How diet modification challenges are magnified in vulnerable or marginalized people with diabetes and heart disease: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Diet modification is an important part of self-management for patients with diabetes and/or heart disease (including coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation). Many health care providers and community-based programs advise lifestyle and diet modification as part of care for people with these conditions. This report synthesizes qualitative information on how patients respond differently to the challenges of diet modification. Qualitative and descriptive evidence can illuminate challenges that may affect the success and equitable impact of dietary modification interventions. OBJECTIVES: To (a) examine the diet modification challenges faced by diabetes and/or heart disease patients; and (b) compare and contrast the challenges faced by patients who are members of vulnerable and nonvulnerable groups as they change their diet in response to clinical recommendations. DATA SOURCES: This report synthesizes 65 primary qualitative studies on the topic of dietary modification challenges encountered by patients with diabetes and/or heart disease. Included papers were published between 2002 and 2012 and studied adult patients in North America, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand. REVIEW METHODS: Qualitative meta-synthesis was used to integrate findings across primary research studies. RESULTS: Analysis identified 5 types of challenges that are common to both vulnerable and nonvulnerable patients: self-discipline, knowledge, coping with everyday stress, negotiating with family members, and managing the social significance of food. Vulnerable patients may experience additional barriers, many of which can magnify or exacerbate those common challenges. LIMITATIONS: While qualitative insights are robust and often enlightening for understanding experiences and planning services in other settings, they are not intended to be generalizable. The findings of the studies reviewed here--and of this synthesis--do not strictly generalize to the Ontario (or any specific) population. This evidence must be interpreted and applied carefully, in light of expertise and the experiences of the relevant community. CONCLUSIONS: Diet modification is not simply a matter of knowing what to eat and making the rational choice to change dietary practices. Rather, diet and eating practices should be considered as part of the situated lives of patients, requiring an individualized approach that is responsive to the conditions in which each patient is attempting to make a change. Common challenges include self-discipline, knowledge, coping with everyday stress, negotiating with family members, and managing the social significance of food. An individualized approach is particularly important when working with patients who have vulnerabilities. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Health care providers often encourage people with diabetes and/or heart disease to change their diet. They advise people with diabetes to eat less sugar, starch, and fat. They advise people with heart disease to eat less fat and salt. However, many patients find it difficult to change what they eat. This report examines the challenges people may face when making such changes. It also examines the special challenges faced by people who are vulnerable due to other factors, such as poverty, lack of education, and difficulty speaking English. Five themes were common to all people who make diet changes: self-discipline, knowledge, coping with stress, negotiating with family members, and managing the social aspect of food. Members of vulnerable groups also reported other challenges, such as affording fresh fruit and vegetables or understanding English instructions. This report may help health care providers work with patients more effectively to make diet changes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».