ArticleNutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia2025
Translating digital health services for nutrition care management of chronic conditions in outpatient settings: A multi-stakeholder e-Delphi study.
Article in Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating function availability and user satisfaction with nutrition apps: user-generated content analysis and text mining study.Nutrition journal · 2026Article
- Translating digital health services for nutrition care management of chronic conditions in outpatient settings: A multi-stakeholder e-Delphi study.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo identify and achieve expert consensus on the most important and feasible strategies to implement digital health services for nutrition care management of chronic conditions in outpatient settings.
methodsDeterminants and strategies for implementing digital health services for nutrition care management were identified in line with the literature and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. These were presented to team leaders and senior clinicians, as well as dietetic and allied health directors in a two-round e-Delphi process. Consensus was reached when strategies were rated very important/feasible by at least 75% of respondents, calculated by the median, interquartile range and frequency. Following the two survey rounds, a final prioritisation survey was distributed to participants, where participants were asked to prioritise their top strategy for each determinant, which was analysed by frequency calculations.
resultsTwenty participants participated in round one of the survey and 18 completed the final prioritisation round. Following the two rounds, 3 strategies did not meet consensus for importance and 7 strategies did not meet consensus for feasibility out of 25 strategies presented. Nine strategies were prioritised following the survey rounds. Key concepts of the strategies that met consensus and were prioritised related to (i) adhering to quality of care with effective evaluation processes; (ii) providing options for digital health upskilling and support; and (iii) individualising patient care.
conclusionTeam leaders and senior clinicians as well as dietetic and allied health directors have indicated that there are many important digital health strategies yet not all are feasible to implement within current resourcing and systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.