Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026
A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Dietetic Outcome Measure Tool Pilot in a Community Eating Disorder Service.
СтатьяОценочное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sloan Steph, Sadler Jane, Woods Sharleen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Eating disorders (EDs) are associated with significant physical, psychological, and social impairments. Dietitians play a vital role in ED treatment, yet their impact is underreported.
AIM: To evaluate the pilot implementation of a novel dietetic outcome measure tool within a community ED service, with a focus on feasibility and acceptability.
METHODS: A mixed-methods evaluation was conducted over six months in 2024. Quantitative data were collected using a novel dietetic outcome measure tool being piloted within the service and analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with dietitians piloting the tool and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Quantitative outcome data from 102 patients were analysed to describe service level referral patterns, intervention focus, proposed outcomes, and perceived outcome achievement. Restrictive dietary patterns and malnutrition were identified as common dietetic concerns. Improving nutritional status and eating patterns were the most frequently identified dietetic outcomes. Outcome status was recorded for 54% of patients. Of those, twenty-six (47%) had a recorded outcome as 'met,' 21 (38%) as 'partially met,' and 8 (15%) as "not met." Qualitative findings are presented across 3 themes: (1) demonstrating professional value through outcome monitoring, (2) practical and organisational barriers to embedding outcome monitoring, and (3) balancing meaningful data collection with clinician burden.
CONCLUSION: Participants were supportive of routine outcome monitoring in principle. However, the absence of clearly defined outcome indicators and associated data limited the tool's ability to meaningfully evaluate the intervention's effectiveness. Improved integration within existing electronic systems, combined with clearer outcome indicators and complementary qualitative approaches, may reduce clinician burden while enhancing the feasibility, acceptability, and value of routine outcome monitoring within ED dietetic services.
AIM: To evaluate the pilot implementation of a novel dietetic outcome measure tool within a community ED service, with a focus on feasibility and acceptability.
METHODS: A mixed-methods evaluation was conducted over six months in 2024. Quantitative data were collected using a novel dietetic outcome measure tool being piloted within the service and analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with dietitians piloting the tool and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Quantitative outcome data from 102 patients were analysed to describe service level referral patterns, intervention focus, proposed outcomes, and perceived outcome achievement. Restrictive dietary patterns and malnutrition were identified as common dietetic concerns. Improving nutritional status and eating patterns were the most frequently identified dietetic outcomes. Outcome status was recorded for 54% of patients. Of those, twenty-six (47%) had a recorded outcome as 'met,' 21 (38%) as 'partially met,' and 8 (15%) as "not met." Qualitative findings are presented across 3 themes: (1) demonstrating professional value through outcome monitoring, (2) practical and organisational barriers to embedding outcome monitoring, and (3) balancing meaningful data collection with clinician burden.
CONCLUSION: Participants were supportive of routine outcome monitoring in principle. However, the absence of clearly defined outcome indicators and associated data limited the tool's ability to meaningfully evaluate the intervention's effectiveness. Improved integration within existing electronic systems, combined with clearer outcome indicators and complementary qualitative approaches, may reduce clinician burden while enhancing the feasibility, acceptability, and value of routine outcome monitoring within ED dietetic services.