Promotion of physical activity by Canadian Registered Dietitians in daily practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dietitians are in an opportunistic position to promote healthy eating and active living. The purpose of this study was to determine counselling strategies of dietitians 1 year after attending a workshop designed to strengthen dietitians' self-efficacy for promoting physical activity (PA) as an adjunct to regular nutrition practice. METHODS: A convenience sample of Registered Dietitians (RDs) in Alberta, Canada (n=103) responded to an invitation via an electronic newsletter to complete a web-based survey that asked about counselling practices related to PA. RESULTS: Thirty-seven workshop attendees (n=37) were compared with a group of dietitians (n=66) who completed the survey but who did not attend the workshop. Nearly all (91%) respondents reported promoting PA in daily practice. Those who attended the workshop were more likely to refer clients to PA professionals (chi2=12.68, P<0.05) than those who were not workshop attendees. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a relatively modest response rate, there were clear suggestions that RDs in Alberta, Canada promote PA in daily practice and attending a workshop designed to facilitate the use of specific tools and strategies for promoting PA in daily practice resulted in increased referral of their clients to exercise specialists.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".