A pan-Canadian study of registered dietitians’ perceptions and experiences of interprofessional collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about Canadian dietitians’ perceptions and experiences of interprofessional collaboration. To address this knowledge gap, a cross-sectional online survey was administered to registered dietitians in Canada. Quantitative data was analyzed in SPSS using descriptive and inferential statistics, while thematic analysis was used for open-text responses. A total of N = 469 registered dietitians representing 10 provinces participated in the study. Results showed a significant difference (p < .001) between the frequency with which dietitians collaborated with other health and social care providers and their desired frequency, with 61.0% indicating they wanted more frequent collaboration. A majority of dietitians (59.2%) had negative views of interprofessional interactions. Nearly all respondents felt there is a need to raise better awareness about the dietetic profession (95.4%) and that dietitians are underutilized in the world of healthcare (92.5%). On three measures, a majority of participants (ranging from 65.6% to 81.5%) reported that their dietetic training helped equip them for interprofessional collaboration. Insufficient time/availability was the obstacle to interprofessional collaboration cited most frequently by dietitians. Results suggest that interprofessional collaboration is an area in need of attention in the Canadian dietetic profession, as well as with health and social care providers who work with dietitians. The study’s findings point to potential areas for improvement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".