A Systematic Review of Interprofessional Collaboration for Obesity Management in Primary Care, A Focus on Dietetic Referrals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: An interpr ofessional approach is recommended in the managementof obesity.Objectives: To elucidate: 1) dietetic referral practices of primary care providers to prevent and manage obesity, and 2) the factors that enable or disable the use of dietetic referrals.Methods: Inclusion criteria: 1) written in English 2) primary care settings, 3) weight-management approaches, 4) referrals to Dietitians, 5) adult patients, 6) published from 2000 and 2017, and 7) meets standard quality criteria.Findings: Factors hindering the use of dietetic referrals included lack of accessibility to dietetic services and associated cost to patients. Working in proximity and relationship building were considered enabling factors for providing dietetic referrals.Conclusions: Multidisciplinary primary care settings facilitate dietetic referrals through relationship building, accessibility to dietitians, and cost-free dietetic services.
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 | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".