| Literature DB >> 33147721 |
Yiwen Bai1,2, Xubo Wu1,2, Raymond Cc Tsang3, Ruisheng Yun1, Yan Lu2, Elizabeth Dean4, Alice Ym Jones5.
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.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese community-dwelling adults; Health Improvement Card; physiotherapy-led health education strategy
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33147721 PMCID: PMC7663545 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17218065
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Baseline characteristics of participants in the intervention and the control groups. Data are number (%) unless otherwise stated.
| Characteristic | HIC- | Control Group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ||
| Sex, (men/women) | 17/73 | 22/59 | 0.20 * |
| Age, y (Mean ± SD) | 69.5 ± 8.5 | 67.1 ± 10.7 | 0.16 # |
| 50–59 | 7 (7.8) | 8 (9.9) | |
| 60–69 | 44 (48.9) | 40 (49.4) | |
| 70–79 | 26 (28.9) | 28 (34.6) | |
| 80–89 | 13 (14.4) | 5 (6.2) | |
| Education | 0.72 * | ||
| Illiterate | 11 (12.2) | 6 (7.4) | |
| Primary school | 17 (18.9) | 18 (22.2) | |
| Junior high | 52 (57.8) | 47 (58) | |
| Secondary school | 7 (7.8) | 8 (9.9) | |
| Post-secondary | 2 (2.2) | 1 (1.2) | |
| Smoker | 13 (14.4) | 15 (18.5) | 0.43 * |
| Alcohol (> 1glass/day) | 13 (14.4) | 15 (18.5) | 0.76 * |
| Hypertension * | 31 (34.4%) | 34 (41.9%) | 0.40 * |
| Diabetes * | 13 (14.4%) | 4 (17.3%) | 0.61 * |
* Chi-square test; # Independent t-test; HIC—Health Improvement Card.
Figure 1Consort Flow Diagram.
Between group comparisons of the changes in biometric variable scores at three-month follow-up.
| Outcome | Time | HIC-Intervention Group | Control Group | Mean Difference of Between-Group Change Scores (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean Score (SD) | Mean Change from Baseline to | Mean Score (SD) | Mean Change from Baseline to | |||
| BMI (kg/m2) | Baseline | 25.21 (3.42) | 0.40 (0.85) | 24.99 (2.99) | 0.12 (1.14) | 0.28 (−0.02 to 0.58) |
| Follow-up | 24.82 (3.39) | 24.88 (2.92) | ||||
| WC | Baseline | 91.52 (10.18) | 1.57 (6.51) | 91.81 (9.00) | 0.70 (6.45) | 0.88 (−1.08 to 2.84) |
| Follow-up | 89.95 (9.75) | 91.11 (7.64) | ||||
| RBS (mmol/L) | Baseline Follow-up | 7.86 (3.61) | −0.06 (3.68) | 7.02 (2.17) | 0.15 (2.13) | −0.21 (−1.13 to 0.71) |
| TC | Baseline | 4.26 (1.08) | −0.18 (1.16) | 4.01 (0.95) | −0.12 (1.03) | −0.06 (−0.40 to 0.27) |
| Follow-up | 4.44 (1.07) | 4.13 (0.85) | ||||
| SBP (mmHg) | Baseline | 132.80 (14.15) | 0.99 (14.74) | 132.74 (12.89) | 2.25 (16.98) | −1.26 (−6.05 to 3.53) |
| Follow-up | 131.81 (12.99) | 130.49 (14.56) | ||||
| DBP (mmHg) | Baseline | 80.80 (8.18) | 3.60 (9.98) | 80.75 (7.93) | 1.69 (12.16) | 1.91 (−1.44 to 5.25) |
| Follow-up | 77.20 (10.04) | 79.06 (11.76) | ||||
* dependent t test; # independent t test; BMI, body mass index; WC, waist circumference; RBS, random blood sugar; TC, total cholesterol; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure.
Number of participants at various risk levels (high, moderate, and low) for specific biometric variables and lifestyle practices at baseline and three-month follow-up.
| Parameters | HIC-Intervention Group ( | Control Group ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Follow-up | Baseline | Follow-up | |
| High|Medium|Low | High|Medium|Low | High|Medium|Low | High|Medium|Low | |
| Body mass index | 9|37|44 | 8|34|48 | 5|34|42 | 6|37|38 |
| Random blood sugar | 38|37|15 | 40|37|13 | 31|31|19 | 32|33|16 |
| Total cholesterol | 5|15|70 | 6|13|71 | 3|6|72 | 3|6|72 |
| Blood pressure | 31|45|14 | 25|46|19 | 42|23|15 | 44|21|16 |
| Healthy diet | 4|58|28 | 0|44|46 | 4|43|34 | 3|39|39 |
| Physical activity | 12|28|50 | 4|7|79 | 9|39|33 | 8|38|35 |
| Tobacco use | 5|85 (High|Low) | 5|85 (High|Low) | 9|72 (High|Low) | 9|72 (High|Low) |
| Alcohol use | 0|1|89 | 0|1|89 | 4|2|75 | 4|2|75 |
Changes in physical activity and dietary practices at three-month follow-up. Data are number of participants who achieved the low risk category for physical activity and diet. * McNemar test.
| Lifestyle Practice | HIC-Intervention Group | Control Group | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Follow-up | Change | Baseline | Follow-up | Change | |||
| Physical Activity | 50 (55.6%) | 79 (87.8%) | 29 (32.2%) | <0.001 | 33 (40.7%) | 35 (43.2%) | 2 (2.5%) | 0.864 |
| Diet | 28 (31.1%) | 46 (51.1%) | 18 (20.0%) | <0.001 | 34 (42.0%) | 39 (48.1%) | 5 (6.2%) | 0.180 |
| Physical Activity + Diet | 16 (17.8%) | 42 (46.7%) | 26 (28.9%) | <0.001 | 12 (14.8%) | 20 (24.7%) | 8 (9.9%) | 0.077 |
Between group comparisons of the changes in scores from the standardised questionnaires at three-month follow up.
| Out-come | Time | HIC-Intervention Group | Control Group | Mean Difference of Between-Group Change Scores (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean Score (SD) | Mean Change from | Mean Score (SD) | Mean Change from Baseline to | |||
| GAD-7 | Baseline | 1.14 (2.26) | −0.02 (1.82) | 1.63 (3.23) | 0.30 (2.38) | −0.32 (−0.97 to 0.33) |
| Follow-up | 1.17 (1.98) | 1.33 (3.04) | ||||
| PHQ-9 | Baseline | 1.72 (2.67) | −0.80 (2.22) | 2.42 (3.44) | 0.14 (3.06) | −0.94 (−1.74 to −0.13) |
| Follow-up | 2.52 (2.97) | 2.28 (2.96) | ||||
| PSQI | Baseline | 7.84 (4.29) | 0.16 (3.83) | 8.28 (4.61) | 0.93 (3.70) | −0.77 (−1.91 to 0.37) |
| Follow-up | 7.69 (4.70) | 7.36 (4.86) | ||||
| SF-36 PCS | Baseline | 82.74 (15.52) | 2.45 (13.96) | 80.70 (16.64) | 3.97 (17.54) | −1.52 (−6.29 to 3.24) |
| Follow-up | 85.18 (12.80) | 84.67 (14.34) | ||||
| SF-36 MCS | Baseline | 90.09 (11.30) | −0.45 (12.34) | 86.33 (16.60) | 1.03 (14.65) | −1.47 (−5.55 to 2.60) |
| Follow-up | 89.64 (10.71) | 87.36 (13.37) | ||||
* dependent t test; # independent t test; GAD-7, General Anxiety Disorders-7; PHQ-9, Patient Health Questionnaire-9; PSQI, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, SF-36: The Medical Outcome Study Short Form 36, PCS: Physical Component Summary; MCS, Mental Component Summary.
Distribution of participants at various categories of anxiety, depression, and sleep quality at baseline and at three-month follow-up. Data are number (%).
| Mental Health Parameters | Outcome | HIC-Intervention Group ( | Control Group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Follow-up | Baseline | Follow-up | ||
| Anxiety Severity | Minimal, 0–4 | 84 (93.4) | 82 (91.1) | 74 (91.4) | 74 (91.4) |
| Mild, 5–9 | 4 (4.4) | 8 (8.9) | 4 (4.9) | 5 (6.2) | |
| 2 (2.2) | 0 (0) | 2 (2.5) | 1 (1.2) | ||
| 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (1.2) | 1 (1.2) | ||
| Depression Severity | Minimal, 0–4 | 80 (88.9) | 74 (82.2) | 69 (85.3) | 71 (87.7) |
| Mild, 5–9 | 9 (10.0) | 13 (14.5) | 7 (8.6) | 7 (8.6) | |
| Moderate, 10–14 | 0 (0) | 2 (2.2) | 4 (4.9) | 2 (2.5) | |
| Moderately severe, 15–19 | 1 (1.1) | 1 (1.1) | 0 (0) | 1 (1.2) | |
| Severe, 20–27 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (1.2) | 0 (0) | |
| Sleep Quality | Very good, 0–5 | 30 (33.3) | 35 (38.9) | 24 (29.6) | 36 (44.4) |
| Fairly good, 6–10 | 34 (37.8) | 29 (32.2) | 37 (45.7) | 25 (30.9) | |
| Fairly bad, 11–15 | 22 (24.5) | 19 (21.1) | 11 (13.6) | 12 (14.8) | |
| Very Bad, 16–21 | 4 (4.4) | 7 (7.8) | 9 (11.1) | 8 (9.9) | |
GAD-7: General Anxiety Disorders-7; PHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire-9; PSQI: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.
Feedback of physiotherapy students on the application of the HIC to community-dwelling adults. * SA, Strongly agree; A, Agree; D, Disagree; SD, Strongly disagree.
| Statements | SA * | A | D | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Physiotherapists should introduce the HIC to the general public | 17 (85%) | 3 (15%) | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | I understand the purpose and role of the HIC | 18 (90%) | 2 (10%) | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | I can provide advice to my patients about the actions prescribed on the HIC | 12 (60%) | 8 (40%) | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | I can identify instances where using the HIC would improve patient outcomes | 11 (55%) | 9 (45%) | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | I can justify my reasoning for choosing to implement the HIC with my patients | 10 (50%) | 10 (50%) | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | I understand when using the HIC may NOT be appropriate for a particular patient | 6 (30%) | 14 (70%) | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | I can interpret the results and/or progress a patient using the HIC in an appropriate manner | 14 (70%) | 6 (30%) | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | I have confidence in providing advice to my patients about the actions prescribed on the HIC | 14 (70%) | 6 (30%) | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | It is useful to my learning to have the opportunity to follow up the same patient each month | 17(85%) | 3 (15%) | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | I found the HIC to be a useful tool for me to work with the patient | 15 (75%) | 5 (25%) | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | The HIC makes it easy for me to set healthy lifestyle targets for the patient | 14 (70%) | 6 (30%) | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | Participation in this HIC project has given me some understanding of the physiotherapist’s role in the community | 19 (95%) | 1 (5%) | 0 | 0 |