Recent medical graduates’ attitudes towards nutrition education and its role in medical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate recent Dalhousie Medical School graduates’ perceptions of nutrition in three domains: attitudes towards its use in medical practice generally, learned body of knowledge in medical school and residency, and satisfaction with how undergraduate and postgraduate medical education aligned their attitudes and knowledge of nutrition in medicine. Graduates of Dalhousie University’s undergraduate medical program from 2013 to 2018 were contacted to complete an internet-based questionnaire of 13 five-point Likert scale questions about attitudes, knowledge, and satisfaction with nutrition education in their undergraduate medical studies and medical practice. Responses ranged from one, “strongly disagree” to five, “strongly agree”. Most respondents (90.2%) agreed that ‘nutrition counseling can make a positive difference to patient outcomes’ and 80.5% agreed that ‘physicians can influence patient behavior related to nutrition’. However, fewer (61.0%) agreed that ‘physicians play a key role in improving patients’ nutritional habits.’ Even fewer participants agreed that nutritional assessment (34.1%) and nutritional counselling (41.5%) should be a routine part of care, regardless of specialty. The mean (standard deviation) overall score of participants with regards to their attitudes about nutrition assessment, counselling, and role in patient health, was 3.60 (0.633). Scores ranged from 1 to 5 with higher score indicating morepositive attitude. Mean overall knowledge and satisfaction scores were 3.76 (0.702) and 2.70 (0.898), respectively. There is a lack of consensus regarding the role of physicians in delivering nutrition care to patients, despite its perceived importance to patient health, requiring further exploration.
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 | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 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".