified certain lifestyle behaviours post-LS Clinic attendance, such as increasing daily physical activity levels (p=0.015). LS Clinic attendance, however, was not associated with a change in participants' CVD risk knowledge and attitudes. Additional variables, including: personal health; spouse's health; physicians' advice; gender; and, season of year were also associated with behaviour modification. Recommendations were suggested for the province-wide evaluation of the LS Clinics.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".