Effectiveness of multidisciplinary patient counselling in reducing cardiovascular disease risk factors through nonpharmacological intervention: results from the Healthy Heart Program.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The value of lifestyle modification in reducing physiological cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors remains controversial because changes in patient behaviour following CVD prevention counseling have failed to correlate with or impact reductions in physiological variables. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nonpharmacological CVD prevention counselling significantly reduces behavioural and physiological risk factors, and to examine correlations between changes in these variables. METHODS: At baseline, dyslipidemic individuals with or at risk of developing CVD completed CVD risk factor questionnaires. At baseline and three months, participants submitted dietary logs, self-classified their readiness for behaviour change for eight lifestyles, and had their blood lipid profiles, weight and height assessed. Following CVD risk factor screening, lower and higher risk participants were recommended for multidisciplinary group counselling (GC) or group plus individual counselling (GIC), respectively. A prospective time series design assessed behavioural and physiological risk factor changes. RESULTS: Participants progressed forward (P<0.01) through the stage of change continuum for all behaviours. GIC participants progressed to a higher average stage of behaviour change for achieving optimal body weight (P<0.01), drinking less alcohol (P<0.05) and controlling blood pressure (P<0.05). Significant reductions in body mass index (2.1% and 1.9%), total cholesterol (7.0% and 5.5%), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (6.2% and 5.4%), total cholesterol to high density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (5.1% and 3.8%) and triglyceride levels (10.8% and 8.5%) were observed in GC and GIC participants, respectively. Furthermore, significant correlations were observed between concurrent changes in lifestyle behaviour and physiological risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary CVD prevention counseling positively influenced participant readiness for lifestyle behaviour change which translated into significant reductions in several physiological risk factors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".