Can Undergraduate Students Help Change Older Adults’ Confidence for Making Nutrition-Related Decisions in a 45-Minute Nutrition Workshop?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) suggests health behaviour can be modified by enhancing knowledge of health benefits and outcome expectations of changing behaviour, improving self-efficacy (confidence), and developing goals to overcome barriers to behaviour change. This study aimed to determine the impact of student-led nutrition workshops on participants’ confidence related to SCT constructs for making dietary choices that align with evidence-based nutrition recommendations. Methods: Level-4 Science students developed and delivered 9 workshops on nutrition recommendations for the prevention and management of age-related diseases. Participants attending the workshops completed pre- and post-surveys to assess SCT constructs. For each SCT construct, participants rated their confidence on a 10-point Likert scale. The number (%) of participants who rated their confidence as ≥8/10 on the pre- and post-surveys were compared using the χ2 test. Results: Sixty-three community members (60% female, mean ± SD age 71 ± 7 years) attended the workshops. The number of participants rating confidence as ≥8/10 for each SCT construct increased after the workshops (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Undergraduate students can positively influence community members’ confidence for making nutrition-related decisions. Involving students in interventions where SCT-structured workshops are used may help conserve health care resources and reach older adults who may not have access to dietitian services.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".