ArticleNutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia2025
A study of professional practices, attitudes and barriers to blended tube feeding in Australia and New Zealand.
Article in Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A study of professional practices, attitudes and barriers to blended tube feeding in Australia and New Zealand.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025Article
- A Narrative Review of Home Enteral Nutrition in Australia with a Focus on Blended Tube Feeding.Nutrients · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis study investigates the utilisation of blended tube feeding by health professionals in Australia and New Zealand, assessing factors influencing its implementation following the Australasian Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition blended tube feeding consensus statement.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted targeting health professionals across Australia and New Zealand. The survey comprised 35-questions including multiple choice, Likert scales and open-ended responses, to gain insights into blended tube feeding practices and perspectives. The effect of the health professional factors on outcomes was explored in pairs with a series of Chi-squared tests. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using standard univariate logistic regression. An exploratory content analysis was used to code the open-ended text responses to the survey questions which were then categorised and further synthesised into overarching themes.
resultsOut of 89 health professionals who completed the survey, the majority were dietitians, 63% reported managing fewer than five patients using blended tube feeding within their services. Parental request was the leading reason for adoption. Notable barriers included clinician time constraints, resource limitations and a lack of formal guidelines. Some health professionals considered the primary risk associated with blended tube feeding to be poor growth and/or weight loss. Professional development was pivotal in increasing confidence and advocating for blended tube feeding, with significant correlations observed between blended tube feeding training and clinical practice.
conclusionsThis study emphasises the essential role of education, resource availability and institutional policy in promoting blended tube feeding practices for health professionals. Findings suggest that focusing on professional development and standardised resources could significantly enhance knowledge, confidence and competence of health professionals in blended tube feeding application. The outcomes point towards the need for a coordinated approach to support evidence-based blended tube feeding practices, aligning with the Australasian Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition blended tube feeding resources and recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.