MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393857891 · doi:10.1016/j.nut.2024.112451

Barriers and facilitators to nutritional recommendations identified by participants of a cardiovascular rehabilitation program in a low resource context in Brazil

2024· article· en· W4393857891 on OpenAlexaff
Camila Kümmel Duarte, Luciana de Abreu Silva, Paula Moraes Berti de Andrade, Tábata Monaliza Marcelino Martins, Gabriela Lima de Melo Ghisi

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais
KeywordsThematic analysisFocus groupContext (archaeology)Psychological interventionMedicineDescriptive statisticsRehabilitationIntervention (counseling)Family medicineGerontologyNursingQualitative researchPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Nutritional recommendations, a core component of cardiovascular rehabilitation, play a vital role in managing cardiovascular diseases. However, adherence to these recommendations is complex, particularly in low-resource settings. This study explored the barriers and facilitators influencing adherence to nutritional recommendations among participants in a low-resource cardiovascular rehabilitation program in Brazil. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was employed. Sociodemographic data, the Mediterranean diet score, scale for assessing nutrition, and open-ended questions on adherence were collected. Those who completed the questionnaires (phase 1) were invited to participate in one focus group session (phase 2). The participants were characterized according to the responses provided in phase 1 (Mediterranean diet score and scale for assessing nutrition) in low adherence or high adherence to dietary practice. Descriptive statistics and thematic content analysis within the context of the theory of planned behavior were employed. RESULTS: Seventy-four participants completed phase 1, with 41.9% classified into low adherence and 27.0% in high adherence; of those, 17 participated in phase 2. Focus group findings revealed 9 themes/29 subthemes. Barriers included food prices, income, knowledge, routine, food access, family patterns, disease, work, anxiety, eating habits, and food planning. Facilitators included affordable food, health considerations, taste preferences, knowledge, family/professional support, government assistance, personal willpower, income stability, easy food access, media influence, and a quiet eating place. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings underscore the need for targeted interventions, including individualized meal planning, community engagement, and enhanced access to healthcare professionals, to optimize dietary adherence and improve cardiovascular outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutritionSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207