Barriers and facilitators to nutritional risk screening in primary care and intervention components to address these barriers and facilitators
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
One-third of community-dwelling Canadians aged 65 and older are at increased nutritional risk, the risk of poor dietary intake and nutritional status 1 with consequences including increased frailty, decreased quality of life, increased hospitalization, and higher mortality rates 1 .Identification and treatment can mitigate these outcomes.Nutritional risk starts in the community, making primary care the ideal location for nutritional risk screening 2 .Understanding barriers and facilitators to nutritional risk screening in primary care and identifying intervention components to address them is therefore important.The peer-reviewed and grey literature were searched for these barriers and facilitators using "aged OR senior* OR older adults" AND "nutrition* risk OR malnutrition OR undernutrition" AND "screen*" AND "community OR general practice OR primary care."The databases PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health were searched.The Cochrane Library, National Institute for Clinical Evidence, Guidelines International Network, Guideline Central, Practice-Based Evidence in Nutrition, and Dietitians of Canada websites were also searched.A regular Google search was then performed, with the first ten pages of search results reviewed.Publications were screened for relevance.Key informants consisting of health care professionals working in primary care were asked to identify additional barriers and facilitators and intervention components.The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) 3 was used to classify the barriers and facilitators.Intervention components were identified from the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy 4 .Nine relevant barriers and nine relevant facilitators were identified.They were located within the following 12 domains of the TDF: knowledge; skills; social/professional role and identity; beliefs about capabilities; beliefs about consequences; motivation and goals; environmental context and resources; social influences; emotions; memory, attention and decision processes; behavioural regulation; and nature of the behaviours.Regarding intervention components from the EPOC taxonomy, educational materials and meetings can address the first nine of the 12 listed previously.Inter-professional education can address social/professional role and identity; and motivation and goals.Reminders can address memory, attention, and decision processes; and environmental context and resources.Patient-mediated interventions can address environmental context and resources; and nature of the behaviours.Local opinion leaders can address social influences; and environmental context and resources.Communities of practice can address social influences.Tailored interventions and local consensus process can address behavioural regulation.The TDF can examine the barriers and facilitators to nutritional risk screening of older adults in primary care.The EPOC taxonomy can identify intervention components to address them.Identification and classification of these barriers and facilitators and identification of intervention components can aid in the development and implementation of interventions designed to improve rates of nutritional risk screening in primary care.Identification of nutritional risk before it progresses to malnutrition may reduce morbidity and mortality.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 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 ».