TY - JOUR
T1 - End-user perceptions of a patient-and family-centred intervention to improve nutrition intake among oncology patients
T2 - A descriptive qualitative analysis
AU - Marshall, Andrea P.
AU - Tobiano, Georgia
AU - Roberts, Shelley
AU - Isenring, Elisabeth
AU - Sanmugarajah, Jasotha
AU - Kiefer, Deborah
AU - Fulton, Rachael
AU - Cheng, Hui Lin
AU - To, Ki Fung
AU - Ko, Po Shan
AU - Lam, Yuk Fong
AU - Lam, Wang
AU - Molassiotis, Alex
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding for this study was provided through a Griffith University and Hong Kong Polytechnic Collaborative grant. The funding body had no role in data collection, analysis, interpretation of data and writing the manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Author(s).
PY - 2020/7/21
Y1 - 2020/7/21
N2 - Background: People with cancer are at high risk of malnutrition. Nutrition education is an effective strategy to improve patient outcomes, however, little is known regarding the impact of family and/or carer involvement in nutrition education and requires investigation. The purpose of the study was to evaluate PIcNIC (Partnering with families to promote nutrition in cancer care) intervention acceptability from the perspective of patients, families and health care providers. Methods: A descriptive qualitative study was undertaken at an inpatient and an outpatient hospital setting in Australia and an outpatient/home setting in Hong Kong. A patient-and-family centred intervention including nutrition education, goals setting/nutrition plans, and food diaries, was delivered to patients and/or families in the inpatient, outpatient or home setting. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore perceptions of the intervention. 64 participants were interviewed; 20 patients, 15 family members, and 29 health care professionals. Data were analysed using deductive and inductive content analysis. Results: Two categories were identified; 1) 'context and intervention acceptability'; and 2) 'benefits of patient-and family-centred nutrition care'. Within each category redundant concepts were identified. For category 1 the redundant concepts were: the intervention works in outpatient settings, the food diary is easy but needs to be tailored, the information booklet is a good resource, and the intervention should be delivered by a dietitian, but could be delivered by a nurse. The redundant concepts for category 2 were: a personalised nutrition plan is required, patient and family involvement in the intervention is valued and the intervention has benefits for patients and families. Converging and diverging perceptions across participant groups and settings were identified. Conclusions: In this paper we have described an acceptable patient-and family-centred nutrition intervention, which may be effective in increasing patient and family engagement in nutrition care and may result in improved nutrition intakes. Our study highlights important contextual considerations for nutrition education; the outpatient and home setting are optimal for engaging patients and families in learning opportunities.
AB - Background: People with cancer are at high risk of malnutrition. Nutrition education is an effective strategy to improve patient outcomes, however, little is known regarding the impact of family and/or carer involvement in nutrition education and requires investigation. The purpose of the study was to evaluate PIcNIC (Partnering with families to promote nutrition in cancer care) intervention acceptability from the perspective of patients, families and health care providers. Methods: A descriptive qualitative study was undertaken at an inpatient and an outpatient hospital setting in Australia and an outpatient/home setting in Hong Kong. A patient-and-family centred intervention including nutrition education, goals setting/nutrition plans, and food diaries, was delivered to patients and/or families in the inpatient, outpatient or home setting. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore perceptions of the intervention. 64 participants were interviewed; 20 patients, 15 family members, and 29 health care professionals. Data were analysed using deductive and inductive content analysis. Results: Two categories were identified; 1) 'context and intervention acceptability'; and 2) 'benefits of patient-and family-centred nutrition care'. Within each category redundant concepts were identified. For category 1 the redundant concepts were: the intervention works in outpatient settings, the food diary is easy but needs to be tailored, the information booklet is a good resource, and the intervention should be delivered by a dietitian, but could be delivered by a nurse. The redundant concepts for category 2 were: a personalised nutrition plan is required, patient and family involvement in the intervention is valued and the intervention has benefits for patients and families. Converging and diverging perceptions across participant groups and settings were identified. Conclusions: In this paper we have described an acceptable patient-and family-centred nutrition intervention, which may be effective in increasing patient and family engagement in nutrition care and may result in improved nutrition intakes. Our study highlights important contextual considerations for nutrition education; the outpatient and home setting are optimal for engaging patients and families in learning opportunities.
KW - Cancer
KW - Community healthcare
KW - Medical oncology
KW - Nutritional support
KW - Outpatient clinics
KW - Patient-centered care
KW - Person-centred care
KW - Qualitative research
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088868737&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s40795-020-00353-8
DO - 10.1186/s40795-020-00353-8
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:85088868737
SN - 2055-0928
VL - 6
JO - BMC Nutrition
JF - BMC Nutrition
IS - 1
M1 - 29
ER -