Barriers to changing dietary behavior.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietary change requires giving up long established patterns of eating behavior and acquiring new habits. 'Non-compliance' to diet advice may be a result of inability to provide diet self-management training and getting the right messages across to change eating behavior. Using a pre-tested questionnaire based interview, we carried out a study amongst 350 adults (> 20 years) with type 2 diabetes from two metro cities in South India, who had previously received diet advice with the objective to understand perceptions, attitudes and practices, as well as study factors that enhance or reduce compliance to diet advice. Ninety six patients (28%) followed diet for the full duration of diabetes (Group1), 131 (38%) followed diet for a partial duration varying between more than a quarter to three quarters of the total diabetes duration (Group 2) and 115 (34%) did not follow diet advice (Group 3) - followed for a duration less than a quarter of their diabetes duration. Study results show that many factors both patient and health care provider related influence outcomes of dietary advice. Factors that have a positive impact on compliance are - older age, shorter duration, nuclear family, good family support, less busy work life, higher health consciousness, advice given by dietician, more frequent visits to dietician, advice that includes elements to promote overall health not merely control of blood sugar, diet counseling that is easy to understand and use and includes healthy food options, cooking methods, practical guidance to deal with lifestyle issues. We conclude that patient barriers related to life circumstance are mostly non-modifiable, most modifiable barriers are related to behavioural aspect and the inability of the health care provider to provide individualized diet advice and self management training. Efforts must be made to improve counseling skills.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".