ArticleJournal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association2026
A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Dietetic Outcome Measure Tool Pilot in a Community Eating Disorder Service.
Article in Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEating disorders (EDs) are associated with significant physical, psychological, and social impairments. Dietitians play a vital role in ED treatment, yet their impact is underreported.
aimTo evaluate the pilot implementation of a novel dietetic outcome measure tool within a community ED service, with a focus on feasibility and acceptability.
methodsA mixed-methods evaluation was conducted over six months in 2024. Quantitative data were collected using a novel dietetic outcome measure tool being piloted within the service and analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with dietitians piloting the tool and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsQuantitative outcome data from 102 patients were analysed to describe service level referral patterns, intervention focus, proposed outcomes, and perceived outcome achievement. Restrictive dietary patterns and malnutrition were identified as common dietetic concerns. Improving nutritional status and eating patterns were the most frequently identified dietetic outcomes. Outcome status was recorded for 54% of patients. Of those, twenty-six (47%) had a recorded outcome as 'met,' 21 (38%) as 'partially met,' and 8 (15%) as "not met." Qualitative findings are presented across 3 themes: (1) demonstrating professional value through outcome monitoring, (2) practical and organisational barriers to embedding outcome monitoring, and (3) balancing meaningful data collection with clinician burden.
conclusionParticipants were supportive of routine outcome monitoring in principle. However, the absence of clearly defined outcome indicators and associated data limited the tool's ability to meaningfully evaluate the intervention's effectiveness. Improved integration within existing electronic systems, combined with clearer outcome indicators and complementary qualitative approaches, may reduce clinician burden while enhancing the feasibility, acceptability, and value of routine outcome monitoring within ED dietetic services.
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.