Exploring primary care providers’ understandings of body image in patient care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that healthcare providers lack confidence in having the knowledge needed to have conversations about body image with their patients. No research to date has explicitly explored how providers in primary healthcare understand body image, including its definition and how it impacts plans for care. Accordingly, the current study explored how primary healthcare providers define body image and how they see the concept of body image manifest in their practice. A total of 21 participants were interviewed, including 3 registered dietitians, 6 occupational therapists, 4 physiotherapists, 1 registered massage therapist, 1 kinesiologist, 4 family physicians, 1 nurse, and 1 social worker. Using thematic analysis, it was found that gaps in knowledge about body image were quite apparent as participants' understanding of body image was slippery (e.g., they struggled to articulate specifics about the concept within care and recognized body image is not something associated with a clinical guideline that would bring form to the concept). However, healthcare providers believed in the importance of body image in their patients' care in broad and far reaching ways. Future directions for bridging the knowledge gap with respect to body image among primary healthcare providers are discussed.
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".