|
|
||||||||
1 From the Discipline of General Practice, School of Medical Practice and Population Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia (LGN and CDP); and the Australian Food and Grocery Council, Callaghan, Australia (DCKR). DCKR was formerly a member of the Discipline of Nutrition and Dietetics, School of Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
2 Presented at the Third Heelsum International Workshop, held in Heelsum, the Netherlands, December 1012, 2001. 3 Reprints not available. Address correspondence to L Nicholas, PhD Candidate, Discipline of General Practice, University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308, Australia. E-mail: lisa.nicholas{at}studentmail.newcastle.edu.au.
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Objective: The objective was to determine qualitative factors that influence nutrition management by GPs and dietitians.
Design: A convenience sample of GPs and dietitians was surveyed using a qualitative questionnaire. The questionnaire related to issues including influences on the GPs decision to initiate nutrition management, barriers to providing nutrition counseling, influences on the GPs decision to refer to a dietitian, and barriers to referral.
Results: Fourteen of 20 GPs and 15 of 30 dietitians responded with usable data. The primary influence on a GPs decision to initiate nutrition management (GPs and dietitians responses) was the presentation of a patient who required nutrition advice. Barriers to providing nutrition counseling were time and knowledge (GP response), whereas dietitians saw time and lack of patient interest as issues. The primary influence on the GPs decision to refer to a dietitian was a patient presenting with complicated nutrition requirements (GP response), whereas dietitians considered a patient seeking nutrition knowledge as the key influencer. GPs identified cost to the patient as the main barrier to referring to a dietitian, whereas dietitians saw lack of knowledge of where to refer as the key issue.
Conclusions: The differing responses suggest that more research is required to understand what influences patient nutrition management by GPs and dietitians in Australia.
Key Words: Dietitian general practitioner nutritional advice qualitative survey barriers primary health care Australia
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
At the forefront of providing nutrition management to Australians are general practitioners (GPs) and dietitians. There were
17100 vocationally registered GPs in private practice in Australia during 199899 (4), and the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that during 19992000 there were
2400 dietitians employed within the health workforce (5). Eighty-seven percent of the Australian population consulted a GP during 199899 (4), and it is evident that GPs encounter many patients with chronic diseases that have nutrition in their etiology and management (6). In some cases, such as lipid disorder management, the number of patient encounters is increasing (7), providing opportunities for GPs to initiate nutrition management, disseminate nutrition information, or refer patients to other health professionals (2), such as dietitians.
However, studies both within and outside Australia have demonstrated that there are many influences that affect the GPs decision to provide nutrition counseling. These include infrastructural influences such as time and reimbursement, as well as issues relating to the GPs knowledge, skills, and confidence (810). Furthermore, overseas studies have identified barriers for referring to dietitians, including limited access to dietitians and concerns that dietitian counseling will be costly (1113). The most in-depth Australian study addressing patient nutrition management by GPs was completed more than a decade ago (10), and there is no evidence in Australia as to whether barriers affect GP referrals to dietitians.
The research reported here was initiated to fill some of the gaps in the Australian literature, and to understand what influences patient nutrition management by the GP and the dietitian. This article reports the initial qualitative pilot survey, which primarily asked questions about the influences on the GPs decision to initiate nutrition management, barriers to the provision of nutrition counseling, influences on the GPs decision to refer to a dietitian, and barriers to referral to a dietitian. The null hypotheses were that there are no influences on the GPs decision to initiate nutrition management or refer to a dietitian and that there are no barriers for providing nutrition counseling or referring to a dietitian.
| SUBJECTS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
400 GPs and 40 dietitians in the Newcastle region of New South Wales, Australia. The pilot survey was initiated to determine themes that would contribute to a larger survey. To do this, a convenience sample of 20 practicing GPs who were linked to the university and 30 dietitians who were members of the Regional Dietitians Group were asked to respond to a short qualitative questionnaire. Participants were asked to reply within 1 month, and after 2 wk a postal reminder was sent.
Survey instrument
The first part of the questionnaire consisted of demographic questions, including age, sex, and, if applicable, geographic area of practice, whether the respondents provided a primary health care service, and where this service was provided. The second part consisted of a series of open-ended questions that related to specific issues on patient nutrition management obtained from the literature. Participants were asked to provide up to 3 responses to each of these questions. The first 4 questions related to the hypotheses. Two other questions were included to further identify issues that may influence patient nutrition management by GPs and dietitians. These included how respondents would manage a patient who would benefit from nutrition counseling but was a precontemplator in the "stage-of-change" model and diagnoses that the respondent felt required nutrition management.
Ethics
The study received ethics approval from the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee.
Statistical analysis
Demographic data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using a 4-step process (organizing, shaping, summarizing, explaining) (14). Themes generated from the qualitative data were incorporated into a final survey instrument used in the second phase of the study (to be reported elsewhere). Reported here are the results from the qualitative first-stage pilot survey.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
It is evident from data gathered outside Australia that not all GPs provide nutrition counseling (8, 9, 11, 1517) and that there is some variation on how often this advice is provided (9, 12). Although the picture of patient nutrition management in Australia is currently unclear, the last major study, performed over a decade ago, concluded that there was a marked discrepancy between how often GPs felt they should be aware of patients diets and how often they actually were (10). Helman (18) has suggested that one of the reasons opportunities may be missed by GPs is because GPs tend to think of nutrition in terms of the chronic diseases. In this study, whereas both GP and dietitian respondents reported similar statements as to what would prompt GPs to initiate patient nutrition management, there were some differences in opinions when it came to disease states, with GPs opting for predominantly chronic disease states, whereas dietitians considered other conditions such as nutrition in pregnancy and gastrointestinal disorders. Helman (18) has suggested that GPs may require a broader understanding of nutrition opportunities that present to them within the general practice environment so that potential opportunities for patient nutrition management are not missed.
GP respondents identified time as the predominant barrier to providing nutrition counseling, as was identified in many other studies (810, 19, 20). The average time a GP spends with a patient in Australia is 14.6 min per consultation (6), whereas a study of 1030 US physicians found that when nutrition counseling was instigated, time spent on discussing dietary change was 5 or fewer minutes (8). If an Australian GP spent a similar amount of time as that spent in the US study (equivalent to one-third of an Australian consultation), there would be less time to spend on other issues (21). Furthermore, the fee-for-service system in Australia makes nutrition counseling unattractive (22), as it rewards many standard consultations more than an extended consultation, even if the time spent is equivalent.
Overseas studies have identified limited access to dietitians and concerns over the cost of counseling as issues for referring to a dietitian (11, 13, 19, 23). In Australia during 20002001, there were 2.3 referrals to all allied health professionals for every 100 GP patient encounters (7). Of these, dietitians received
1%, or 2.3 referrals per 10000 GP patient encounters (7). This referral rate was less than that to podiatrist/chiropodists, psychologists, dentists, and physiotherapists. There are more dietitians than podiatrists/chiropodists employed in Australia (5), and with diabetes (relevant for referral to both groups) being the fifth highest reason for referral to allied health professionals (7), it does suggest there are other impediments in referring a patient to a dietitian. Financial barriers appear to be a factor according to those GPs surveyed, with GPs rating the cost to the patient for counseling as well as lack of availability and access to subsidized services as barriers for referring to dietitians. In Australia dietitians are not covered under the Medicare bulk-billing scheme and are accessible only through either public health institution waiting lists or through full feepaying private practitioners. GPs may therefore not feel that they are able to initiate referral to a dietitian if they believe their patients are unable to wait for subsidized support (because limited subsidized services are available) or pay for the support. This presents barriers for GPs to refer to dietitians.
This qualitative survey suggests that patient nutrition management issues are complex and there is a need for further research on the dietitian-GP interface to validate the conclusions. Such research needs to address both infrastructural and attitudinal issues if effective patient nutrition management is to be appropriately implemented in Australia.
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
K. Wynn, J. D. Trudeau, K. Taunton, M. Gowans, and I. Scott Nutrition in primary care: Current practices, attitudes, and barriers Can Fam Physician, March 1, 2010; 56(3): e109 - e116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. M. van Dillen, G. J Hiddink, M. A Koelen, C. de Graaf, and C. M. van Woerkum Understanding nutrition communication between health professionals and consumers: development of a model for nutrition awareness based on qualitative consumer research Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, April 1, 2003; 77(4): 1065S - 1072. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A S. Truswell, G. J Hiddink, and J. Blom Nutrition guidance by family doctors in a changing world: problems, opportunities, and future possibilities Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, April 1, 2003; 77(4): 1089S - 1092. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |