Attitudes and Perceptions of Blenderized Tube Feed Use Among Physicians and Advanced Practice Providers.

JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition Pub Date : 2021-11-01 Epub Date: 2021-03-05 DOI:10.1002/jpen.2069
Kathleen Eustace, Lillian Cole, Lauren Hollaway
{"title":"Attitudes and Perceptions of Blenderized Tube Feed Use Among Physicians and Advanced Practice Providers.","authors":"Kathleen Eustace,&nbsp;Lillian Cole,&nbsp;Lauren Hollaway","doi":"10.1002/jpen.2069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Blenderized tube feeds (BTFs) have increased in popularity among enteral patients and their caregivers as an alternative to commercial formula. Motivations include ingredient flexibility, increased tolerance, and inclusion in family meals. Research has explored the attitudes and perceptions of patients, caregivers, and registered dietitian nutritionists but not those of physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate their attitudes and perceptions of BTFs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey created via Research Electronic Data Capture tools was distributed to physicians and APPs to evaluate clinical practice characteristics, experience, knowledge, and perceptions of BTFs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Survey response rate was 17.3% (n = 206). Half of respondents reported familiarity with BTFs, but 95% of respondents had received no formal training regarding BTFs. Physicians reported higher levels of confidence in BTF knowledge than APPs. However, the overall level of confidence in BTF knowledge was poor, with a majority of respondents (73.3% [n = 151]) reporting either \"not very confident\" or \"not confident at all.\" The most perceived benefits included tailoring diet to better fit the patients' needs (70.9% [146]) and psychological benefits (59.2% [122]). Barriers that most concerned respondents included tube occlusions (59.7% [123]) and nutrition inadequacy (47.6% [98]). χ<sup>2</sup> Analysis revealed no relationship between type of provider and perceived benefits or barriers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A majority of physicians and APPs are willing to support BTF use but lack education or guidance, resulting in poor confidence. Increased familiarity with BTF use and awareness of available education materials are required to help physicians and APPs support patients utilizing BTFs.</p>","PeriodicalId":520701,"journal":{"name":"JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition","volume":" ","pages":"1755-1761"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/jpen.2069","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jpen.2069","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/3/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Blenderized tube feeds (BTFs) have increased in popularity among enteral patients and their caregivers as an alternative to commercial formula. Motivations include ingredient flexibility, increased tolerance, and inclusion in family meals. Research has explored the attitudes and perceptions of patients, caregivers, and registered dietitian nutritionists but not those of physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate their attitudes and perceptions of BTFs.

Methods: A survey created via Research Electronic Data Capture tools was distributed to physicians and APPs to evaluate clinical practice characteristics, experience, knowledge, and perceptions of BTFs.

Results: Survey response rate was 17.3% (n = 206). Half of respondents reported familiarity with BTFs, but 95% of respondents had received no formal training regarding BTFs. Physicians reported higher levels of confidence in BTF knowledge than APPs. However, the overall level of confidence in BTF knowledge was poor, with a majority of respondents (73.3% [n = 151]) reporting either "not very confident" or "not confident at all." The most perceived benefits included tailoring diet to better fit the patients' needs (70.9% [146]) and psychological benefits (59.2% [122]). Barriers that most concerned respondents included tube occlusions (59.7% [123]) and nutrition inadequacy (47.6% [98]). χ2 Analysis revealed no relationship between type of provider and perceived benefits or barriers.

Conclusion: A majority of physicians and APPs are willing to support BTF use but lack education or guidance, resulting in poor confidence. Increased familiarity with BTF use and awareness of available education materials are required to help physicians and APPs support patients utilizing BTFs.

医生和高级实践提供者对混合管饲使用的态度和看法。
背景:混合管饲(BTFs)在肠内患者及其护理人员中越来越受欢迎,作为商业配方的替代品。动机包括配料的灵活性,增加的容忍度,以及融入家庭聚餐。研究探讨了患者、护理人员和注册营养师的态度和看法,但没有探讨医生和高级实践提供者(app)的态度和看法。本研究的目的是评估他们对btf的态度和看法。方法:通过研究电子数据采集工具创建一份调查问卷,分发给医生和app,以评估临床实践特征、经验、知识和对btf的看法。结果:调查回复率为17.3% (n = 206)。一半的受访者表示熟悉btf,但95%的受访者没有接受过关于btf的正式培训。医生对BTF知识的信任度高于app。然而,对BTF知识的总体信心水平很差,大多数受访者(73.3% [n = 151])表示“不太自信”或“根本不自信”。最被认为的益处包括调整饮食以更好地适应患者的需求(70.9%[146])和心理益处(59.2%[122])。受访者最关心的障碍包括管道堵塞(59.7%[123])和营养不足(47.6%[98])。χ2分析显示,提供者类型与感知到的利益或障碍之间没有关系。结论:大部分医生和app愿意支持BTF的使用,但缺乏教育和指导,导致信心不足。提高对BTF使用的熟悉程度和对现有教育材料的认识,有助于医生和app支持患者使用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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信