Nutrition and physical activity knowledge, attitudes, and practices of inpatient cirrhosis care providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospitalization is a high-risk period for cirrhosis-associated sarcopenia and frailty. This study aimed to measure the knowledge, attitudes, and practice patterns (KAP) of multidisciplinary cirrhosis providers about inhospital nutrition and physical activity care. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of cirrhosis care providers at a combination of 38 hospitals and healthcare centres in Alberta, Canada. Analysis included descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-eight responses were analyzed. Across all providers, nutrition and physical activity knowledge and attitude (KA) scores were higher than practice (P) scores. Physicians had lower nutrition KA ( P = 0.010) and nutrition P ( P < 0.001) scores than nonphysicians. Previous cirrhosis-related nutrition or physical activity education was associated with higher nutrition KA ( P < 0.001), nutrition P ( P = 0.036), and physical activity P scores ( P < 0.001). Over half of the participants reported not providing patients with educational resources for nutrition or physical activity and not carrying out nutrition screening. Participant suggestions to optimize care included enhancing patient and provider education, standardizing screening and intervention processes, increasing patient-centered support, and promoting collaboration within the healthcare team. Eighty percentage of participants were willing to provide patients with resources if these were readily available. CONCLUSION: While provider knowledge and attitudes about the importance of nutrition and physical activity in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis are reasonable, there is considerable room to optimize the delivery of best practices in this patient population. Optimization will require readily available educational and personnel resources and interdisciplinary collaboration to promote system change.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".