Background: Dietary management of type 2 diabetes is considered as a key remission and management strategy. This review explored clinicians' perceived barriers and enablers to the dietary management of adults with type 2 diabetes in primary care. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ASSIA were searched from 1980 to 16 June 2020. Results: Of 2021 records, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria, describing the 14 domains of the refined Theoretical Domains Framework. The data synthesised to the domains of environmental context and resources, intentions and beliefs about capabilities were considered most trustworthy, closely followed by knowledge, behavioural regulation and beliefs about consequences. Two-thirds of studies cited time for staff training or patient education as major constraints to type 2 diabetes management. Clinicians also identified lack of patient engagement and poor dietary adherence as issues. Despite this, clinician confidence about giving dietary advice to patients was high. With further exploration, knowledge gaps were apparent and feelings of despondency as a result of poor outcomes were visible. Conclusions: This review revealed four clinician behaviours: (2) the perception of the dietitian; (2) the definition of a clinician qualified to give dietary advice; (3) clinician belief in dietary management as a treatment; and (4) clinician belief in a patient's capability to change dietary behaviour. These behaviours, if challenged and changed, have the potential to improve dietary management and outcomes for people with type 2 diabetes in primary care. K E Y W O R D S dietary management, type 2 diabetes, clinician, perceptions 1042
Background: Adults and children who are enterally tube-fed can experience adverse gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS). Observational data suggests that blended diets (BD) could mitigate such symptoms, with potential to improve quality of life and clinical outcomes. We present a novel systematic review examining the impact of BD, compared to commercial feeds, on GIS of adults and children who are tube-fed. Methods: The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021261147). Four electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2021. Search terms included 'tube-fed', 'blended diet' and 'formula'. Inclusion criteria were intervention studies comparing blended and commercial feeds using quantitative measures of GIS. Heterogeneity of outcome measures precluded meta-analysis; therefore, a narrative synthesis was conducted. Results: Six papers (n = 219), including two randomised control trials (RCT) and four single arm pre-post studies, were identified. Equal numbers studied in-and out-patients, adults and children. Risk of bias was notable for all studies. Equivocal and insufficient evidence prevented consensus on outcomes of vomiting, gagging, oral intake, bloating and constipation. However, one RCT and two single arm pre-post studies suggest that diarrhoea symptoms may be improved on BD. Conclusions: Diarrhoea is prevalent in tube-fed populations and associated with adverse outcomes. Improvements in diarrhoea symptoms attributed to BD may be clinically important. Our findings are congruous with the wider observational evidence base, and support recommendations of the British Dietetic Association. BD may pose a viable alternative to commercial formula, and may mitigate symptoms of diarrhoea for adults and children who are tube-fed.
WPL cannot be understood as a unitary concept. Dietitians engage with WPL differently across their careers. Future visions of WPL, especially explicit post-graduate career and education frameworks, must accommodate these differences to retain the highest calibre dietitians. The implications of a period of learning 'maintenance' rather than CPD among experienced dietitians offers a topic for further research, particularly as the workforce ages.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.