Suitability of a Post-Operative Bariatric Nutrition Education Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While bariatric surgery is an effective treatment for individuals living with severe obesity, adhering to dietary requirements, especially protein requirements, can be a challenge. This study aims to examine the suitability of a nutrition-based education tool called “Protein Cards” that is focused on recipes high in protein to support individuals who have completed the surgery. An online survey (23 questions) was developed using an adapted version of the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) instrument along with two additional questions about the participants’ overall impression of the Protein Cards. Sample recipe cards were shown on each page of the survey. Participants were asked to rate the Protein Cards (“Not Suitable”, “Adequate”, or “Superior”) on: Content, Literacy Demand, Graphic Illustrations, Layout & Typography, Learning Stimulation & Motivation, and Cultural Appropriateness. Additionally, participants rated Overall Impression on a scale of 0 to 100. The survey was distributed over email to Canadian bariatric patients (adolescents and adults), dietitians, healthcare workers, and caregivers. Twenty participants registered to participate in the survey (Sept 2020-Jan 2021) but only fifteen participants completed the entire survey. Preliminary results revealed “Superior” scores for Content (83%), Learning & Stimulation (81%), Layout & Typography (89%), Literacy Demand (76%), and Cultural Appropriateness (78%). Overall, the recipe cards obtained an average score of 81%, which is considered as a “Superior” evaluation. Participants expressed that they were more likely to use the education tool during the “purée" (82%) and “soft diet” (78%) phases of the post-surgical diet and would prefer if the tool took on the form of a mobile application (85%). The Protein Cards are considered a superior education tool that could be helpful when teaching and learning about foods high in protein for the post-operative stages of bariatric surgery. Future work will involve testing the tool in practice with both adolescent and adult patients as a means to increase adherence to post-operative nutrition requirements. University of British Columbia, Faculty of Land and Food Systems.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".