Improving knowledge, self-efficacy and collective efficacy regarding the Brazilian dietary guidelines in primary health care professionals: a community controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Capacity-building of health professionals regarding to nutrition is a strategy for qualifying public health work to promote healthy diets in primary health care (PHC) services. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of an intervention based on Brazilian Dietary Guidelines (BDG) on the knowledge, self-efficacy (SE) and collective efficacy (CE) of interprofessional teams working in PHC. METHODS: It refers to a pre-post intervention study involving 24 health professionals divided into a control group (CG) and intervention (IG). The IG received a 16-h educational workshop on the BDG, guided by a validated protocol. Knowledge, SE and CE for using the BDG were assessed via a self-administered scale, ranging from 0 to 16 and 0 to 36 points, respectively; the scale was previously validated, completed before and after 2 months of the intervention. The effects of the intervention were estimated by paired t-test for intragroup comparisons over time. RESULTS: The mean difference in the knowledge and SE scores of the IG pre- and post-intervention was 2.0 (CI 0.49-3.51) and 6.75 (CI 4.05-9.45) points, respectively. These results means the IG participants obtained 59 and 52.8% more points in knowledge and in SE in relation to CG, with significative difference (p = 0.007 and p < 0.00, respectively). There was no significant variation in the CE scores in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the results presented and due to the originality of the study in question, the educational workshop was effective in increasing the knowledge and SE of professionals working in PHC in using the Dietary Guidelines in their work routines. These findings can assist other research in developing nutrition interventions with interprofessional teams.
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 | 0.013 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| 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".