MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412038424 · doi:10.1186/s40795-025-01116-z

Barriers and facilitators to following dietary recommendations for bone health: a qualitative study

2025· article· en· W4412038424 on OpenAlexafffund
Harleen Ghuttora, Lorena Kembel, Heidi Piovoso, A. Lynn Feasel, Julia MacLaren, Tanis R. Fenton, Catherine B. Chan, Gregory Kline, Emma O. Billington

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nutrition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteHeritage Medical Research ClinicSouth Health CampusAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of AlbertaAlberta HealthUniversity of Calgary
FundersDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsMedicineClinical nutritionPublic healthQualitative researchHealth services researchBone healthFamily medicineEnvironmental healthGerontologyNursingOsteoporosisInternal medicineBone mineral

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: An estimated one in two women and one in five men will experience a low-trauma fracture after age 50. Diet is an important mediator of bone health but individuals with or at risk of osteoporosis do not always meet recommended intake of specific nutrients (protein, calcium, vitamin D) and whole foods. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitating factors to following dietary recommendations for bone health among adults with or at risk of osteoporosis. METHODS: Adults aged ≥ 45 years who had been referred to a specialty osteoporosis clinic were recruited to participate in 4 virtual focus groups exploring barriers and facilitators to following dietary recommendations for bone health. Interest in a practical, bone-health focused Culinary Medicine program was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 29 individuals were enrolled, 26 completed a pre-survey which asked about demographics and dietary habits, and 24 (age range 56-89 years, 21 female) attended one of four virtual focus groups. Principle barriers to following dietary recommendations for bone health highlighted by the focus group participants were: (1) living alone and cooking for one, (2) low motivation to prepare meals, and (3) dietary restrictions. Principal facilitators were: (1) preparing meals in advance, (2) online grocery shopping, and (3) engaging in exercise. Focus group participants expressed enthusiasm about participating in a Culinary Medicine program for bone health. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that adults with or at risk of osteoporosis face multiple barriers to adhering with dietary recommendations. Bone-focused Culinary Medicine programming merits further study as a possible method of overcoming these barriers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NutritionSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207