Knowledge and clinical practice of ASPEN registered dietitian nutritionist members regarding blenderized tube feedings.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Nutrition in Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-20 DOI:10.1002/ncp.11145
Terry Brown, Teresa Johnson, Allison Gomes, Hamed Samavat, Laura Byham-Gray
{"title":"Knowledge and clinical practice of ASPEN registered dietitian nutritionist members regarding blenderized tube feedings.","authors":"Terry Brown, Teresa Johnson, Allison Gomes, Hamed Samavat, Laura Byham-Gray","doi":"10.1002/ncp.11145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Blenderized tube feedings (BTFs) are used by patients/caregivers who report improvements in gastrointestinal tolerance compared with standard commercial feedings. Despite positive outcomes, registered dietitian nutritionists or international equivalents (RDN/Is) hesitate to recommend BTFs. We aimed to determine if an association exists between dietitian characteristics and willingness to recommend BTFs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A BTF-specific survey (N = 157) assessed for validity and reliability was administered to the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) RDN/I members. Binary logistic regression analyses examined the association between age, years of clinical practice, BTF training/education, patient population served, and willingness to recommend BTFs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response rate was 4.3% of ASPEN RDN/I members. Most respondents were White females with a median age of 39.0 years and 12 years of clinical experience. Although 98.7% of respondents expressed a willingness to support and 73% to recommend BTFs, 60% were not using BTFs in clinical practice. For 94.8% of RDN/Is, the primary reason for BTF use was patient/caregiver requests. After adjustment for age and years of clinical practice, RDN/Is who served pediatric populations (odds ratio [OR] = 4.28; 95% CI, 1.52-12.09) or used three or more professional resources (OR = 2.49; 95% CI, 1.12-5.57), industry-sponsored resources (OR = 3.15; 95% CI, 1.39-7.15), or one or more experiential learning resources (OR = 3.14; 95% CI, 1.38-7.17) were more likely to recommend BTFs whereas those serving adults were less likely to recommend BTFs (OR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.95).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pediatric RDN/Is and individuals with BTF-specific education/training were more inclined to recommend BTFs.</p>","PeriodicalId":19354,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition in Clinical Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition in Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ncp.11145","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Blenderized tube feedings (BTFs) are used by patients/caregivers who report improvements in gastrointestinal tolerance compared with standard commercial feedings. Despite positive outcomes, registered dietitian nutritionists or international equivalents (RDN/Is) hesitate to recommend BTFs. We aimed to determine if an association exists between dietitian characteristics and willingness to recommend BTFs.

Methods: A BTF-specific survey (N = 157) assessed for validity and reliability was administered to the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) RDN/I members. Binary logistic regression analyses examined the association between age, years of clinical practice, BTF training/education, patient population served, and willingness to recommend BTFs.

Results: The response rate was 4.3% of ASPEN RDN/I members. Most respondents were White females with a median age of 39.0 years and 12 years of clinical experience. Although 98.7% of respondents expressed a willingness to support and 73% to recommend BTFs, 60% were not using BTFs in clinical practice. For 94.8% of RDN/Is, the primary reason for BTF use was patient/caregiver requests. After adjustment for age and years of clinical practice, RDN/Is who served pediatric populations (odds ratio [OR] = 4.28; 95% CI, 1.52-12.09) or used three or more professional resources (OR = 2.49; 95% CI, 1.12-5.57), industry-sponsored resources (OR = 3.15; 95% CI, 1.39-7.15), or one or more experiential learning resources (OR = 3.14; 95% CI, 1.38-7.17) were more likely to recommend BTFs whereas those serving adults were less likely to recommend BTFs (OR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.95).

Conclusion: Pediatric RDN/Is and individuals with BTF-specific education/training were more inclined to recommend BTFs.

ASPEN 注册营养师成员对搅拌式管道喂食的了解和临床实践。
背景:与标准的商业喂食相比,混合管喂食(BTF)可改善患者/护理人员的胃肠道耐受性。尽管效果良好,但注册营养师或国际同等资格人员(RDN/Is)在推荐 BTFs 时却犹豫不决。我们旨在确定营养师的特征与推荐 BTFs 的意愿之间是否存在关联:我们对美国肠外肠内营养学会(ASPEN)的 RDN/I 会员进行了一项针对 BTF 的调查(N = 157),评估了调查的有效性和可靠性。二元逻辑回归分析检验了年龄、临床执业年限、BTF 培训/教育、服务的患者群体和推荐 BTF 的意愿之间的关联:ASPEN RDN/I 会员的回复率为 4.3%。大多数受访者为白人女性,年龄中位数为 39.0 岁,临床经验为 12 年。虽然 98.7% 的受访者表示愿意支持 BTF,73% 的受访者表示愿意推荐 BTF,但 60% 的受访者并未在临床实践中使用 BTF。94.8%的RDN/Is使用BTF的主要原因是患者/护理人员的要求。在对年龄和临床实践年限进行调整后,为儿科人群提供服务(几率比 [OR] = 4.28;95% CI,1.52-12.09)或使用三种或三种以上专业资源(OR = 2.49;95% CI,1.12-5.57)、行业赞助资源(OR = 3.15;95% CI,1.39-7.15)或一种或多种体验式学习资源(OR = 3.14;95% CI,1.38-7.17)的人更有可能推荐 BTF,而那些为成人服务的人则不太可能推荐 BTF(OR = 0.33;95% CI,0.12-0.95):结论:儿科RDN/Is和接受过BTF专门教育/培训的人员更倾向于推荐BTF。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
9.70%
发文量
128
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: NCP is a peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary publication that publishes articles about the scientific basis and clinical application of nutrition and nutrition support. NCP contains comprehensive reviews, clinical research, case observations, and other types of papers written by experts in the field of nutrition and health care practitioners involved in the delivery of specialized nutrition support. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信