ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Adoption of the Nutrition Care Process in Manual and Software Formats: A Systematic Review Across International Dietetic Settings.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe Nutrition Care Process (NCP) is a standardized model designed to improve the quality and consistency of nutrition care. However, its implementation remains variable across settings, influenced by factors such as time constraints, training, peer support, and technological infrastructure. This systematic review aims to synthesize the available evidence on barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of the NCP/NCPT and to explore how different documentation formats may influence its adoption.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines and included peer-reviewed studies published between 2009 and 2024 in English or Greek. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. Study quality was assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NIH) tool. A total of 11 reports representing eight studies were included, comprising cross-sectional, cohort, qualitative, and pilot designs.
resultsThe most commonly reported barriers to NCP implementation were lack of training, time constraints, and limited technological infrastructure. Key facilitators included support from national dietetic associations, peer collaboration, and access to electronic health records (EHRs). Electronic formats were more frequently described as supporting improved documentation practices, practitioner confidence, and workflow efficiency, whereas manual approaches were commonly reported as time-consuming and less structured.
conclusionsDigital integration of the NCP may support more consistent documentation practices and improved workflow processes; however, the current evidence is largely observational and heterogeneous. Evidence regarding patient-level outcomes remains limited, and definitive conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of implementation formats cannot be drawn. Further high-quality research is needed to evaluate the long-term clinical impact of NCP implementation.
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.