Food for thought: an exploratory study of how physicians experience poor workplace nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nutrition is often a casualty of the busy work day for physicians. We aimed to explore physicians' views of their nutrition in the workplace including their perceptions of the impact of inadequate nutrition upon their personal wellness and their professional performance. METHODS: This is a qualitative study of a sample of 20 physicians practicing in a large urban teaching hospital. Semi-structured open ended interviews were conducted to explore physicians' views of workplace nutrition. The same physicians had agreed to participate in a related nutrition based wellness intervention study that compared nutritional intake and cognitive function during a day of usual nutrition patterns against another day with scheduled nutrition breaks. A second set of interviews was conducted after the intervention study to explore how participation in the intervention impacted these views. Detailed interview content notes were transcribed and analyzed independently with differences reconciled by discussion. RESULTS: At initial interview, participants reported difficulty accessing adequate nutrition at work, linking this deficit with emotional (irritable and frustrated), physical (tired and hungry), and cognitive (difficulty concentrating and poor decision making) symptoms. In addition to identifying practical barriers such as lack of time to stop and eat, inconvenient access to food and poor food choices, the physicians described how their sense of professionalism and work ethic also hinder their work nutrition practices. After participating in the intervention, most physicians reported heightened awareness of their nutrition patterns and intentions to improve their workplace nutrition. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians report that inadequate workplace nutrition has a significant negative impact on their personal wellness and professional performance. Given this threat to health care delivery, health care organizations and the medical profession need to address both the practical and professional barriers identified.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".