Do as I say, not as I do Lifestyles and counseling practices of physician faculty at the University of Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To describe the dietary, exercise, smoking, and alcohol use habits among physician faculty to determine if physician lifestyle behaviour is related to attitudes about and practices of patient lifestyle counseling. Design An electronic cross-sectional survey distributed by e-mail. Setting The Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Participants Physician faculty. Main outcome measures Physicians’ dietary, exercise, smoking, and alcohol use habits and the correlation between physician lifestyle behaviour and counseling practices. Results A total of 176 responses were received, for a response rate of 24.0%. Of the physician faculty respondents, 63.3% believed they were role models for a healthy lifestyle. Smoking was rare among the respondents, while 86.2% reported alcohol consumption. Only 10.8% of respondents reported consuming the recommended daily servings of fruits and vegetables. Only 47.2% (83 of 176) reported doing vigorous physical activity on 3 or more days in the past week, while 33.0% (58 of 176) reported doing moderate physical activity on 3 or more days in the past week. Statistically significant links exist between poor lifestyle behaviour and low levels of counseling in medical practice. Physicians who viewed themselves as role models for healthy lifestyles reported that they consumed more fruit and vegetables, exercised more often, and felt comfortable counseling patients about healthy lifestyle habits. Conclusion This study demonstrates that lifestyle habits among physician faculty do not routinely meet recommended guidelines, and that physicians might counsel patients less frequently on lifestyle guidelines that they themselves are not meeting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".