A Randomised Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Administration of the Health Improvement Card as a Health Promotion Tool: A Physiotherapist-Led Community-Based Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A randomised controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the administration of the Health Improvement Card (HIC) on lifestyle practices and biometric variables in community-dwelling Chinese participants. Adults living in Shanghai were randomly assigned to either the HIC-intervention or control group. Measurements/assessments were conducted at baseline and three-month follow-up. Supervised physiotherapy students administered the HIC and four standardised questionnaires related to health and wellbeing. Both groups received a health promotion education pamphlet. Based on participants' HIC biometric and lifestyle scores, students prescribed lifestyle, and exercise advice to the HIC-intervention group. 171 individuals (39 men, 132 women) (mean age 68.4 ± 9.7 y) participated. At follow-up, body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference decreased significantly in the HIC-intervention group. Furthermore, the number of participants in the HIC-intervention group categorised as low risk regarding their physical activity and dietary practices, increased by 32.2% and 20%, respectively. Changes in standardised questionnaire scores did not meet minimum clinically importance differences in either group. This is the first study to demonstrate that HIC-informed health promotion education can improve people's lifestyle practices, thereby, objective biometric variables. Evaluation of the effect of HIC-informed lifestyle education on some biometric parameters (blood pressure and BMI) may warrant a longer timeframe.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 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".