ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To explore the barriers and enablers experienced by nutrition and dietetic professionals in the implementation of the standardised Nutrition Care Process (NCP) across 10 different countries. NCP related beliefs, motivations and values were investigated and compared. METHODS: A validated online survey was disseminated to nutrition and dietetics professionals in 10 countries in the local language during 2017. Cross-sectional associations and differences between countries were explored for level of implementation, barriers/enablers and attitudes/motivation among the respondents. RESULTS: Higher NCP implementation was associated with greater occurrence of enabling aspects, as well as fewer occurrences of barriers. The most common enabler was 'recommendation by the national dietetic association' (69%) and the most common barrier was 'lack of time' (39%). A longer experience of NCP use was associated with a more positive attitude towards all NCP aspects. Differences between countries were identified, regarding both the occurrence of barriers/enablers and attitudes/motivations. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation efforts need to be tailored to country-specific contexts when implementing a new standard of care framework among nutrition and dietetic professionals. Additional research is needed to further assess the management and workplace strategies to support the development of nutrition and dietetics professionals in multidisciplinary healthcare organisations.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The effects of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) have been evaluated in several clinical trials and more studies have been requested. To facilitate replication, support accurate evaluations of research results and avoid research waste, high quality reporting of interventions in clinical trials is needed. The aim of this study is to assess the quality of reporting of interventions in publications describing randomised controlled trials of ONS in populations with malnutrition or at nutritional risk. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for articles describing ONS trials published between January 2002 and December 2015. The quality of intervention descriptions was evaluated using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide, which contains twelve items. Articles published before and after 2011 were compared. RESULTS: Of 76 articles identified, only 3% reported all TIDieR items in sufficient detail. The most frequently missing elements were descriptions of the intervention procedures (e.g. how the ONS were to be taken and if participants were given a choice of flavours), which were adequately presented in only 26% of the articles. Less than half of the articles included a description of the intervention provider and sufficient information about the location(s) for the intervention. Information about adherence and mode of delivery was reported in 60-65% of the articles. Most frequently reported, in >70% of the articles, were items regarding the brief name of the intervention, the rationale for the intervention and the materials used (i.e. information about the specific ONS product(s) administered). The reporting quality for two of the items (materials and provider) was higher in articles published after 2011. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of ONS interventions was found to be poor. The descriptions mostly lacked information about intervention procedures, provider and location(s). A moderately higher reporting quality was observed in articles published after 2011. These findings imply that an improvement in the descriptions of ONS interventions is required in future clinical trials of malnutrition treatment.
