Practice-based Research Program Promotes Dietitians' Participation in Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Barriers to dietitians' participation in research include lack of time, self-perceived competence, confidence, administrative support, and funding. Providence Health Care, a multi-site health care organization in Vancouver, British Columbia implemented the Practice-based Research Challenge (RC), a 1-year research program, to support interdisciplinary teams of nurses and allied health professionals to conduct practice-relevant research projects. Funding, mentoring, and research education were provided to research teams. From 2011 to 2015, 37% of all dietitians in the organization were involved in the RC in 4 cohorts of the 1-year program. An online survey was conducted to understand these dietitians' interest and experience in the RC. The survey results indicated that the major reasons for participating in the program were to increase knowledge, improve patient care, and to work on a project of interest. Respondents thought they gained knowledge, enhanced professional development, and improved patient care. A majority stated they would likely conduct future research. The RC enabled and supported dietitians' participation in research; infrastructure supports for research and enabling a culture of research participation are key contributors to promoting dietitians involvement in research.
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 | 0.060 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".