Assessing Knowledge and Attitudes of U.S. Healthcare Providers about Benefits and Risks of Consuming Seafood

D. Hicks, L. Pivarnik, Nicole L. Richard, R. Gable, M. Morrissey
{"title":"Assessing Knowledge and Attitudes of U.S. Healthcare Providers about Benefits and Risks of Consuming Seafood","authors":"D. Hicks, L. Pivarnik, Nicole L. Richard, R. Gable, M. Morrissey","doi":"10.1111/1541-4329.12014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An online needs assessment survey of healthcare providers was developed and implemented to determine knowledge and attitudes about the benefits and risks of consuming seafood along with how this might impact patient/clientele counseling. Only 6 of the 45 knowledge items queried (13%) met the 80% subject mastery or proficiency with a total knowledge score of 56 ± 18%. Based on this survey, it was found that healthcare providers were less than proficient regarding all knowledge areas for seafood. Understanding of seafood safety and contaminants was low. In addition, while the majority (76%) of healthcare respondents knew the correct recommendation for seafood meals per week, they failed to identify the groups that were targeted by the Food and Drug Administration/Environmental Protection Agency (FDA/EPA) advisory about seafood and mercury and therefore could be providing inaccurate information. Attitudinal responses for 18 items resulted in an overall average score of 3.28 ± 0.47 meaning slightly agree (based on a 5-point Likert scale strongly disagree—strongly agree). While trends showed that it was important to the respondents to provide accurate information (3.78 ± 1.06) about seafood to their patients, they felt more comfortable recommending that their patients follow government advice (3.52 ± 0.91) about both seafood safety and which seafood to eat over other sources. Combined with a low knowledge base, attitudinal responses indicate that there could be a barrier to both outreach education to these healthcare providers and to their patient counseling regarding seafood consumption. Results also showed that a combination of online, science-based, easy to access information with the capability to provide brochure-formatted information would appear to be the best way to communicate seafood safety, nutrition, and health information.","PeriodicalId":22784,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Food Science Education","volume":"15 1","pages":"75-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Food Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4329.12014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

An online needs assessment survey of healthcare providers was developed and implemented to determine knowledge and attitudes about the benefits and risks of consuming seafood along with how this might impact patient/clientele counseling. Only 6 of the 45 knowledge items queried (13%) met the 80% subject mastery or proficiency with a total knowledge score of 56 ± 18%. Based on this survey, it was found that healthcare providers were less than proficient regarding all knowledge areas for seafood. Understanding of seafood safety and contaminants was low. In addition, while the majority (76%) of healthcare respondents knew the correct recommendation for seafood meals per week, they failed to identify the groups that were targeted by the Food and Drug Administration/Environmental Protection Agency (FDA/EPA) advisory about seafood and mercury and therefore could be providing inaccurate information. Attitudinal responses for 18 items resulted in an overall average score of 3.28 ± 0.47 meaning slightly agree (based on a 5-point Likert scale strongly disagree—strongly agree). While trends showed that it was important to the respondents to provide accurate information (3.78 ± 1.06) about seafood to their patients, they felt more comfortable recommending that their patients follow government advice (3.52 ± 0.91) about both seafood safety and which seafood to eat over other sources. Combined with a low knowledge base, attitudinal responses indicate that there could be a barrier to both outreach education to these healthcare providers and to their patient counseling regarding seafood consumption. Results also showed that a combination of online, science-based, easy to access information with the capability to provide brochure-formatted information would appear to be the best way to communicate seafood safety, nutrition, and health information.
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
评估美国医疗保健提供者关于食用海鲜的好处和风险的知识和态度
开发并实施了一项针对医疗保健提供者的在线需求评估调查,以确定有关食用海鲜的益处和风险的知识和态度,以及这可能如何影响患者/客户咨询。在被调查的45个知识项目中,只有6个(13%)达到了80%的学科精通或熟练程度,总知识得分为56±18%。根据这项调查,发现医疗保健提供者对海鲜的所有知识领域都不精通。对海产品安全和污染物的认识较低。此外,虽然大多数(76%)医疗保健受访者知道每周海鲜餐的正确建议,但他们未能确定食品和药物管理局/环境保护局(FDA/EPA)关于海鲜和汞的咨询针对的群体,因此可能提供不准确的信息。18个项目的态度反应的总体平均得分为3.28±0.47,表示稍微同意(基于5分李克特量表强烈不同意-强烈同意)。虽然趋势表明,对受访者来说,向患者提供有关海鲜的准确信息(3.78±1.06)很重要,但他们更愿意建议患者遵循政府关于海鲜安全以及食用哪种海鲜的建议(3.52±0.91)。再加上知识基础较低,态度反应表明,对这些医疗保健提供者进行外展教育和对患者进行海鲜消费咨询可能存在障碍。结果还表明,将基于科学的、易于获取的在线信息与提供小册子格式信息的能力相结合,似乎是传播海产品安全、营养和健康信息的最佳方式。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Windshields and rearview mirrors Book Review: Don't Make Me Think, Revisited . Using a 3D food printer as a teaching tool: Focus groups with dietitians, teachers, and nutrition students Engaged food science: Connecting K‐8 learners to food science while engaging graduate students in science communication Effects of implementing flipped classroom elements and dynamic in‐class discussion on student performance
×
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