Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35991669›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022

Using document analysis to revise competency frameworks: Perspectives from the revision of competency standards for dietitians.

Louise M Allen, Claire Palermo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Development of the Physical Activity Research Opportunities (PARO) framework.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Private Practice Dietetics Workforce Development: Experiences and Perceptions of Australian Academic Educators.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Article
  5. Understanding Primary Care Dietitians' Experiences and Perspectives on Weight Management Practice Using the COM-B Model.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Article
  6. Preparing Graduate Dietitians for Private Practice: Analysing Publicly Available Curriculum Information From Accredited Australian Dietetic Courses.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Allied Health Professions Accreditation Standards for Work Integrated Learning: A Document Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  9. 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

2 authors.

Louise M AllenMonash Centre for Professional Development and Monash Online Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Claire PalermoMonash Centre for Scholarship in Health Education, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction/Objective: In resource poor environments, low cost methods are needed to review competency standards to ensure they remain reflective of the current health workforce. This study aims to show how document analysis can be used to inform the revision of competency frameworks and standards. Methods: Altheide and Schneider's document analysis was modified to revise the National Competency Standards for Dietitians in Australia. This involved an eight-step process: (i) define the goal, (ii) identify documents for analysis, (iii) choose the analysis approach, (iv) engage with the documents and perform the analysis, (v) draft revisions, (vi) stakeholder engagement, (vii) final revisions, (viii) dissemination. Documents were sought through a combination of literature searches, review of document databases, and targeted document sourcing for documents relevant to contemporary dietetic practice. Framework analysis was used to analyse the data, with the thematic framework including four categories: (i) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, (ii) Consumer perspectives, (iii) Contemporary and future dietetic roles, and (iv) Contemporary wording and structure of competency. All included documents were indexed and charted which informed revisions to the standards. Results: Sixty-seven documents were reviewed. Four new competency standards were added to address the skills and attributes required of dietitians to work effectively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. One competency standard was modified to include an individualized approach as this was deemed important by consumers but not previously included in the standards. The revised standards also place greater emphasis on dietitian's role in teaching and learning. In addition, there are now multiple standards that refer to advocacy, sustainability is referenced multiple times, a new standard specific to advanced care planning has been included, and their structure and wording was revised to ensure it was contemporary. Conclusion: Using document analysis to revise competency standards offers an efficient and low-cost method to update competency standards in a resource poor environment. This addresses a key issue with competency standards where unless revised frequently they can become rapidly out of date. Further research is needed to learn if document analysis can be used as a method to create rather than revise competency standards.

Indexed as

competency frameworkcompetency standarddocument analysisframework analysisqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID35991669
PMCPMC9387722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.