Physicians' Perceptions Regarding the Detection and Management of Malnutrition in Canadian Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Since malnutrition is common in Canadian hospitals, physicians frequently encounter patients with significantly impaired nutrition status. The objective of this study was to determine physician attitudes and perceptions regarding the detection and management of malnutrition in Canadian hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey based on a previously developed questionnaire that focused on guidelines for nutrition support of hospitalized patients was completed by Canadian physicians working on wards in the 18 hospitals participating in the Canadian Malnutrition Task Force study. Data were analyzed descriptively and according to ward (medical vs surgical) and hospital type (academic vs community). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 428 of the 1220 physicians who were provided with a questionnaire and asked to participate (response rate 35%). While physicians believe that nutrition assessment should be performed at admission (364/419 [87%]), during hospitalization (363/421 [86%]), and at discharge (327/418 [78%]), most felt that this was not being done on a regular basis (admission, 140/423 [33%]; during hospitalization, 175/423 [41%]; at discharge, 121/424 [29%]). Similarly there was a gap between what was perceived to be the ideal management of hospital-related malnutrition and current practices. Physicians felt that the team's nutrition education and use of dietetic resources could be increased, and although their nutrition knowledge was limited, they felt that hospital-associated malnutrition was very relevant to the care they provided. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary team is needed to address hospital malnutrition, and educational strategies that target physicians are needed to promote better detection and management throughout the hospital stay.
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".