Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures Administered by Dietitians in the Outpatient Setting: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how patients perceive their health and the experience with the dietitian is fundamental to providing patient-centred care. The types of patient reported measures (PRMs) used by outpatient dietitians is unclear. Guidance about use of PRMs for dietitians is also lacking. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise evidence regarding the use of PRMs by dietitians in the outpatient setting and evaluate the methodological quality of studies evaluating the psychometric properties of PRMs. Eight databases were searched systematically for studies of dietitians working in the outpatient setting and administering a PRM. Forty-four studies were evaluated and described 58 different PRMs. These included direct nutrition related (n = 12 studies), clinical (n = 21 studies), and health-related quality of life PRMs (n = 24 studies); 1 study documented use of a patient-reported experience measure. A large range of PRMs are used by outpatient dietitians. Of the most common PRMs, the majority are administered in similar populations to the original validation study. Dietitians should use a combination of 3 PRMs: a generic health-related quality of life tool, an experience measure, and at least 1 clinical or direct nutrition-related measure. This will enable dietitians to fully capture the impact of their care on patients.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".