Feasibility of a targeted nutrition-risk screening tool in Australian mental health services: The NutriMental screener.

IF 3.2 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Nutrition & Dietetics Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-19 DOI:10.1111/1747-0080.70000
Scott B Teasdale, Oliver Ardill-Young, Patricia Crawford, Patrick Gould, Erikka Hennessy, Bronwyn Inall, Sarah King, Rebecca Lancaster, Olivia Millett, Abbey Pearson, Julia Roen, Alyssa Strong, Mark Surdut, Tracy Burrows, Jackie Curtis, Philip B Ward, Annabel Sandra Mueller-Stierlin
{"title":"Feasibility of a targeted nutrition-risk screening tool in Australian mental health services: The NutriMental screener.","authors":"Scott B Teasdale, Oliver Ardill-Young, Patricia Crawford, Patrick Gould, Erikka Hennessy, Bronwyn Inall, Sarah King, Rebecca Lancaster, Olivia Millett, Abbey Pearson, Julia Roen, Alyssa Strong, Mark Surdut, Tracy Burrows, Jackie Curtis, Philip B Ward, Annabel Sandra Mueller-Stierlin","doi":"10.1111/1747-0080.70000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study aimed to test the feasibility and acceptability of mental health clinicians using a multifaceted nutrition-risk screening tool in Australian mental health settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods cross-sectional design was used. Mental health clinicians implemented the multifaceted NutriMental screener at seven sites across Australia and provided feedback via a standardised form. Primary outcomes were the feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness domains of the feedback questionnaire. Additional outcomes included association/agreement between the consumer's desire for dietetic support, clinicians' impression of need for dietetic support, and total nutrition risks reported. Directed content analysis was employed to analyse open-ended sections of the clinician feedback questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-four clinicians participated, completing the NutriMental screener with a total of 256 mental health consumers. Mean total nutrition risks reported were 6.4 ± 1.8 (out of nine). Mean implementation outcomes (out of five) were 3.1 ± 0.8 for acceptability, 3.7 ± 0.5 for appropriateness, and 4.3 ± 1.7 for feasibility. There was moderate agreement between consumer's desire for dietetic support and clinicians' impression of need for dietetic support κ = 0.32 (95% CI: 0.21-0.43), p < 0.001, and positive correlations between the number of nutrition risks reported and consumer's desire for dietetic support (r = 0.29, p < 0.001) and clinicians' impression of need for dietetic support (r = 0.29, p < 0.001). Six themes and 17 subthemes related to barriers and facilitators to the screener's implementation were identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The multifaceted risk screening tool appears to be feasible, acceptable and appropriate for use within Australian mental health services. Refinements of the NutriMental screener based on clinician feedback may further improve its implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":19368,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition & Dietetics","volume":" ","pages":"392-402"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12401811/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition & Dietetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.70000","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to test the feasibility and acceptability of mental health clinicians using a multifaceted nutrition-risk screening tool in Australian mental health settings.

Methods: A mixed-methods cross-sectional design was used. Mental health clinicians implemented the multifaceted NutriMental screener at seven sites across Australia and provided feedback via a standardised form. Primary outcomes were the feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness domains of the feedback questionnaire. Additional outcomes included association/agreement between the consumer's desire for dietetic support, clinicians' impression of need for dietetic support, and total nutrition risks reported. Directed content analysis was employed to analyse open-ended sections of the clinician feedback questionnaire.

Results: Fifty-four clinicians participated, completing the NutriMental screener with a total of 256 mental health consumers. Mean total nutrition risks reported were 6.4 ± 1.8 (out of nine). Mean implementation outcomes (out of five) were 3.1 ± 0.8 for acceptability, 3.7 ± 0.5 for appropriateness, and 4.3 ± 1.7 for feasibility. There was moderate agreement between consumer's desire for dietetic support and clinicians' impression of need for dietetic support κ = 0.32 (95% CI: 0.21-0.43), p < 0.001, and positive correlations between the number of nutrition risks reported and consumer's desire for dietetic support (r = 0.29, p < 0.001) and clinicians' impression of need for dietetic support (r = 0.29, p < 0.001). Six themes and 17 subthemes related to barriers and facilitators to the screener's implementation were identified.

Conclusion: The multifaceted risk screening tool appears to be feasible, acceptable and appropriate for use within Australian mental health services. Refinements of the NutriMental screener based on clinician feedback may further improve its implementation.

Abstract Image

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
澳大利亚精神卫生服务中有针对性的营养风险筛查工具的可行性:营养筛查。
目的:本研究旨在测试心理健康临床医生在澳大利亚心理健康环境中使用多方面营养风险筛查工具的可行性和可接受性。方法:采用混合方法横断面设计。心理健康临床医生在澳大利亚的七个地点实施了多方面的营养筛查,并通过标准化表格提供反馈。主要结果是反馈问卷的可行性、可接受性和适当性。其他结果包括消费者对饮食支持的渴望、临床医生对饮食支持需求的印象和报告的总营养风险之间的关联/一致。采用定向内容分析对临床医生反馈问卷的开放式部分进行分析。结果:54名临床医生参与,共256名心理健康消费者完成了营养筛查。报告的平均总营养风险为6.4±1.8(满分9分)。平均实施结果(共5项)可接受性为3.1±0.8,适宜性为3.7±0.5,可行性为4.3±1.7。消费者对饮食支持的渴望与临床医生对饮食支持需求的印象之间存在中等程度的一致,κ = 0.32 (95% CI: 0.21-0.43), p结论:在澳大利亚心理健康服务中使用多方面风险筛查工具似乎是可行的,可接受的和适当的。基于临床医生反馈的营养筛查的改进可能会进一步改善其实施。
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 & Dietetics
Nutrition & Dietetics 医学-营养学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
16.10%
发文量
69
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nutrition & Dietetics is the official journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia. Covering all aspects of food, nutrition and dietetics, the Journal provides a forum for the reporting, discussion and development of scientifically credible knowledge related to human nutrition and dietetics. Widely respected in Australia and around the world, Nutrition & Dietetics publishes original research, methodology analyses, research reviews and much more. The Journal aims to keep health professionals abreast of current knowledge on human nutrition and diet, and accepts contributions from around the world.
期刊最新文献
Becoming monstrous: Beauty norms, body image, and discursive limits on compassion in The Substance. The implementation and evaluation of a flexible, mixed-model food service system for a greenfield hospital. The effect of blended tube feeding compared to conventional formula on clinical outcomes in adults: A systematic review. Global parent perspectives on school food service internationally: A mixed papers narrative review. Exploring and understanding perceptions and definitions of foodservice quality in residential aged care: A scoping review.
×
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:604180095
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