Effectiveness of general practitioner-delivered nutrition care interventions on dietary and health outcomes in adults with diet-related chronic conditions: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review will evaluate the effectiveness of nutrition care interventions delivered by general practitioners versus usual care or no care on dietary and health outcomes in adults with diet-related chronic conditions or risk states. INTRODUCTION: General practitioners are usually the first contacts in the health care system for patients with diet-related chronic conditions. While there is some evidence that general practitioners can be effective in delivering nutrition care for a number of outcomes, to inform future care, an update of the evidence is required as well as an examination of which components are associated with positive outcomes. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Published studies will be included if they report on adults with or at risk of diet-related chronic conditions; one-on-one nutrition care interventions individually delivered by general practitioners during primary care consultations; usual or no care as comparators; dietary and/or health outcomes with a minimum three-month follow-up; and randomized controlled trials. Included studies will be available in, or able to be translated into, English and will have no date restrictions. METHODS: The databases to be searched will include CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health. Following deduplication, two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts in Covidence, followed by the full texts of potentially relevant studies. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Included studies will be critically appraised and data will be extracted using a modified JBI tool. Findings will be reported in tables and narrative synthesis, and pooled with statistical meta-analysis, where possible. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42021289011.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".