Patient Reports of: Lifestyle Advice in Primary Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients' perceptions of preventive lifestyle in primary care practice were examined. METHODS: Practice was assessed with a modified version of the Primary Care Assessment Survey (PCAS). This was mailed to random samples of patients twice, using practice mailing lists from three Ontario Family Health Networks (FHNs). Family Health Networks are physician-based group practices, with additional nurse-led telephone advisory services to provide care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The PCAS questionnaire consisted of nine scales (ranging from 0 to 100). For preventive counselling, additional questions on diet and exercise counselling were included to determine how the physician delivered the intervention. RESULTS: Of the 2184 survey questionnaires mailed to patients, 22% were undeliverable. The response rate was 62% at valid addresses (49% of all mailed questionnaires). Of the nine scales, scores (± standard deviation) for preventive counselling were lowest at 33 ± 25. In particular, rates of diet (37%) and exercise (24%) counselling were low in the FHNs. For most other aspects of primary care services, patients generally rated FHNs highly. The majority of patients advised about diet and exercise were given verbal advice or pamphlets. CONCLUSIONS: In these primary health care organizations, considerable room exists for increased preventive counselling, especially about diet and exercise.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".