Medical students’ perceptions of nutrition in medical education and future practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keywords: medical education, nutrition, medical students, physicians, undergraduate, lifestyle medicineBackground: Physicians are relied upon as knowledgeable sources of nutrition information; however, many report low nutrition knowledge.Objective: The present study assessed first and second-year medical students’ perceptions of nutrition education within the medical curriculum, in terms of their attitudes, learned body of knowledge, and satisfaction.Methods: An online questionnaire was administered to Dalhousie University medical students completing their first or second year (N=125). Mann-Whitney U tests compared the responses of first-year to second-year students, as well as those with and without previous nutrition education.Results: 97.6% of respondents agreed that nutritional counselling can positively influence patient outcomes, with 91.2% agreeing that physicians play a key role in nutritional counselling. Compared to second-year students, first-year students had greater self-perceived knowledge of basic nutrition concepts (p<0.001) and nutrition in the treatment of disease (p=0.005), as did students with previous nutrition education compared to those without (p=0.019 and 0.018 respectively). Satisfaction was <30% agreement, with first-year students more satisfied with their nutrition education than second-year students (p<0.05).Conclusion: First and second-year medical students regard nutrition as an important component of medical practice that can positively impact patient outcomes. However, low satisfaction with their nutrition education suggests that additional nutrition curriculum would better prepare them for future practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".