Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Aktuelle Ernährungsmedizin 2023; 48(01): 27-36
DOI: 10.1055/a-1895-2430
Original Article

Monitoring/Evaluation in Nutritional Therapy for People with Gastrointestinal Complaints: Online Survey with Dietitians

Monitoring/Evaluation in der Ernährungstherapie bei Menschen mit Gastrointestinalen Beschwerden: Online-Erhebung unter Ernährungsberater*innen
Eveline Zbären 
1   Nutrition & Dietetics, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Bern, Switzerland
,
Srividhya Padmanabhan
2   Department of Mathematics, Seminar for Statistics, ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
,
Sandra Jent 
1   Nutrition & Dietetics, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Bern, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Dietary interventions are part of the therapy approach in gastrointestinal disorders. However, guidance on what outcomes to assess (in the form of a core outcome set) for dietitians to demonstrate the effectiveness of their interventions is lacking. This study provides preliminary work for the development of a core outcome set to systematically assess outcomes of nutrition therapy in clients with gastrointestinal complaints by examining how monitoring/evaluation are conducted by dietitians.

Methods This is a quantitative online survey for dietitians to assess the current situation around the globe concerning monitoring and evaluation. An online survey with 26 questions divided into six sections (rated importance, implementation, resources/obstacles, instrument requirements, statistical questions and experiences with the Nutrition Care Process) was developed. The questionnaire was available in English, French and German.

Results In total 740 responses were analysed. Monitoring/evaluation of clients with gastrointestinal symptoms was rated by 98% to be quite important to very important. The systematic implementation of monitoring and evaluation according to a concept/model was rated by 57% as 'rather often' to 'very often/always'.

Conclusion Dietitians are aware of the importance of the measurability of dietetic interventions. The most dominant barriers are lacking time in daily practice and lack of a suitable monitoring/evaluation instrument. A suitable core outcome set in the field of gastrointestinal complaints is needed to increase systematic monitoring/evaluation.

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung Diätetische Interventionen sind Teil des Therapieansatzes bei gastrointestinalen Beschwerden. Es fehlt jedoch eine Anleitung für Ernährungsberater*innen welche Ergebnisse/Outcomes (in Form eines Core Outcome Sets) zu bewerten sind, damit die Wirksamkeit ihrer ernährungstherapeutischen Interventionen nachweisbar sind. Diese Studie stellt die Vorarbeit für die Entwicklung eines Core Outcome Sets dar, zur systematischen Erfassung von ernährungstherapeutischen Outcomes bei Klienten mit gastrointestinalen Beschwerden. Die Durchführung von Monitoring/Evaluation durch die Ernährungsberater*innen wird untersucht.

Methoden Es handelt sich um eine quantitative, weltweit durchgeführte Online-Erhebung unter Ernährungsberater*innen, zur Bewertung der aktuellen Situation in Bezug auf Monitoring und Evaluation. Es wurde ein Online-Erhebung mit 26 Fragen entwickelt, unterteilt in sechs Bereiche (bewertete Wichtigkeit, Durchführung, Ressourcen/Hindernisse, Anforderungen an ein Instrument, statistische Fragen und Nutrition Care Process Erfahrungen). Der Fragebogen stand in Englisch, Französich und Deutsch zur Verfügung.

Ergebnisse Insgesamt wurden 740 Antworten ausgewertet. Monitoring/Evaluation in der Beratung von Klienten mit gastrointestinalen Symptomen wurde von 98% als ziemlich wichtig bis sehr wichtig eingestuft. Die systematische Durchführung von Monitoring und Evaluation anhand Konzepten/Modellen wurde von 57% als 'eher oft' bis 'sehr oft/immer' bewertet.

Schlussfolgerung Ernährungsberater*innen sind sich der Wichtigkeit der Messbarkeit von diätetischen Interventionen bewusst. Die größten Hindernisse ist der Zeitmangel in der täglichen Praxis und das Fehlen eines geeigneten Instruments zur Durchführung von Monitoring/Evaluation. Um das systematische Monitoring/Evaluation zu fördern, wird ein geeignetes Core Outcome Set im Bereich der gastrointestinalen Beschwerden benötigt.

Key words

outcome - gastrointestinal - dietitian - monitoring - evaluation

Schlüsselwörter

Ergebnis - Gastrointestinal - Ernährungsberater - Monitoring - Evaluation

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 05 February 2022

Accepted: 13 July 2022

Article published online:
09 December 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literature

  • 1 Forsythe LP, Frank LB, Workman TA. et al. Health researcher views on comparative effectiveness research and research engagement. J Comp Eff Res 2017; 6: 245-256 DOI: 10.2217/cer-2016-0063.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Vanherle K, Werkman AM, Baete E. et al. Proposed standard model and consistent terminology for monitoring and outcome evaluation in different dietetic care settings: Results from the EU-sponsored IMPECD project. Clin Nutr 2018; 37: 2206-2216 DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2018.08.040.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kurmann S, Trostler N, Tiebe J. et al. The importance of Outcomes Management in Dietetics. Policy paper – EFAD Professional Practice Committee – 2020. EFAD. (Februar 2020). Im Internet http://www.efad.org/media/1973/policy-paper-outcomes-management_2020_04_15_formatted.pdfStand 03.02.2022
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Swan WI, Vivanti A, Hakel-Smith NA. et al. Nutrition Care Process and Model Update: Toward Realizing People-Centered Care and Outcomes Management. J Acad Nutr Diet 2017; 117: 2003-2014 DOI: 10.1016/j.jand.2017.07.015.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gäbler G, Coenen M, Lycett D. et al. Towards a standardized nutrition and dietetics terminology for clinical practice: An Austrian multicenter clinical documentation analysis based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)-Dietetics. Clin Nutr 2019; 38: 791-799 DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2018.02.031.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lövestam E, Steiber A, Vivanti A. et al. Use of the Nutrition Care Process and Nutrition Care Process Terminology in an International Cohort Reported by an Online Survey Tool. J Acad Nutr Diet 2019; 119: 225-241 DOI: 10.1016/j.jand.2018.09.002.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gäbler GJ, Coenen M, Bolleurs C. et al. Toward Harmonization of the Nutrition Care Process Terminology and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-Dietetics: Results of a Mapping Exercise and Implications for Nutrition and Dietetics Practice and Research. J Acad Nutr Diet 2018; 118: 13-20 DOI: 10.1016/j.jand.2016.12.002.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Verband der Diätassistenten – Deutscher Bundesverband e.V. (Hrsg) VDD-Leitlinie für die Ernährungstherapie und das prozessgeleitete Handeln in der Diätetik. Band 1 Manual für den German-Nutrition Care Process (G-NCP). 1. Auflage. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers,; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Hickman IJ, Cotugno J, Lassemillante A-CM. et al. Am I making a difference? Measuring dietetic outcomes in clinical practice. Eur J Clin Nutr 2015; 69: 1181-1183 DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2015.148.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cant R. What outcome measures do Australian dietitians use to evaluate nutrition education interventions with individual patients. Nutrition & Dietetics 2008; 65: 284-291 DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-0080.2008.00323.x.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H. et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials 2017; 18: 280 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Peyrin-Biroulet L, Cieza A, Sandborn WJ. et al. Development of the first disability index for inflammatory bowel disease based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Gut 2012; 61: 241-247 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300049.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bohm I, Kriegl I, Gäbler G. et al. Entwicklung eines standardisierten diätologischen Assessments für die Ernährungstherapie bei neurologischen Erkrankungen unter Verwendung der ICF-Diätetik. Ernährungs Umschau 2021; 68: 156-165 DOI: 10.4455/eu.2021.032.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bogner A, Littig B, Menz W. Experteninterviews. Eine Einführung in Theorie und Praxis einer Forschungsmethode. Qualitative Sozialforschung. Aufl. 2014. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Konrad K. Mündliche und schriftliche Befragung. Ein Lehrbuch. Bd. 4. Forschung, Statistik & Methoden. 6. Aufl. Landau: Empirische Pädagogik;; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Bauer N, Blasius J. Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Springer VS Handbuch. Wiesbaden: Springer VS; 2014
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011; 6: 42 DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Flick U. Sozialforschung. Methoden und Anwendungen; ein Überblick für die BA-Studiengänge. Bd. 55702. Rororo, Rowohlts Enzyklopädie. 4. Aufl. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag; 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Kohl M. Einführung in die statistische Datenanalyse mit R. 1. Aufl. London: Bookboon.com; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Lövestam E, Orrevall Y, Koochek A. et al. The struggle to balance system and lifeworld: Swedish dietitians’ experiences of a standardised nutrition care process and terminology. Health Sociology Review 2016; 25: 240-255 DOI: 10.1080/14461242.2016.1197783.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lewis SL, Wright L, Arikawa AY. et al. Etiology Intervention Link Predicts Resolution of Nutrition Diagnosis: A Nutrition Care Process Outcomes Study from a Veterans’ Health Care Facility. J Acad Nutr Diet 2021; 121: 1831-1840 DOI: 10.1016/j.jand.2020.04.015.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pt-Global. Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) 2014 Im Internet https://pt-global.org/pt-global/Stand: 19.04.2022
    PubMed
  • 23 Bian D, Shi Y, Jiang Y. et al. Combined Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment and body composition facilitates nutritional support in inflammatory bowel disease: an ambulatory study in Shanghai. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2018; 27: 1230-1238 DOI: 10.6133/apjcn.201811_27(6).0009.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 O’Sullivan TA, Lo J, Vivanti A. Predictors of nutrition care process and terminology use, applicability and importance within Asia-Pacific dietitians. Nutr Diet 2019; 76: 455-461 DOI: 10.1111/1747-0080.12467.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Vivanti A, Ferguson M, Porter J. et al. Increased familiarity, knowledge and confidence with Nutrition Care Process Terminology following implementation across a statewide health-care system. Nutrition & Dietetics 2015; 72: 222-231 DOI: 10.1111/1747-0080.12199.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Vivanti A, Lewis J, O’Sullivan TA. The Nutrition Care Process Terminology: Changes in perceptions, attitudes, knowledge and implementation amongst Australian dietitians after three years. Nutr Diet 2017; 75: 87-97 DOI: 10.1111/1747-0080.12347.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lövestam E, Vivanti A, Steiber A. et al. Barriers and enablers in the implementation of a standardised process for nutrition care: findings from a multinational survey of dietetic professionals in 10 countries. J Hum Nutr Diet 2020; 33: 252-262 DOI: 10.1111/jhn.12700.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lemon CC, Lacey K, Lohse B. et al. Outcomes monitoring of health, behavior, and quality of life after nutrition intervention in adults with type 2 diabetes. J Am Diet Assoc 2004; 104: 1805-1815 DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2004.09.024.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Morán Fagúndez LJ, Rivera Torres A, González Sánchez ME. et al. Diet history: Method and applications. Nutr Hosp 2015; 31 Suppl 3 57-61 DOI: 10.3305/nh.2015.31.sup3.8752.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Gäbler G, Lycett D, Gall W. Integrating a New Dietetic Care Process in a Health Information System: A System and Process Analysis and Assessment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19: 1-14 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052491.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar