Why is there 2 configurations necessary to see reductions in concession %DNS products?

Overall an interesting study. Suggest tightening up the methodology section, as it was at times difficult to follow/understand the process due to the many variables. Review the second sentence in Methods section - may be missing a linking word (ie. assessed by rating)? In Results section suggest putting brackets around ratings (ie. mobilization (4), context (3) and policy (3)...). Again, there are many variables and it may help the reader comprehend the findings more easily.

Really interesting and well done project!

Well-written abstract.

Fascinating initiative and important for dietetic practice by promoting a wholistic approach to improving patient health.
Introduction: First two sentences somewhat superfluous and could have a stronger connection to individuals who are dialysis dependent. This is interesting: "Increasingly across Canada, intradialytic exercise is used to increase physical activity and mitigate dialysis related symptoms such as restless legs, cramping and potentially improve mood."
Objective(s) and Method(s): Appears that this was a program evaluation. Perhaps clarification is needed in the objectives so that there is stronger alignment with Method(s). If this was indeed an evaluation, then clarify it if was formative, summative, etc.
Recommendation: accept with minor revisions.

When did the project took place exactly ?

It is not clear if the results presented reflect the perception of both parents and caregivers (sentences 2 and 3 in the results section)

Good abstract. Preliminary data provided.

Please, specifiy the statistical analysis you performed.
Is the average intake correspond to the percentage of food served, consummed by the participants or is it the percentage of their energy requirements that is covered?
When you say "the diagnosis", is it the reason for the fall or the reason of admission ?
The study is aimed to evaluate the relationship between fall, intake and nutritional status. The results failed to present any relationship from my point of view.

At times, it was difficult to follow the abstract. Some sentences were incomplete or missing important context. Overall, a stronger justification for the issue could have been made. I am not sure of the purpose of many of the variables examined since the focus was only on malnutrition; greater explanation for the reader/audience would be helpful in the conclusion and significance section.

This is a well-written abstract. The results section was strong, except for the last sentence re: LoS; this was hard to follow and could be written more clearly. In the conclusion, I am not sure the last sentence can be drawn from this study.

The dates of the project and duration give the sense this was a last minute endeavour. I know we should not reject but I do not quite understand how this one qualifies as being useful research, even within the facility it was conducted. It feels like a first step to something but I will need the second reviewer to lend some insight to perhaps how this one could be considered a good item to have as a poster.

Overall, a good abstract. At times, repetitive, e.g., methods are a repeat of the objectives, and much of the conclusion was restating the results. For methods, additional details on how the reviews and scans were completed would add value to the abstract. For conclusions, extending the findings to the context would have been interesting, e.g., the scan was Canada-wide, were any of the programs available in Saskatoon?

A really important topic at this time. Great concept to investigate and I really like the approach to look for best-practice and scan the literature to see how best to move forward with something that is likely going to be needed soon.

This is a well-written abstract. One minor point of clarification, in the 'Systemic Approach Used' section, the timeframe unit is missing, i.e., the 18-month period. For the results section, it would have been nice to see results re: the mentorship meetings. Were these evaluated? How many were offered? Did trainees appreciate them?

A few items: In methods, need to state it was 18-month period (missing month). There are statistics provided for the post-learning onboarding however not for the "respondents agreed" the on-boarding met needs, please include a numerical value to support this response. If any qualitative responses provided on the feedback survey, that could lend depth to the results as well.

This was an interesting abstract. For those not familiar with the area, I think more background could be provided in the introduction to describe the issue and the importance of the research. The methods were well-written, and the results section followed up with relevant details. The author could have elaborated more in the 'significance to dietetics' section.

It seems there should be more detail about the 2 different growing locations as the growing environment is identified as an influencer on protein content. Additionally, were the results at each site similar to each other or is there significant variability within one site location too? I might have missed that is what is being listed as the results or it wasn't clear to me. That seems an important detail to clarify. The project has some valuable information I just think there needs to be more of these included in the write up.

The methods section needs more detail. I would like to know who you recruited. Some brief information about the types of questions asked on the survey would be beneficial. I'd also like to know what the main learning outcomes of the education session was. I was a bit confused in the results section about the confidence rating in managing acute pancreatitis. How did this relate to nutrition?

Good job! Suggest expanding methodology to explain the survey in more detail (ie. type of survey, # of questions). Great layout of results: succinct and well-summarized. Suggest strengthening conclusions to give clarity (ie. Providing nutrition education on....changed hospitalists perceptions...). Consider changing the word "confirm" to "suggest".

In your objectives, it wasn't clear that your participants were going to be mostly dietitians. Perhaps some more specificity about the types of HCPs you were recruiting would be appropriate. What was your sample size? I probably wouldn't say this: "While it was not possible to conclusively determine factors associated with comfort/confidence of health care providers due to the sample size of various factors". No study is ever conclusive, so I don't think this is important. For your significant results and close-to-significant results, you didn't specify the direction of the relationship or in the case of provinces, which provinces had more/less comfort with talking about EOL. I am assuming that having policies and having team conversations made people more comfortable, but you should specify.

Interesting study on a topic most HCP struggle with. Suggest moving descriptive stat findings (gender/age) to results section.

In the results, rather than "The median amount of energy " it should be "The percent of total energy". The same is true in the second sentence of the results. You're talking about the % of fat, sugar, sodium intake coming from these foods. There are a few grammatical errors. Another round of proofreading would help.

Objectives: suggest tightening up wording to improve clarity. Possibly split into 2 sentences or provide separation between the 2 measurables being used. In the results section, suggest separating the 2004/2015 data. Significance to Dietetics: suggest highlighting why these findings are important to dietitians/significant for our field, as current statement is more reflective of study conclusions.

What did the pre-post surveys assess? I'd like to see a bit about that in the methods. I would also like a statement about who you were recruiting in the methods section. In the results section, it wasn't clear to me if the survey results were coming from the trainers, the trainees or both. Could you specify?

Purpose: Suggest adding malnutrition into the purpose statement. Methods: expand upon the process, survey used (if applicable) and chart audit. (ie. was there a timeline for conducting chart review?). Results: excellent summary.

A very clear abstract. Great job!

Despite limited conclusions/generalizability, well done.

Novel topic and approach. Much needed work to inform practice.
Objective(s): unclear whether the abstract reflects the entire FEHNCY project or a portion of it e.g., one specific research question.
Method(s): could provide additional details on the "realist evaluation approach" or why this approach was selected.

Important project. Methods and results need further development. Good abstract.

Introduction: The first sentence could be stronger. For impact, perhaps start with how the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted FN peoples or how the pandemic further disadvantaged FN peoples. The first part is somewhat superfluous.
Method(s): Note the data collection period. This would be important to know taking into consideration the duration of the pandemic, different waves, etc. Clarification: see Conclusion > Was there one FN community or several FN communities included in this project?
Results: Clearly identify which sub-themes (specific findings) relate to community resilience and collaboration.
Conclusion: Refers to "one community" > did this study focus on one community's members or different communities? Needs alignment with Method(s).
Writing: avoid using contractions in academic writing; some punctuation marks missing. Recommend proofreading and revising for clarity and brevity (e.g., during COVID-19 rather than "in the context of").
Recommendations: Accept with revisions.

Methods need more detail. Great abstract!

Important exploratory research conducted. Clear and concise objectives; results; conclusions.
Introduction: Clear and concise. Would be interesting to have more current data (e.g., 2013 is somewhat old).
Method(s): How were the surveys analyzed? What type of information was being gathered (e.g., types of foods were listed or qualitative responses)?

Good abstract! More details needed for methods and results.

Abstract is well-written. The Introduction, Objective(s), and Method(s) were clear and concise. The Conclusions aligned with the Results presented. This research reflect current issues in EN.

Nice abstract! More detail in methods section needed.

Understanding what "food literate" means for different audiences is important for effective nutrition programming.
Introduction: Could be more concise to allow for other sections to be elaborated. Recommend revising for clarity and brevity.
Objective(s): Although the RD team recognized the lack of food literacy definition to inform practice, the objective of this project/study is unclear. Recommend clarifying what the objective of this work was and/or the research or guiding questions.
Method(s): Unclear (e.g., group/interviews > were these focus groups interview and/or individual interviews?). Briefly describe how the surveys and interviews were analyzed. When the team worked with external stakeholders, was this through "consultations" or something else > unclear what the working relationship was with these stakeholders.
Result(s): Are the four pathways part of the "framework"? Clarify the connection.
Conclusions: Are these next steps for DFC or broad recommendations? Perhaps by clarifying the objective(s) of this specific work, the conclusions would be clearer.
Overall: important work for dietetic practice; recommend accept with revisions.

I would like to learn more/see more about the methodology that was used in the collaboration with various stakeholders to reach the final proposed food literacy definition that is suggested.