ArticleDigital health
A mixed-methods examination of early care and education providers' routine and pandemic use of digital technology for nutrition training: Insights for digital nutrition training policies and practices.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: This study examined early care and education (ECE) providers' routine and pandemic-related use of digital technology for nutrition training and explored their attitudes and perceptions toward digital technology using the Technology Acceptance Model as a guiding framework to inform future training delivery. Methods: We employed a convergent mixed-methods design consisting of a national survey and semi-structured qualitative interviews with licensed ECE providers. Inclusion criteria were licensed/registered ECE providers, English-speaking, age ≥18, and currently caring for children for pay. Exclusion criteria included unlicensed providers and inactive programs. Survey data was analyzed using chi-square tests to examine differences by variable type and logistic regressions to examine predictors of digital technology use. Qualitative analysis underwent thematic analysis using a blended deductive/inductive approach guided by the Braun and Clarke multi-step method. Integrated analyses were conducted and shown through a joint display to contextualize the findings. Results: Most ECE providers (97.9%) had access to high-speed internet, and 95.1% used electronic devices for work-related purposes. Approximately 83.2% had received nutrition training since the COVID-19 pandemic began, with 53.2% accessing training via virtual platforms. ECE providers enrolled in the Child and Adult Care Food Program were more likely to receive nutrition training digitally than those not enrolled (OR = 24.0, p < .001). As ECE providers' age increases, the odds of receiving training digitally decreased (OR = 0.52, p = .043). Providers reported that digital training improved accessibility and flexibility. However, the study also identified challenges such as reduced social connectedness, technical difficulties, and limited knowledge or awareness of digital nutrition training programming. Conclusion: Findings suggest that digital technology enhances access to nutrition training for ECE providers, yet barriers remain. Future efforts should focus on expanding digital training programming, improving technological support, and balancing digital and in-person training to optimize hands-on learning and social connectedness.
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.