Access to Dietitians: In Primary Health Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary health care aims to provide timely treatment of serious illness, teach health promotion, and maintain health for patients with chronic diseases. In partnership with the primary care network at Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH), family physicians (FPs), and dietitians, this practice needs assessment was undertaken to explore how VCH could support access to primary care nutrition services. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used. Data from two focus groups, one for dietitians and the other for physicians, were compiled and formed the questions for the survey. The data were analyzed using the inductive approach, to consider the messages or themes that appeared from the focus groups and the survey. A review of information from the focus groups, surveys, and literature revealed four common themes of findings: accessibility, collaboration in chronic disease management, health promotion, and information sharing. Sixty-six percent of FPs perceived that primary health nutrition services were fair to poor. Both dietitian and physician groups recognized that collaboration in the areas of chronic diseases and health promotion was essential, and that sharing of information among providers could improve this service.
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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".