↓ Skip to main content

Hospital staffs’ perceptions of an electronic program to engage patients in nutrition care at the bedside: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Hospital staffs’ perceptions of an electronic program to engage patients in nutrition care at the bedside: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0495-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shelley Roberts, Andrea Marshall, Wendy Chaboyer

Abstract

Advancements in technology are enabling patients to participate in their health care through self-monitoring and self-management of diet, exercise and chronic disease. Technologies allowing patients to participate in hospital care are still emerging but show promise. Our team is developing a program by which hospitalised patients can participate in their nutrition care. This study explores hospital staffs' perceptions of using this technology to engage patients in their care. This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews with hospital staff providing routine nutrition care to patients (i.e. dietitians, nutrition assistants, nurses, doctors and foodservice staff) from five wards at a tertiary metropolitan teaching hospital in Australia. The hospital currently uses an electronic foodservice system (EFS) for patient meal ordering, accessed through personal screens at the bedside. Participants were shown the EFS program on an iPad and asked about their perceptions of the program, with questions from a semi-structured interview guide. Staff were interviewed individually or in small focus groups. Interviews lasted 15-30 min and were audio recorded and later transcribed. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Nineteen staff participated in interviews. Overall, they expressed positive views of the EFS program and wanted it to be implemented in practice. Their responses formed three themes, each with a number of subthemes: 1) Enacting patient participation in practice; 2) Optimising nutrition care; and 3) Considerations for implementing an EFS program in practice. Staff thought the program would improve various aspects of nutrition care and enable patient participation in care. Whilst they raised some concerns, they focused on overcoming barriers and facilitating implementation if the program were to be adopted into practice. Staff found an EFS program designed to engage patients in their nutrition care acceptable, as they saw benefits to using it for both patients and staff. Staff recognised characteristics of the program itself, as well as allocation of roles and responsibilities in operationalising it, were pivotal for successful implementation in practice. Their perspectives will inform program and intervention design, and implementation and evaluation strategies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 34 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 12%
Psychology 8 8%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 37 37%
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 17 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,009,265
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#692
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,355
of 312,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#16
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 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 receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 312,359 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.