ArticleNutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia2026
Healthcare professionals' perspectives regarding the foundations of a patient reported measure for adults receiving Home Enteral Tube Feeding-A Delphi study.
Article in Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives regarding the foundations of a patient reported measure for adults receiving Home Enteral Tube Feeding-A Delphi study.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2026Article
- Placement poverty: Why it matters to all dietitians.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo seek input on the development of a tool for measuring treatment burden in Home Enteral Tube Feeding by healthcare professional consultation.
methodsA modified two-round online Delphi study recruited experts via an open call to professional organisations and snowball sampling. Experts were healthcare professionals involved in the provision, coordination, or management of care for adults receiving Home Enteral Tube Feeding. In Round 1, participants rated 14 topics grouped under three themes derived from prior qualitative research with Australian Home Enteral Tube Feeding patients and a literature review. Agreement was defined as the proportion of the top two ratings on a five-point Likert scale. Ratings and free-text comments were summarised and presented in Round 2, where topics and themes were re-rated and ranked for usefulness to clinical practice and service management.
resultsForty-five dietitians and nurses completed Round 1 and 32 self-nominated for Round 2, which was completed by 18 respondents. In Round 1, agreement for importance (n = 33-41, 75%-98%) and relevance (n = 28-40, 72%-95%) was high across all topics. In Round 2, agreement for usefulness to practice was 88%-100% (n = 14-18) and for management, 60%-100% (n = 3-5). When prioritised, the theme 'Essential Treatment Work' ranked highest (n = 9, 60%), with three of its six topics placed in the top tertile by at least half of respondents.
conclusionClinicians perceived measurement of the topics patients previously described as contributing to Home Enteral Tube Feeding burden as important for improving clinical care. Findings support use of these topics to develop a targeted, patient-reported measure that produces clinically meaningful data.
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.