Current practice, perceived barriers and resource needs related to measurement of dietary intake, analysis and interpretation of data: A survey of Australian nutrition and dietetics practitioners and researchers

Dietary Behavior Assessments in Children-A Mixed-Method Research Exploring the Perspective of Pediatric Dieticians on Innovative Technologies

Background

Assessing dietary intake and eating behavior in children is challenging, owing to children's undeveloped food knowledge and perception of portion sizes. Additionally, caregivers cannot always provide complete surrogate information. Consequently, validated dietary behavior assessment methods for children are limited, but technological innovations offer opportunities for the development of new tools. One of the first steps in the developmental process of a newly developed pediatric dietary assessment tool includes an alignment of the needs and preferences of pediatric dieticians (PDs) as potential users.

Objectives

To explore opinions of Dutch PDs about traditional dietary behavior assessment methods for children and potential technological innovations to replace or support traditional methods.

Methods

Ten PDs participated in semistructured interviews (total of 7.5 h) based on 2 theoretical frameworks, and data saturation was reached after the seventh interview. Interview transcripts were inductively coded in an iterative process, and overarching themes and domains were identified. Interview data were then used as input for an extensive online survey completed by 31 PDs who were not involved in the initial interview rounds.

Results

PDs discussed their perspective on dietary behavior assessments in 4 domains: traditional methods, technological methods, future methods, and external influences on these methods. Generally, PDs felt that traditional methods supported them in reaching their desired goals. However, the time needed to obtain a comprehensive overview of dietary intake behavior and the reliability of conventional methods were mentioned as limitations. For future technologies, PDs mention the ease of use and engaging in children as opportunities.

Conclusions

PDs have a positive attitude toward the use of technology for dietary behavior assessments. Further development of assessment technologies should be tailored to the needs of children in different care situations and age categories to increase its usability among children, their caregivers, and dietician. Curr Dev Nutr 2023;xx:xx.

“Dietitians May Only Have One Chance”—The Realities of Treating Obesity in Private Practice in Australia

Introduction: Overweight and obesity are the leading contributors to non-fatal burden of disease in Australia. Very low energy diets (VLEDs) comprising of meal replacement products (MRP) effectively induce substantial weight loss in people with obesity, yet they are rarely used as a first line treatment. Dietitians in private practice are perfectly placed to administer treatments for obesity; however, little is known about the preferred interventions used or their attitudes to incorporating VLEDs and MRPs into their treatments for overweight and obesity. Methods: This study used descriptive qualitative methods to explore accredited practicing dietitians’ (APDs’) perspectives and practices regarding obesity and obesity interventions, including the use of VLEDs and MRPs. Qualitative in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 dietitians who had experience in private practice and in treating obesity. Transcribed interviews were analysed thematically using the technique of template analysis. Results: In the context within which dietitians’ practice was found to be a barrier to using evidence-based practice (EBP) for obesity treatment, four overarching themes were found. These were: (1) patient-centred care is the dietitians’ preferred intervention model; (2) VLEDs promote weight loss in specific situations; (3) systemic barriers constrain effective dietetic practice and equitable access to all, and (4) successful outcomes are predicated on working outside of systemic barriers. Conclusion: Dietitians in private practice are well placed and able to provide life-enhancing and evidence-based treatments for overweight and obesity and associated chronic disease in the community. However, systemic barriers need to be addressed to provide equitable access to effective care irrespective of socio-economic status.

Validation of an electronic food intake tool and its usability and efficacy in the healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

Accurate dietary intake data are critical to nutrition care planning. Commonly used food record charts (FRC) are paper-based, time consuming, require nutrient analysis estimations, and may provide limited accuracy. The present study aimed to validate Mobile Intake® (MI) (an electronic food intake tool incorporating the five-point visual scale and providing automatic nutrient analysis) for usability and efficacy in quantifying dietary intake in the healthcare setting.

METHODS

Two research stages within two tertiary hospitals included: (1) examining criterion validity and efficiency of dietary intake quantification using FRC and MI compared to the gold standard weighed food record (WFR) in a controlled environment and (2) comparing efficiency and effectiveness of FRC and MI in usual care conditions.

RESULTS

In Stage 1, dietary intake was calculated (n = 90) with a significant difference across all methods (FRC, MI and WFR) for energy (p = 0.04), but not between MI and WFR (p = 1.00). The time taken for MI (40 s) was significantly less than FRC (174 s) and WFR (371 s) (p < 001). In Stage 2, dietary intake was determined (n = 210) using FRC and MI. Sufficient data to complete dietary analysis were available for 35% of meals from FRC compared to 98% from MI. Calculated mean daily energy intake (4764 ± 1432 kJ vs. 6636 ± 2519 kJ, p = 0.002) and mean daily protein intake (62.9 ± 12.7 g vs. 78.5 ± 22.2 g, p = 0.007) were significantly lower with FRC compared to MI. Average time to complete MI was 14.4 seconds.

CONCLUSIONS

MI demonstrates efficacy as an accurate measure of dietary intake compared to WFR, as well as usability, providing faster, more accurate and comprehensive real-time intake data in practice than FRC.