Nutrition and Shiftwork: Evaluation of New Paramedics’ Knowledge and Attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The effect of an oral education intervention on nutrition knowledge was evaluated in new paramedic employees. The evaluation involved measuring knowledge of and attitudes toward nutrition and shiftwork before and after the directed intervention. METHODS: A convenience sample of 30 new paramedic shiftworkers attended a 15-minute education session focused on nutrition management strategies. This matched cohort study included three self-administered surveys. Survey 1 was completed before education, survey 2 immediately after education, and survey 3 after one month of concurrent post-education and employment experience. Knowledge and attitude scores were analyzed for differences between all surveys. RESULTS: Participants were primary care paramedics, 59% of whom were male. They reported that previously they had not received this type of information or had received only a brief lecture. Mean knowledge scores increased significantly from survey 1 to survey 2; knowledge retention was identified in survey 3. A significant difference was found between surveys 2 and 3 for attitudes toward meal timing; no other significant differences were found between attitude response scores. CONCLUSIONS: The education session was successful in improving shiftwork nutrition knowledge among paramedics. Paramedics' attitudes toward proper nutrition practices were positive before the education intervention.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".