营养支持临床医师资格证书持有者和非持有者的循证实践态度和营养支持指南知识。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Nutrition in Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-17 DOI:10.1002/ncp.11136
Lea Steiner, Joachim Sackey, Deborah Cohen, Rebecca Brody
{"title":"营养支持临床医师资格证书持有者和非持有者的循证实践态度和营养支持指南知识。","authors":"Lea Steiner, Joachim Sackey, Deborah Cohen, Rebecca Brody","doi":"10.1002/ncp.11136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical practice frequently changes, and professionals should stay abreast of evidence-based practice (EBP) guidelines. Negative attitudes towards EBP are a barrier to guideline adoption. This study explored EBP attitudes and knowledge of a complex nutrition support clinical case scenario of individuals holding or not holding the Certified Nutrition Support Clinician (CNSC) credential.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study used an online survey sent to American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) members with and without the CNSC credential and all CNSC credential holders from the National Board of Nutrition Support Certification email list. The survey included the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale Score (EBPAS-15) and eight knowledge questions using a nutrition support case scenario. An independent samples t test compared knowledge and EBPAS-15 total scores and subscores between CNSC holders and nonholders. Pearson correlation determined the correlation between knowledge and EBPAS-15 scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response rate was 7.8% (N = 706). CNSC holders (n = 536) had significantly higher mean knowledge scores (4.7 ± 1.6 out of 8) than nonholders (n = 159, 4.1 ± 1.7) (P < 0.001). Total EBPAS-15 scores were not significantly different between CNSC holders (n = 542, 2.9 ± 0.4 out of 4) and nonholders (n = 164, 2.8 ± 0.7) (P = 0.434), and knowledge scores and total EBPAS-15 scores (P = 0.639) or subscores were not significantly correlated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Regardless of holding the CNSC credential, EBPAS-15 scores indicated respondents had positive EBP attitudes. CNSC holders had significantly higher knowledge scores of recent nutrition support EBP guidelines compared with non-CNSC credential holders. Positive EBP attitudes are a precursor to clinical decision-making, but future research should determine the use of guidelines in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":19354,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition in Clinical Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence-based practice attitudes and nutrition support guideline knowledge between holders and nonholders of the Certified Nutrition Support Clinician credential.\",\"authors\":\"Lea Steiner, Joachim Sackey, Deborah Cohen, Rebecca Brody\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ncp.11136\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical practice frequently changes, and professionals should stay abreast of evidence-based practice (EBP) guidelines. Negative attitudes towards EBP are a barrier to guideline adoption. This study explored EBP attitudes and knowledge of a complex nutrition support clinical case scenario of individuals holding or not holding the Certified Nutrition Support Clinician (CNSC) credential.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study used an online survey sent to American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) members with and without the CNSC credential and all CNSC credential holders from the National Board of Nutrition Support Certification email list. The survey included the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale Score (EBPAS-15) and eight knowledge questions using a nutrition support case scenario. An independent samples t test compared knowledge and EBPAS-15 total scores and subscores between CNSC holders and nonholders. Pearson correlation determined the correlation between knowledge and EBPAS-15 scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response rate was 7.8% (N = 706). CNSC holders (n = 536) had significantly higher mean knowledge scores (4.7 ± 1.6 out of 8) than nonholders (n = 159, 4.1 ± 1.7) (P < 0.001). Total EBPAS-15 scores were not significantly different between CNSC holders (n = 542, 2.9 ± 0.4 out of 4) and nonholders (n = 164, 2.8 ± 0.7) (P = 0.434), and knowledge scores and total EBPAS-15 scores (P = 0.639) or subscores were not significantly correlated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Regardless of holding the CNSC credential, EBPAS-15 scores indicated respondents had positive EBP attitudes. CNSC holders had significantly higher knowledge scores of recent nutrition support EBP guidelines compared with non-CNSC credential holders. Positive EBP attitudes are a precursor to clinical decision-making, but future research should determine the use of guidelines in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nutrition in Clinical Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nutrition in Clinical Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ncp.11136\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition in Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ncp.11136","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:临床实践经常发生变化,专业人员应及时了解循证实践(EBP)指南。对 EBP 的消极态度是采用指南的一个障碍。本研究探讨了持有或未持有认证营养支持临床医师(CNSC)证书的个人对复杂营养支持临床案例的 EBP 态度和知识:这项横断面研究采用了在线调查的方式,调查对象为美国肠外肠内营养学会(ASPEN)会员中持有和未持有 CNSC 证书的人员,以及国家营养支持认证委员会电子邮件列表中的所有 CNSC 证书持有者。调查包括循证实践态度量表评分(EBPAS-15)和使用营养支持案例情景的八个知识问题。通过独立样本 t 检验比较了 CNSC 持有者和非持有者的知识和 EBPAS-15 总分和分值。皮尔逊相关性确定了知识和 EBPAS-15 分数之间的相关性:回复率为 7.8%(N = 706)。CNSC 持有者(n = 536)的平均知识得分(4.7 ± 1.6,满分为 8 分)明显高于非 CNSC 持有者(n = 159,4.1 ± 1.7)(P 结论:无论是否持有 CNSC,EBPAS-15 的平均知识得分(4.7 ± 1.6,满分为 8 分)均高于非 CNSC 持有者(n = 159,4.1 ± 1.7):无论是否持有 CNSC 证书,EBPAS-15 分数都表明受访者对 EBP 持积极态度。与未持有 CNSC 证书的受访者相比,持有 CNSC 证书的受访者对近期营养支持 EBP 指南的了解程度得分明显更高。积极的 EBP 态度是临床决策的先决条件,但未来的研究应确定指南在临床实践中的使用情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evidence-based practice attitudes and nutrition support guideline knowledge between holders and nonholders of the Certified Nutrition Support Clinician credential.

Background: Clinical practice frequently changes, and professionals should stay abreast of evidence-based practice (EBP) guidelines. Negative attitudes towards EBP are a barrier to guideline adoption. This study explored EBP attitudes and knowledge of a complex nutrition support clinical case scenario of individuals holding or not holding the Certified Nutrition Support Clinician (CNSC) credential.

Methods: This cross-sectional study used an online survey sent to American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) members with and without the CNSC credential and all CNSC credential holders from the National Board of Nutrition Support Certification email list. The survey included the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale Score (EBPAS-15) and eight knowledge questions using a nutrition support case scenario. An independent samples t test compared knowledge and EBPAS-15 total scores and subscores between CNSC holders and nonholders. Pearson correlation determined the correlation between knowledge and EBPAS-15 scores.

Results: The response rate was 7.8% (N = 706). CNSC holders (n = 536) had significantly higher mean knowledge scores (4.7 ± 1.6 out of 8) than nonholders (n = 159, 4.1 ± 1.7) (P < 0.001). Total EBPAS-15 scores were not significantly different between CNSC holders (n = 542, 2.9 ± 0.4 out of 4) and nonholders (n = 164, 2.8 ± 0.7) (P = 0.434), and knowledge scores and total EBPAS-15 scores (P = 0.639) or subscores were not significantly correlated.

Conclusions: Regardless of holding the CNSC credential, EBPAS-15 scores indicated respondents had positive EBP attitudes. CNSC holders had significantly higher knowledge scores of recent nutrition support EBP guidelines compared with non-CNSC credential holders. Positive EBP attitudes are a precursor to clinical decision-making, but future research should determine the use of guidelines in clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
9.70%
发文量
128
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: NCP is a peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary publication that publishes articles about the scientific basis and clinical application of nutrition and nutrition support. NCP contains comprehensive reviews, clinical research, case observations, and other types of papers written by experts in the field of nutrition and health care practitioners involved in the delivery of specialized nutrition support. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Quality improvement initiative to achieve early enteral feeds in preterm infants at a level IV neonatal intensive care unit. Playing sport as a central-line carrier: a survey to collect the European pediatric intestinal failure centers' view. Screening, identification, and diagnosis of malnutrition in hospitalized patients with solid tumors: A retrospective cohort study. Peripheral parenteral nutrition: A retrospective observational study to evaluate utility and complications. Comparing A-mode ultrasound and computed tomography for assessing cancer-related sarcopenia: A cross-sectional study.
×
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