<i>Key Process And Organization Indicators:</i>In the Dietetic Management of Dyslipidemia in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diet interventions for dyslipidemia can produce clinically relevant changes in lipoprotein levels. To determine whether current nutrition counselling practices are consistent with such interventions, we studied aspects of Canadian dietitians' practice. Respondents to a self-administered mail survey (n=350) described practice for three groups of clients: those without and those with cardiovascular disease counselled through ambulatory care, and those with cardiovascular disease who were hospitalized. The process-of-care factors assessed were time spent in initial and follow-up sessions, diet, anthropometry, blood lipids, physical activity, and social and genetic factors. Organization factors assessed included availability of medical history and laboratory data, and perceived support for counselling services. Initial individual interview times averaged one hour, with 49% to 57% of respondents offering scheduled follow-up services versus passive or no follow-up services. Overall, counselling practices were consistent with efficacious interventions, but there was wide variation. This was particularly evident in ambulatory care, where higher percentages of clients received follow-up care when respondents reported multidisciplinary group practice; better access to the medical history, and more frequent assessment of measured body weight, client social support, and laboratory data during follow-up care (all p < 0.01). Health care effectiveness may be improved through changes in the process and organization of services.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".