Are the physical activity habits of healthcare professionals associated with their physical activity promotion and counselling?: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) play an important role in conducting brief physical activity counselling during consultations, representing one of the population's most cost-effective interventions for its promotion. Despite this, their clinical practice often falls short in addressing physical activity with the necessary depth and frequency. This study aimed to synthesise the literature concerning the association between the physical activity habits of HCPs and their attitudes toward physical activity promotion and counselling. METHODS: The systematic review followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Its protocol was registered in PROSPERO under ID: CRD42023408302. In March 2023, a comprehensive search was conducted using key terms related to physical activity levels and HCPs counselling practices across the Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL databases. Registered HCPs classified under the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for assessing articles quality. RESULTS: The search yielded 6618 articles, with 51 meeting the inclusion criteria after filtering and cross-referencing. Predominantly cross-sectional studies were included, mainly involving HCPs responding to questionnaires regarding their physical activity habits and promotion and counselling practices. Heterogeneous results were found. CONCLUSION: High-quality studies mainly concluded that higher physical activity levels among HCPs were associated with more physical activity promotion and counselling practices. These findings are an important contribution to the relevance of the physical activity practice by HCPs and highlighting the importance of promoting its counselling in clinical practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".