Improving research capacity of practising dietitians through interactive sessions: evidence from a pilot study

Chughtai, Amina; Tanweer, Afifa

doi:10.1080/00219266.2020.1756897

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most frequent constructs measured, with seven tools each, were attitudes 2,15,17,20,23 and behaviours 2,14,[17][18][19]21,22 (Table 1). Only two tools 21,24 measured skills (via objective knowledge assessments) (Tables 1 and 2). One tool 18 measured barriers and supports to behaviours (Tables 1 and 2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most commonly used tool was the Research Capacity in Context (RCC) (five papers 18,23,[29][30][31] ), followed by various versions and updates of the Dietitian Research Involvement Survey (DRIS) (four papers 14,[25][26][27] ) (Table 2). Four tools 17,[23][24][25] were each used in only a single paper (Table 2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We found 22 papers 2,14,15,[18][19][20][22][23][24]26,27,[29][30][31][32]39,40 that utilised the 15 scored tools in dietitians (Table 2). The most commonly used tool was the Research Capacity in Context (RCC) (five papers 18,23,[29][30][31] ), followed by various versions and updates of the Dietitian Research Involvement Survey (DRIS) (four papers 14,[25][26][27] ) (Table 2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We located 15 scored tools that had been utilised in dietitians 2,14,15,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] (Table 2). The number of tools classified into each topic and construct is presented in Table 1.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Survey tools for measuring research or evidence‐based practice constructs in dietetics: A narrative review

Hand

2022

J Human Nutrition Diet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Exact quantification of research conducted by dietitians and tracking the effectiveness of interventions or training programs to increase either evidence‐based practice (EBP) or research behaviours have been hampered by the variety of tools used to measure these constructs. Methods In this narrative review, we identified and classified the various tools previously used to measure constructs related to research and/or EBP in the dietetics profession, and to summarise estimates of the constructs measured. Results We identified and classified 15 scored tools that had been used at least once in the dietetics profession and extracted tool parameter estimates from 22 resulting papers. We also identified six unscored tools and three qualitative studies. The most frequent constructs measured were attitudes and behaviours. Very few tools measured objective knowledge (skills). No objective measures of research outputs were identified. Several tools were closely related to one another. Conclusions Even when tools were used across multiple papers, reporting method varied making comparisons difficult. This review should encourage future researchers to utilise existing tools when possible, and encourage the development or adaptation and testing of tools that fill identified gaps. The constructs measured by the tools identified may also provide a starting point for the development of educational interventions aiming to increase research or EBP skills among dietitians. Only by using consistent tools will the dietetics profession be able to track the progress in increasing research conduct and EBP implementation over time.

show abstract