Design and pilot evaluation of an evidence-based worksheet and clinician guide to facilitate nutrition counselling for patients with severe mental illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) are severe, persistent mental illnesses resulting in considerable disability and premature mortality. Emerging evidence suggests that diet may be a modifiable risk factor in mental illness; however, use of nutritional counselling as a component of psychiatric clinical practice is limited. The objective of this project is the design and evaluate a worksheet and clinician guide for use in facilitating nutritional counseling in the context of existing mental health care. METHODS: The worksheet and clinician guide were developed based on the results of a recent scoping review on the relationship between diet and mental health symptoms among individuals with SSD. A feedback process involved a focus group with psychiatrists and interviews with individuals with lived experience with psychosis. Participants were asked a series of structured and open-ended questions. Interviews were transcribed and data units were allocated to categories from an existing framework. The comments were used to guide modifications to the worksheet and clinician guide. A brief interview with all participants was completed to gather feedback on the final version. RESULTS: Five psychiatrist participants and six participants with lived experience completed interviews. Participants provided positive comments related to the worksheet design, complexity and inclusion of interactive components. A novel theme emerged relating to the lack of nutritional counselling in psychiatric training and clinical practice. Many constructive comments were provided which resulted in meaningful revisions and improvements to the worksheet and clinician guide design and content. All participants were satisfied with the final versions. CONCLUSIONS: A worksheet and clinician guide designed to facilitate nutritional counselling with individuals with SSD was found to be acceptable to all participants following a process of feedback and revision. Further research and dissemination efforts aimed at increasing the use of nutritional counselling in psychiatric practice are warranted.
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 | 0.035 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".