Barriers and enablers in the implementation of a standardised process for nutrition care: findings from a multinational survey of dietetic professionals in 10 countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To explore the barriers and enablers experienced by nutrition and dietetic professionals in the implementation of the standardised Nutrition Care Process (NCP) across 10 different countries. NCP related beliefs, motivations and values were investigated and compared. METHODS: A validated online survey was disseminated to nutrition and dietetics professionals in 10 countries in the local language during 2017. Cross-sectional associations and differences between countries were explored for level of implementation, barriers/enablers and attitudes/motivation among the respondents. RESULTS: Higher NCP implementation was associated with greater occurrence of enabling aspects, as well as fewer occurrences of barriers. The most common enabler was 'recommendation by the national dietetic association' (69%) and the most common barrier was 'lack of time' (39%). A longer experience of NCP use was associated with a more positive attitude towards all NCP aspects. Differences between countries were identified, regarding both the occurrence of barriers/enablers and attitudes/motivations. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation efforts need to be tailored to country-specific contexts when implementing a new standard of care framework among nutrition and dietetic professionals. Additional research is needed to further assess the management and workplace strategies to support the development of nutrition and dietetics professionals in multidisciplinary healthcare organisations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it