OBJECTIVES: To compare the dietary intakes of Dutch nutrition and dietetics students with the Dutch RDA and the Dutch National Food Consumption Survey (DNFCS), and to assess whether dietary intake changes during education.DESIGN: Cross-sectional and longitudinal research (2004-2010).SETTING: Data collection by 7 d dietary record and questionnaire.SUBJECTS: Dutch nutrition and dietetics students.RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-two first-year and 216 fourth-year students were included. One hundred and thirty-three students in three cohorts were assessed twice. Of first-year students, >80 % met the RDA for all macronutrients. Of these students only 37 % met the RDA for fibre and in 43 % intake of saturated fat was too high. Fourth-year students more often met the RDA for fruits (55 %) and vegetables (74 %) compared with first-year students (32 % and 40 %, respectively). Intake of fruits and vegetables of both first- and fourth-year students was much higher than that of DNFCS participants (where 2 % and 7 %, respectively, met the corresponding RDA). Only <25 % of fourth-year students met the RDA for Fe, Se and vitamin D. In the cohorts, dietary intake for all macronutrients stabilised from the first to the fourth year (>80 %). Intakes of dietary fibre, Ca, Mg, Se, riboflavin, niacin, fruits, vegetables and fish improved significantly during education.CONCLUSIONS: Dietary intake of nutrition and dietetics students is much better than that of DNFCS participants and improved during education. However, there is still a gap between actual dietary intake and the RDA, especially for Fe, Se and vitamin D.
LINK
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Dietetic interventions contribute to certain health objectives and other outcomes, but are mostly part of a multimodal and multidisciplinary approach what makes evaluating the actual effects of dietitians' involvement rather complex. Although monitoring and outcome evaluation (M&OE) can provide routine data to prove the effectiveness of dietetic interventions, this has not been established yet in different dietetic settings.METHODS: A comprehensive framework for M&OE in dietetics was developed by dietetic experts from five European higher education institutes for dietetics in the course of the EU sponsored project "Improvement of Education and Competences in Dietetics (IMPECD)".RESULTS: Firstly, clear definitions on M&OE are proposed to facilitate the use of consistent terminology, with a specific emphasis on the term "impact" covering macro-level outcomes such as cost-effectiveness. Secondly, the Dietetic Care Process (DCP) was merged into a logic model to demonstrate the position of M&OE in relation to intervention planning and implementation, in both group and individual settings. Thirdly, selecting the appropriate indicators is indispensable to monitor and evaluate outcomes, and requires a high level of dietitians' critical reasoning. A categorized overview of indicators is provided to support this process. Lastly, the consortium developed a checklist to give dietitians a handle on what elements could be included in their M&OE plan and trigger them to perform M&OE in practice.CONCLUSIONS: Innovative M&OE models may help dietitians to demonstrate their effectiveness in improving clinical outcomes and justify their role in health care.
DOCUMENT
Using a Dietetic Care Process (DCP) can lead to improved application of evidence-based guidelines and critical thinking in dietetics. One aim of the project Improvement of Education and Competences in Dietetics (IMPECD) is to develop a unified DCP for international educational purposes. Therefore, a comparison of European DCPs was needed.A concise literature search and semi-structured interviews with experts representing the full EFAD (European Federation of the Associations of Dietitians) member states were conducted from June to October 2017.16 out of 23 EFAD member states responded (70%) from which 13 indicated to use a DCP. Eight different DCPs were found, with four to six core steps and three graphical representations. In one country the use of a dietetic process is indicated by law. The DCPs have more similarities than differences as they follow the same principles. Differences in language or form may not limit the improvement in collaboration and international exchange in dietetic practice. These results provide a good basis for the development of a unified DCP for educational purposes.
DOCUMENT
