Use of the Health Improvement Card by Chinese physical therapy students: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the perceptions of Chinese physical therapy students on use of the Health Improvement Card (HIC) as a clinical tool to assess lifestyle and prescribe health education to others. The biometrics and health indices/attributes/lifestyles of these students were also evaluated with self-administration of the HIC. After a tutorial on the HIC and its clinical application, physical therapy students (n = 82) from two Chinese universities, completed the Chinese translation of the HIC followed by a questionnaire on students' perceptions of it. Second, they invited a friend/relative to complete the HIC. Then, they provided feedback on the HIC's strengths and challenges related to its administration. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and content thematic analysis. Response rate of self-completed HICs was 100% (n = 82) and that of questionnaires was 99% (n = 81). Participants' age range was 20-34 years; mean body mass index (BMI) was 23.9±5.4 for men and 20.5±2.6 kg/m2 for women. Generally, participants had low-risk BMIs (82%) and blood pressures (BPs) (91%), moderate-risk dietary habits (90%), but fewer had low-risk exercise habits (41%). Of 81 friends/relatives who participated, 25% had high-risk exercise habits. Student participants concurred the HIC is useful in developing lifestyle education programs. Challenges included uncertainty about obtaining laboratory data, serving-size quantities and confidence to effect lifestyle change in others. Although students appeared receptive to assessing health and lifestyle behaviors using the HIC, they reported being unconfident to prescribe long-term effective lifestyle advice. We recommend introducing the HIC in physical therapy curricula as an effective way of sensitizing emerging physical therapists to their responsibility to assess health/attributes/lifestyle non-communicable diseases (NCDs) risk factors. Prescribing lifestyle education/counselling warrants greater curricular focus. Further research will establish how HIC data and information can be effectively used as a clinical assessment and education tool to target health and lifestyle, and track behavior change over time.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".