Diet satisfaction and associated factors among adult surgical orthopaedic inpatients at a teaching hospital in Lusaka province, Zambia; a hospital-based cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor quality of food services in hospital contributes to low diet satisfaction among inpatients in both developed and developing countries. However, there is paucity of literature on diet satisfaction in health care facilities in the sub-Saharan region and in particular Zambia. Therefore, this study sought to assess levels of diet satisfaction among adult surgical orthopaedic inpatients at a teaching hospital in Lusaka province, Zambia. A hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted over a period of three months. Comprehensive sampling was used to select 98 study participants. A researcher-administered questionnaire adapted from a similar study was used to collect data. The instrument used in this study had 9 aspects of satisfaction. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations were used to analyze the data. Chi-square test was used to test for associations between categorical data. A p -value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. In this study, 64.3% of surgical orthopaedic inpatients were not satisfied with overall quality of hospital food. In addition, 76.5, 96.9, 65.3 and 71.4% of the patients were not satisfied with type, variety, appearance and taste of hospital food respectively. However, patients who were satisfied with portion size, temperature and time of meal distribution were 67.3, 94.9 and 56.1% respectively. There was no significant association between variables of age, sex, education level, marital status, monthly income, days in hospital and overall satisfaction ( p > 0.05). Low diet satisfaction is a global problem associated with poor quality of hospital meals. Although the majority of surgical orthopaedic inpatients were not satisfied with more than half of the dimensions of diet satisfaction, they were satisfied with aspects of portion size, temperature and time of meal distribution. Therefore, an assessment of diet satisfaction can inform hospital administrators and policy makers on the deficiencies in hospital diets and thereby help improve quality of meals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".