↓ Skip to main content

Telehealth methods to deliver multifactorial dietary interventions in adults with chronic disease: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Telehealth methods to deliver multifactorial dietary interventions in adults with chronic disease: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0170-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jaimon T. Kelly, Dianne P. Reidlinger, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Katrina L. Campbell

Abstract

The long-term management of chronic diseases requires adoption of complex dietary recommendations, which can be facilitated by regular coaching to support sustained behaviour change. Telehealth interventions can overcome patient-centred barriers to accessing face-to-face programs and provide feasible delivery methods, ubiquitous and accessible regardless of geographic location. The protocol for this systematic review explains the methods that will be utilised to answer the review question of whether telehealth interventions are effective at promoting change in dietary intake and improving diet quality in people with chronic disease. A structured search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychINFO, from their inception, will be conducted. We will consider randomised controlled trials which evaluate complex dietary interventions in adults with chronic disease. Studies must provide diet education in an intervention longer than 4 weeks in duration, and at least half of the intervention contact must be delivered via telehealth. Comparisons will be made against usual care or a non-telehealth intervention. The primary outcome of interest is dietary change with secondary outcomes relating to clinical markers pre-specified in the methodology. The process for selecting studies, extracting data, and resolving conflicts will follow a set protocol. Two authors will independently appraise the studies and extract the data, using specified methods. Meta-analyses will be conducted where appropriate, with parameters for determining statistical heterogeneity pre-specified. The GRADE tool will be used for determining the quality of evidence for analysed outcomes. To date, there has been a considerable variability in the strategies used to deliver dietary education, and the overall effectiveness of telehealth dietary interventions for facilitating dietary change has not been reviewed systematically in adults with chronic disease. A systematic synthesis of telehealth strategies will inform the development of evidence-based telehealth programs that can be tailored to deliver dietary interventions specific to chronic disease conditions. PROSPERO CRD42015026398.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Unknown 107 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 29 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 15%
Psychology 11 10%
Computer Science 5 5%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 33 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 November 2016.
All research outputs
#7,179,345
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,272
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,191
of 390,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#41
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 390,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.