Implementation of evidence-based medicine in dietetic practice: Current status and hurdles in Italy.

IF 1.9 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Nutrition and health Pub Date : 2024-05-15 DOI:10.1177/02601060241254563
Licia Carnaroli, Matteo Martini, Mariateresa Di Taranto, M Beatrice Bilò
{"title":"Implementation of evidence-based medicine in dietetic practice: Current status and hurdles in Italy.","authors":"Licia Carnaroli, Matteo Martini, Mariateresa Di Taranto, M Beatrice Bilò","doi":"10.1177/02601060241254563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Health professionals, including dietitians, should adapt their clinical daily practice to evidence-based practice (EBP), but this does not happen often in daily practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the current status and barriers to evidence-based practice among dietitians. <b>Methods:</b> This was a mixed-method, cross-sectional, national study (questionnaire and focus group) performed on working and registered dietitians, both self-employed and employed by public hospitals. The main outcomes were EBP knowledge, frequency of use, and proficiency scores. Barriers to EBP implementation were also collected, as well as qualitative information from the focus group. <b>Results:</b> Forty-three dietitians were enrolled from August to November 2021 in Italy. Overall, EBP knowledge was moderate/good. Younger dietitians (< 50 years old) obtained better results than their older colleagues. A similar trend was observed in terms of seniority. There was a discrepancy between EBP knowledge and perception of EBP implementation: the worst scores were obtained by participants who claimed an already complete integration of EBP. The average frequency of EBP use was moderate, with higher scores in dietitians ≥ 50 years old and with seniority ≥ 20 years. EBP proficiency instead was poor. The focus group revealed a lack of time and resistance to change as the main barriers. <b>Conclusion:</b> The importance of EBP is well-acknowledged, but it is not correctly implemented yet, because of identified barriers that need to be fixed. These barriers include a lack of dedicated time, inadequate EBP training, and resistance to change, especially in hierarchical environments.</p>","PeriodicalId":19352,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition and health","volume":" ","pages":"2601060241254563"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02601060241254563","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Health professionals, including dietitians, should adapt their clinical daily practice to evidence-based practice (EBP), but this does not happen often in daily practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the current status and barriers to evidence-based practice among dietitians. Methods: This was a mixed-method, cross-sectional, national study (questionnaire and focus group) performed on working and registered dietitians, both self-employed and employed by public hospitals. The main outcomes were EBP knowledge, frequency of use, and proficiency scores. Barriers to EBP implementation were also collected, as well as qualitative information from the focus group. Results: Forty-three dietitians were enrolled from August to November 2021 in Italy. Overall, EBP knowledge was moderate/good. Younger dietitians (< 50 years old) obtained better results than their older colleagues. A similar trend was observed in terms of seniority. There was a discrepancy between EBP knowledge and perception of EBP implementation: the worst scores were obtained by participants who claimed an already complete integration of EBP. The average frequency of EBP use was moderate, with higher scores in dietitians ≥ 50 years old and with seniority ≥ 20 years. EBP proficiency instead was poor. The focus group revealed a lack of time and resistance to change as the main barriers. Conclusion: The importance of EBP is well-acknowledged, but it is not correctly implemented yet, because of identified barriers that need to be fixed. These barriers include a lack of dedicated time, inadequate EBP training, and resistance to change, especially in hierarchical environments.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在营养学实践中实施循证医学:意大利的现状与障碍。
背景:包括营养师在内的卫生专业人员应根据循证实践(EBP)调整其日常临床实践,但这在日常实践中并不常见。本研究旨在调查营养师循证实践的现状和障碍。研究方法:这是一项混合方法、横断面、全国性研究(问卷调查和焦点小组),研究对象为在职和注册营养师,既有自营职业者,也有受雇于公立医院的营养师。主要结果是 EBP 知识、使用频率和熟练程度得分。此外,还收集了实施 EBP 的障碍以及焦点小组的定性信息。结果:2021 年 8 月至 11 月期间,意大利有 43 名营养师参加了培训。总体而言,营养师对 EBP 的了解程度为中等/良好。年轻营养师(50 岁以下)比年长的营养师取得了更好的成绩。在资历方面也观察到类似的趋势。EBP知识与EBP实施感知之间存在差异:声称已经完全融入EBP的参与者得分最差。使用 EBP 的平均频率适中,年龄≥ 50 岁和年资≥ 20 年的营养师得分较高。EBP 熟练程度反而较差。焦点小组显示,缺乏时间和抵制变革是主要障碍。结论EBP 的重要性已得到广泛认可,但尚未得到正确实施,原因是已发现的障碍亟待解决。这些障碍包括缺乏专门的时间、EBP 培训不足、抵制变革,尤其是在等级森严的环境中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nutrition and health
Nutrition and health Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
160
期刊最新文献
Personalized nutrition after discharge for pancreatic surgery: A study protocol. Creatine and sleep habits and disorders in the general population aged 16 years and over: NHANES 2007-2008. Creatine with guanidinoacetic acid improves prefrontal brain oxygenation before, during, and after a cognitive task: A randomized controlled pilot trial. Exploring the association of dietary inflammatory index, disease progression and cellular integrity in chronic kidney disease: A cross-sectional study. Factors associated with high nutrition risk by 10-year age group: Data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1