Efficacy of Nutrition Education-Based Cooking Workshops in Community-Dwelling Adults Aged 50 Years and Older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutrition interventions offer an opportunity to meet the nutritional needs of community-dwelling older adults. This retrospective qualitative observational study aimed to determine if nutrition education-based cooking workshops offered in Southern Quebec helped improve dietary habits and nutrition-related knowledge, autonomy, and confidence among older adults. Participants (n = 144) in an 8-session cooking workshop program completed pre- and post-workshop session questionnaires. Baseline nutritional risk (n = 116) and body mass index (n = 112) were assessed using the Elderly Nutrition Screening Questionnaire. Paired sample t-tests and McNemar analyses were performed to determine changes over time for knowledge, autonomy, confidence and dietary habits, and specific dietary behaviors, respectively. Pearson correlation tests were performed to assess associations between variables. Significant improvements were observed over time in knowledge, confidence, and desired dietary habits but not in autonomy. At the end of the intervention a greater proportion of participants reported always consuming recommended amounts of whole grains, fruits and vegetables, water, and milk or milk alternatives. A significant association was observed between confidence and dietary habits and between knowledge and confidence. Food skills interventions that link nutrition knowledge with cooking competence offer the opportunity to improve dietary habits among community-dwelling older adults.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".