Exploring Canadian dietitians’ knowledge, attitude, and practices providing culturally safe care to Muslims who fast during the month of Ramadan: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fasting during Ramadan involves abstaining from food and drink from dawn to dusk for 29 to 30 days, annually. Dietitians, experts in food and nutrition, play a vital role in fostering the well-being of Canadians. Given that 1 in 20 Canadians are Muslim, access to culturally safe care is essential for their health. The consumption of adequate nutrients during the non-fasting hours is important for Muslims well-being. It is unknown whether dietitians in Canada feel comfortable and knowledgeable providing safe care during Ramadan. An online survey, was developed using the World Health Organization's Knowledge Attitude and Practice Protocol, and then reviewed for content validity by six dietitians. From 5 March 2023 to 1 April 2023, 159 Canadian dietitians, from a variety of practice areas, including acute care, community health, and private practice, completed the online survey. Descriptive statistics, cross tabulations, and χ2 tests, enhanced by post hoc analyses with Bonferroni correction, were employed to determine any relationship between categorical variables and identify significant associations or differences. While most participants demonstrated an adequate understanding of Ramadan fasting practices, including its duration and restrictions, 91% reported not receiving information on how to provide culturally safe care during their university degree. Many dietitians expressed discomfort providing care (43.7%, 69/158) and lacked adequate resources (51.3%, 81/158). Among the 37% of dietitians who did offer care to Muslims (58/157), the majority felt comfortable (72.1%, 44/58). This study reveals a gap in capacity to provide culturally safe care, highlighting the need for training interventions for nutrition professionals, and curriculum for dietetics programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".