Use of the Nutrition Care Process and Terminology in Canada: A National and Regional Update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to understand Canadian dietitians’ use of the Nutrition Care Process (NCP) and terminology (NCPT) nationally and by province/territory as well as facilitators, barriers, and attitudes regarding the NCP/NCPT. Methods: Canadian dietitians were invited to complete an online survey (SurveyMonkey) on the NCP/NCPT from February to April 2017 through multiple channels. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests. Results: Overall, there were 500 eligible respondents; the analysis focused on dietitians working in clinical care who were familiar with the NCP (n = 420). In total, 87.9% and 77.5% of respondents reported always/frequently using aspects of the NCP and NCPT in their practice, respectively. There were variations in use by province/territory (P < 0.001); use was more frequent in Alberta and Manitoba versus other provinces/territories. A main barrier to implementation was lack of time; main facilitators to implementation were peer support, management support, and required use of the NCP. The prevalence of many facilitators and barriers varied by province (P < 0.05). Attitudes regarding the NCP/NCPT were variable. Conclusions: Overall, most clinical care dietitians reported some type of use of the NCP/NCPT. There were provincial/territorial variations in use, barriers, and facilitators. These findings provide information to develop strategies to enhance use of the NCP/NCPT in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".