MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900817882 · doi:10.1002/ncp.10215

Food Is Medicine: A Qualitative Analysis of Patient and Institutional Barriers to Successful Surgical Nutrition Practices in an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Setting

2018· article· en· W2900817882 on OpenAlexaff
Chelsia Gillis, Lisa Martin, Marlyn Gill, Loreen Gilmour, Gregg Nelson, Leah Gramlich

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition in Clinical Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEnhanced Recovery After Surgery
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesAlberta InnovatesAlberta HealthUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQualitative researchThematic analysisNutrition EducationFocus groupTheme (computing)PerceptionPatient experienceNursingMedical educationFamily medicineHealth careGerontologyMarketingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Close adherence to the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program is associated with improved outcomes. A nutrition-focused qualitative analysis of patient experience and of ERAS implementation across our province was conducted to better understand the barriers to successful adoption of ERAS nutrition elements. METHODS: Enrolled colorectal patients (n = 27) were asked to describe their surgical experience. Narrative interviews (n = 20) and focus groups (n = 7) were transcribed verbatim and analyzed inductively for food and nutrition themes. Qualitative data sources (n = 198 documents) collected throughout our implementation of ERAS were categorized as institutional barriers that impeded the successful adoption of ERAS nutrition practices. RESULTS: We identified patient barriers related to 3 main themes. The first theme, Mistaken nutrition facts & beliefs, describes how information provision was a key barrier to the successful adoption of nutrition elements. Patients held misconceptions and providers tended to provide them with contradictory nutrition messages, ultimately impeding adequate food intake and adherence to ERAS elements. The second theme, White bread is good for the soul?, represents a mismatch between prescribed medical diets and patient priorities. The third theme, Food is medicine, details patient beliefs that food is healing; the perception that nutritious food and dietary support was lacking produced dissatisfaction among patients. Overall, the most important institutional barrier limiting successful adoption of nutrition practices was the lack of education for patients and providers. CONCLUSION: Applying a patient-centered model of care that focuses on personalizing the ERAS nutrition elements might be a useful strategy to improve patient satisfaction, encourage food intake, correct previously held beliefs, and promote care adherence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.393 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition in Clinical PracticeSame topicEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryFrench-language works237,207