Simulation in Learning and Using the Nutrition Care Process/Terminology: Experiences and Perceptions of Dietitians in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate experiences with, and perceptions of, simulation in learning and using the Nutrition Care Process/Terminology (NCP/T) of dietitians in Canada. Methods: In February–March 2017, a convenience sample of 382 dietitians in Canada (71.8% in clinical practice) completed an online survey regarding the type(s), setting(s), and perceptions of the simulations in which they engaged in learning and using the NCP/T. Results: A majority (76.7%) of respondents had engaged in NCP/T-related simulation, most commonly case studies (85.3%) and role-play (42.0%), as part of workplace/volunteer training (51.4%) and undergraduate internship/stage/practicum (34.2%). Nearly half (49.5%) of respondents learned all 4 NCP components via simulation, with Nutrition Diagnosis being the most common individual component (57%). Over three-quarters of respondents agreed/strongly agreed that simulation helped them better understand/use the NCP/T and that NCP/T-related knowledge/skills gained through simulation are transferable to the clinical setting/dietetic practice. Conclusions: Dietitians in Canada perceive simulation to have helped them learn and use the NCP/T. Resources should be directed at further developing simulation for teaching the NCP/T in dietetics education and training. Research investigating characteristics, barriers, and facilitators of effective NCP/T-simulation, using objective (vs. perceived) learning outcome measures is needed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".