澳大利亚基层医疗机构私人营养师工作过程和结果评估的最低报告标准:思想领袖共识研究。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Nutrition & Dietetics Pub Date : 2023-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-10-10 DOI:10.1111/1747-0080.12776
Peter W Clark, Lauren T Williams, Bryce Brickley, Lauren Ball
{"title":"澳大利亚基层医疗机构私人营养师工作过程和结果评估的最低报告标准:思想领袖共识研究。","authors":"Peter W Clark, Lauren T Williams, Bryce Brickley, Lauren Ball","doi":"10.1111/1747-0080.12776","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To identify minimum reporting standards for assessing the processes and outcomes of Australian primary care dietetics practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sequential, mixed-method, exploratory process with peer-nominated Australian 'thought leaders'. A literature review was undertaken to identify possible standards, followed by semi-structured qualitative interviews with thought leaders. Content analysis was used to identify a comprehensive group of items that could inform evidence-based reporting standards. Two rounds of a modified Delphi survey were conducted with the same thought leaders to seek consensus on the most relevant items. Individual items were analysed for content validity, and those with a rating of excellent item-content validity (index >0.78) were included as evidenced-based standards for primary care practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-six thought leaders (response rate: 87%) from all mainland Australian states completed a qualitative interview and two rounds of modified-Delphi consensus surveys. Items were identified and categorised into three domains: business, clinical, and implementation. Content analysis identified 216 items published or used in practice by the thought leaders. After two rounds of consensus review, 97 items (45 business, 33 clinical, and 19 implementation) achieved excellent consensus ratings. Combining these items into a standardised tool, the scale-content validity index average was >0.90, which is considered excellent content validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study has identified minimum reporting standards for evidence-based process and outcome assessments in primary care dietetics practice in Australia. Incorporating such standards into a standardised tool could enable benchmarking across the dietetics workforce and contribute to a broader understanding of the dietetic impact on public health.</p>","PeriodicalId":19368,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition & Dietetics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10952596/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimum reporting standards for process and outcomes assessments for private practice dietitians working in Australian primary care: The Thought Leader Consensus study.\",\"authors\":\"Peter W Clark, Lauren T Williams, Bryce Brickley, Lauren Ball\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1747-0080.12776\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To identify minimum reporting standards for assessing the processes and outcomes of Australian primary care dietetics practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sequential, mixed-method, exploratory process with peer-nominated Australian 'thought leaders'. A literature review was undertaken to identify possible standards, followed by semi-structured qualitative interviews with thought leaders. Content analysis was used to identify a comprehensive group of items that could inform evidence-based reporting standards. Two rounds of a modified Delphi survey were conducted with the same thought leaders to seek consensus on the most relevant items. Individual items were analysed for content validity, and those with a rating of excellent item-content validity (index >0.78) were included as evidenced-based standards for primary care practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-six thought leaders (response rate: 87%) from all mainland Australian states completed a qualitative interview and two rounds of modified-Delphi consensus surveys. Items were identified and categorised into three domains: business, clinical, and implementation. Content analysis identified 216 items published or used in practice by the thought leaders. After two rounds of consensus review, 97 items (45 business, 33 clinical, and 19 implementation) achieved excellent consensus ratings. Combining these items into a standardised tool, the scale-content validity index average was >0.90, which is considered excellent content validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study has identified minimum reporting standards for evidence-based process and outcome assessments in primary care dietetics practice in Australia. Incorporating such standards into a standardised tool could enable benchmarking across the dietetics workforce and contribute to a broader understanding of the dietetic impact on public health.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19368,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nutrition & Dietetics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10952596/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nutrition & Dietetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12776\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/10/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition & Dietetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12776","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:确定评估澳大利亚初级保健营养学实践过程和结果的最低报告标准:方法:与同行提名的澳大利亚 "思想领袖 "一起,采用顺序、混合方法进行探索。首先进行文献综述以确定可能的标准,然后对思想领袖进行半结构化定性访谈。通过内容分析,确定了一组可作为循证报告标准的综合项目。对相同的思想领袖进行了两轮修改后的德尔菲调查,以寻求对最相关项目的共识。对各个项目的内容有效性进行了分析,并将项目内容有效性极佳(指数大于 0.78)的项目列为初级医疗实践的循证标准:来自澳大利亚大陆各州的 26 位思想领袖(回复率:87%)完成了一次定性访谈和两轮修改后的德尔菲共识调查。确定的项目分为三个领域:业务、临床和实施。内容分析确定了 216 个由思想领袖发表或在实践中使用的项目。经过两轮共识审查,97 个项目(45 个业务项目、33 个临床项目和 19 个实施项目)获得了极佳的共识评级。将这些项目合并到标准化工具中,量表-内容效度指数平均值大于 0.90,这被认为是极好的内容效度:本研究确定了澳大利亚初级保健营养学实践中基于证据的过程和结果评估的最低报告标准。将这些标准纳入标准化工具,可为整个营养学队伍制定基准,并有助于更广泛地了解营养学对公共卫生的影响。
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
Minimum reporting standards for process and outcomes assessments for private practice dietitians working in Australian primary care: The Thought Leader Consensus study.

Aim: To identify minimum reporting standards for assessing the processes and outcomes of Australian primary care dietetics practice.

Methods: A sequential, mixed-method, exploratory process with peer-nominated Australian 'thought leaders'. A literature review was undertaken to identify possible standards, followed by semi-structured qualitative interviews with thought leaders. Content analysis was used to identify a comprehensive group of items that could inform evidence-based reporting standards. Two rounds of a modified Delphi survey were conducted with the same thought leaders to seek consensus on the most relevant items. Individual items were analysed for content validity, and those with a rating of excellent item-content validity (index >0.78) were included as evidenced-based standards for primary care practice.

Results: Twenty-six thought leaders (response rate: 87%) from all mainland Australian states completed a qualitative interview and two rounds of modified-Delphi consensus surveys. Items were identified and categorised into three domains: business, clinical, and implementation. Content analysis identified 216 items published or used in practice by the thought leaders. After two rounds of consensus review, 97 items (45 business, 33 clinical, and 19 implementation) achieved excellent consensus ratings. Combining these items into a standardised tool, the scale-content validity index average was >0.90, which is considered excellent content validity.

Conclusions: This study has identified minimum reporting standards for evidence-based process and outcome assessments in primary care dietetics practice in Australia. Incorporating such standards into a standardised tool could enable benchmarking across the dietetics workforce and contribute to a broader understanding of the dietetic impact on public health.

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
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
How do plant-based milks compare to cow's milk nutritionally? An audit of the plant-based milk products available in Australia. Food intake in an Australian Aboriginal rural community facing food and water security challenges: A cross-sectional survey. The test-retest reliability and validity of food photography and food diary analyses. What have equity and human rights got to do with dietetics? Foodservice strategies for reducing athlete illness at the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
×
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