Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36217703›Full record

ReviewNutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia2023

Minimum reporting standards for process and outcomes assessments for private practice dietitians working in Australian primary care: The Thought Leader Consensus study.

Peter W Clark, Lauren T Williams, Bryce Brickley, Lauren Ball

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Private Practice Dietetics Workforce Development: What 45 Thought Leaders Agree On.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026
    Article
  2. The business of dietetics: Results from the national Australian private practice dietetics dataset.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2026
    Article
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Workforce development in private practice dietetics: experiences and perceptions of experienced practitioners.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
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.

Peter W ClarkGriffith University School of Allied Health Sciences, Parklands Drive, Southport, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1526-5311
Lauren T WilliamsGriffith University School of Allied Health Sciences, Parklands Drive, Southport, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7860-0319
Bryce BrickleyGriffith University School of Allied Health Sciences, Parklands Drive, Southport, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7093-7793
Lauren BallGriffith University School of Allied Health Sciences, Parklands Drive, Southport, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5394-0931

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo identify minimum reporting standards for assessing the processes and outcomes of Australian primary care dietetics practice.

methodsA sequential, mixed-method, exploratory process with peer-nominated Australian 'thought leaders'. A literature review was undertaken to identify possible standards, followed by semi-structured qualitative interviews with thought leaders. Content analysis was used to identify a comprehensive group of items that could inform evidence-based reporting standards. Two rounds of a modified Delphi survey were conducted with the same thought leaders to seek consensus on the most relevant items. Individual items were analysed for content validity, and those with a rating of excellent item-content validity (index >0.78) were included as evidenced-based standards for primary care practice.

resultsTwenty-six thought leaders (response rate: 87%) from all mainland Australian states completed a qualitative interview and two rounds of modified-Delphi consensus surveys. Items were identified and categorised into three domains: business, clinical, and implementation. Content analysis identified 216 items published or used in practice by the thought leaders. After two rounds of consensus review, 97 items (45 business, 33 clinical, and 19 implementation) achieved excellent consensus ratings. Combining these items into a standardised tool, the scale-content validity index average was >0.90, which is considered excellent content validity.

conclusionsThis study has identified minimum reporting standards for evidence-based process and outcome assessments in primary care dietetics practice in Australia. Incorporating such standards into a standardised tool could enable benchmarking across the dietetics workforce and contribute to a broader understanding of the dietetic impact on public health.

Indexed as

DieteticsOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePrimary Health CareAustralasian PeopleAustraliaDelphi TechniqueHumansNutritionistsOutcome Assessment, Health CarePrivate PracticeResearch Designcompetency standardsDelphi methodmethodologyprivate practiceprofessional competencequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID36217703
PMCPMC10952596

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.