Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35677784›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Technology-supported models of nutrition care: Perspectives of health service providers.

Amandine Barnett, Jaimon T Kelly, Charlene Wright, Katrina L Campbell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Use and Perception of Video Consultations Among Swedish Dietitians Before and After COVID-19 Onset.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Harnessing delegation and technology to identify and manage malnutrition in a digital hospital: An implementation study.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Amandine BarnettCentre for Online Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1509-1729
Jaimon T KellyCentre for Online Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Charlene WrightMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2918-6032
Katrina L CampbellMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To determine the perspectives to the adoption, scale-up, sustainability, and spread of technology-supported models of nutrition care, in hospital and ambulatory care settings. Methods: Thirty-one health service providers participated in individual semi-structured interviews from a tertiary health service in Queensland, Australia. The Non-adoption, Abandonment, and challenges to the Scale up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) framework, designed to evaluate technology-supported models' success, informed the qualitative design. Results: Key findings were that technology-supported models of care could benefit many chronic condition patient groups; dietitians are well suited to adopting this technology: and the value proposition in creating efficiency gains in the health service. However, challenges of transitioning and sustainability were identified. Perceived enablers for technology supported models of care included: previous intentions for technology supported models of care prior to the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic; opportunity for clinicians to complete higher valued tasks; and integration of technology systems and assisted staff roles. Perceived barriers included: suitability for patients is dependent on experience and ability to use technology, varied confidence by clinicians when conducting clinical assessments; high investment required for set up and ongoing maintenance; and patients desire for adopting face-to-face care over technology. Health service providers perceived that embedding and adapting such models requires maintenance of high-quality service and continued research. Conclusions: Health service providers recognize adopting, scaling, and sustaining technology-supported models of nutrition care benefits patients, clinicians, and health services in general. Robust clinical trials and health service evaluations of technology-supported models of care, across practice settings are now needed.

Indexed as

chronic diseaseDigital healtheHealthhealth servicesmHealthnutritiontechnologytelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID35677784
PMCPMC9168874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.