Which patients receive advice on diet and exercise? Do certain characteristics affect whether they receive such advice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patients' characteristics, familiarity with the clinic, or perspectives on the quality of their care predict whether they receive advice from physicians regarding diet and exercise. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis of responses to the Primary Care Practice Survey. SETTING: Capital District Health Authority in Nova Scotia. PARTICIPANTS: Residents of the Capital District Health Authority 18 years old and older (N = 1562). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of patients who reported frequently receiving advice from their family physicians regarding diet and exercise. RESULTS: Almost 38% of respondents reported frequently receiving advice from their physicians on diet. Those more likely to receive advice on diet were male (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 to 2.1), were 35 to 54 years old (compared with those aged 18 to 34) (AOR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.2), had more chronic illnesses (AOR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.6), had good relationships with their health care providers (AOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.8 to 3.1), or reported higher scores on an enablement scale (AOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.6 to 3.1). Respondents who reported their health status as excellent were less likely to receive advice on diet (AOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.9). About 42% of respondents reported frequently receiving advice on exercise. Men (AOR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.2), those older than 35 years (AOR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.4 for those aged 35 to 54; AOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.3 for those 55 and older), those rating their health as good (AOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.4), those with more chronic illnesses (AOR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.5), and those reporting higher scores on communication (AOR 3.2, 95% CI 2.3 to 4.4) and enablement (AOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.4) scales were more likely to receive advice on exercise. CONCLUSION: Strategies to increase the number of patients who receive advice on diet and exercise would likely include enhancing communication between patients and their physicians, improving relationships between patients and their physicians, and improving physicians' ability to help their patients feel enabled to act on advice and cope with their illnesses. Physicians should be aware of their counseling practices and consider discussing healthy behaviour with patients with no obvious risk factors. This would be practising true primary prevention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".