Do Mental Health Professionals Promote a Healthy Lifestyle among Individuals Experiencing Serious Mental Illness?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: While a healthy lifestyle would be an asset to people experiencing psychotic disorders, not all mental health professionals provide counselling regarding healthy behaviours, such as physical activity, healthy nutrition, and tobacco cessation. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to investigate the factors associated with health promotion practice (HPP) among mental health professionals. Methods: Cross-sectional survey including mental health professionals across the Province of Quebec (Canada). The promotion of health behaviour and the “Exercise in Mental Illness Questionnaire - Health Practitioner Version” and its adaptation for nutrition improvement and tobacco cessation were used to evaluate knowledge, beliefs, promotion behaviours, and barriers to HPP. Results: One hundred mental health professionals, most being nurses (29%) and medical doctors/psychiatrists (20%) were recruited throughout the province of Quebec (Canada). The rate of formal training among professionals was 11% for physical activity, 26% for nutrition, and 21% for tobacco cessation. Approximately 60% were promoting physical activity, 49% good nutrition, and 41% tobacco cessation. Professionals promoting healthy behaviours had a higher level of self-efficacy in HPP, were more likely to value physical health, and less likely to endorse barriers to HPP. Conclusion: Rates of formal training in lifestyle habits and health promotion (aiming at improving a healthy lifestyle in patients experiencing psychotic disorders) among mental health professionals are currently low in the Province of Quebec and need to be improved. In addition, the level of confidence and barriers that endorse healthy behaviours appear to be key factors in HPP among mental health professionals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".