Nutrition in primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate what role family physicians currently play in the management of patients with nutrition-related issues and whether implementation of current nutrition counseling guidelines is feasible in primary care practices. DESIGN Mailed survey. SETTING Family practice offices in British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS A total of 451 Canadian-trained family physicians practising in British Columbia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Respondents’ demographic characteristics; respondents’ attitudes about and perceived barriers to nutrition counseling, as well as their current practices and training in this area. RESULTS Among the 757 physicians surveyed, the response rate was 59.6%. Overall, respondents had positive attitudes about the role of nutrition in patient health, and most physicians (58.1%) believed that more than 60% of their patients would benefit from nutrition counseling. However, there was a considerable gap between the proportion of patients who respondents thought would benefit from nutrition counseling and the proportion of patients who received such counseling either in the family physicians’ offices or through referral to dietitians. Rural physicians referred patients to dietitian services more frequently than urban physicians did (41.7% vs 21.7% made more than 20 referrals to dietitians each year). Nearly all physicians identified lack of time and compensation as the strongest barriers to providing nutrition guidance. Training was not considered to be as strong a barrier to counseling, even though 82.3% of family physicians reported their formal nutrition training in medical school to be inadequate, and only 30% of family physicians reported currently using any nutrition-related resources. CONCLUSION For family physicians, successful implementation of the 2006 Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management and Prevention of Obesity requires access to adequate training, compensation, and evidence-based interventions related to nutrition. This study highlights current nutrition counseling practices in family medicine and identifies several obstacles to integrating the current guidelines in primary care settings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".