'We work in silos': Exploring clinicians' perspectives on the dietary management of coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes in an Australian public hospital and community health service.

AIMS: This study explored clinicians' perspectives on roles, practices and service delivery in the dietary management of coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes in a public health service. METHODS: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 57 clinicians (21 nurses, 19 doctors, 13 dietitians and 4 physiotherapists) involved in the care of relevant patients across hospital and post-acute community settings in a metropolitan health service in Australia. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3 themes with 10 subthemes were identified. (a) 'Treatment prioritisation': important role of nutrition in risk factor management; competing priorities with complex patients; weight loss as a priority; and dietitians individualise. (b) 'Diverse roles in providing diet advice': a tension between nutrients, restrictions and diet quality; patients seek and trust advice from non-dietitians; and providing nutrition information materials crosses professions. (c) 'Dietitian access': variable integration and resourcing; access governed by clinician discretion and perceived patient interest; and bespoke application of referral pathways. CONCLUSIONS: Time and resource constraints, variable access and referral to dietitians, and inconsistent advice were key challenges in the dietary management of coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Models of care may be improved with greater investment and integration of dietitians, including to provide professional support across disciplines and disease specialties.

Cost-effectiveness of telehealth-delivered diet and exercise interventions: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Telehealth is a promising tool for delivering lifestyle interventions for the management of health conditions. However, limited evidence exists regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current literature reporting on the cost-effectiveness of telehealth-delivered diet and/or exercise interventions. METHODS: Four electronic databases (PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Embase) were searched for published literature from database inception to November 2020. This review adhered to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines and the ISPOR Criteria for Cost-Effectiveness Review Outcomes Checklist. The quality of reporting was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. The extracted data were grouped into subcategories according to telehealth modality, organised into tables and reported narratively. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies of controlled trials (11 combined diet and exercise, 9 exercise-only and 4 diet-only telehealth-delivered interventions) were included for data extraction and quality assessment. Interventions were reported as cost-effective in 12 studies (50%), five studies (21%) reported inconclusive results, and seven studies (29%) reported that the interventions were not cost-effective. Telephone interventions were applied in eight studies (33%), seven studies (29%) used internet interventions, six studies (25%) used a combination of internet and telephone interventions, and three studies (13%) evaluated mHealth interventions. Quality of study reporting varied with between 54% and 92% of Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards items reported. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that telehealth-delivered lifestyle interventions can be cost-effective compared to traditional care. There is a need for further investigations that employ rigorous methodology and economic reporting, including appropriate decision analytical models and longer timeframes.