Adolescent food security status and associations with nutrition and health determinants: a cross-sectional study linking a Manitoba survey and administrative health data
Quels sont les effets des simulations interprofessionnelles sur la motivation des futurs professionnels de la santé et service social à faire de l’offre active des services en français ?
Les recrues militaires rencontrent-elles les recommandations en micronutriments clés pour la santé osseuse afin de réduire le risque de blessures musculosquelettiques ?
La satisfaction des futurs professionnels de la santé ayant participé à des simulations interprofessionnelles par rapport à leur perception des compétences acquises sur l’offre active du français et la collaboration interprofessionnelle
Functional food literacy competencies of people living with celiac disease regarding the purchase of food: results from a survey completed in Québec, Canada
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
-is the healthy eating index Canada based on the old or new food guide? If the former, it would be great to see how the diet quality may be different using new food guide recommendations (HEFI-2019) in the presentation if possible.
Il aurait été intéressant de spécifier quels types d'articles ont été recensés et s'il y a de la littérature qui existe précisément dans le domaine de la diététique & nutrition
The introduction was very concise. Perhaps including a sentence on the importance or impact of strong patient-centered care may be helpful. The methodology appears sound to group respondents. The research clearly conveyed the significance of the study to the dietetics field.
Il aurait été pertinent de décrire en quoi consistait plus exactement les activités SIMsIPs . Aussi, la méthodologie décrite ne permet pas de voir comment les effets de ces activités sur l'OA seront évalués comme le prévoit l'objectif de l'étude.
-clarification point: did any of the tofu products have a high in calcium claim that was found to be inaccurate?
-the CNF may need to be updated. Some of the CNF sources may come from the USDA, was that checked?
-what is the rationale for including only adults capable of childbearing?
-clarification of results first sentence- the participants followed a vegan, vegetarian, OR GF diet?
Quelle est la source de référence de la dernière phrase de l'introduction?
Préciser quel est le seuil ou la manière de déterminer si les apports permettent d'atteindre les ANR. Est-ce qu'on parle de 50% plus un ? Sur quoi se base ce seuil ?
Strong introduction and rationale for the study. Comment on how representative the sample size of breakfast cereal used in the studies compared to breakfast cereals available on the market would be interesting. Conclusion nicely stated, clear, perhaps add the comparison after stating "sugar-related claims had an increase or no change in calorie content..."
Methods and results lack detail. I'm concerned about the questionnaire they used to assess their objective. If not validated could produce biased results.
-what is the rationale for including only adults capable of childbearing?
-clarification of results first sentence- the participants followed a vegan, vegetarian, OR GF diet?
-how many people completed the survey?
-results section is quite limited - is there any data on % of students who felt the simulation sessions helped critical thinking skills, other skills, etc?
It is not clear for me if the activity per se was performed with both nursing ans dietetic students. Please specify.
It would have been intersting to report if the students gained confidence after the activity.
The rationale for the study is convincing with the main issue clearly stated. The objective is clearly stated. The methodology appears conceptually coherent. Details of the sampling method to recruit dietitians would be nice to see. In addition, what were the types of questions asked in the survey (e.g. did the survey include multiple choice, Likert scale questions, text boxes responses etc) to collect the data? Results - The description of the dietitian's professional background and practice areas were clearly stated and included interesting findings. The conclusion was clear and concise. Perhaps providing a recommendation to address the top barrier would add depth and an interesting perspective (e.g. how could knowledge/training barrier be addressed in the field of dietetics). Significance was stated well.
Why have you collected the complete informations about 2 days food record and only analysed the main course/entry ?
Very relevant to indicate not only what was the choices but also the amount consumed.
Please add in the methodology that the results present also the % of food consumed.
On mentionne que le questionnaire auto-rapporté vise à évaluer la satisfaction postSIM. Toutefois dans les résultats, on rapporte des données concernant l'acquisition de nouvelles connaissances et le niveau de motivation.
Methods missing detail. If the scoping review didn't use proper search strategies in multiple databases then it may not have cast a large enough net.
The results report a p-value but nothing in the methods was said about what test (if any were done). Maybe they just reported the p-value from an included paper. 🙁
Defining systematic changes was helpful for the reader. The methodology overall was clearly stated and appears sound. To add to method, however, perhaps the inclusion of databases/websites searched, the number of articles reviewed, and the sample size of semi-structured interviews would add clarity. The objective was to develop a timeline however, results were not presented by when (year) the change was documented. Interesting systematic changes were initially defined to include compensation but this aspect was not discussed in the results, was this because there was no major change in this area? Overall, how the results presented were clear groupings.
Background clearly stated with an adequate description of the clinic and programs involved. The supporting information was thorough and relevant in nature. Mention of the most common interdisciplinary healthcare professionals the dietitians work with at the clinic would be interesting. Conclusion was clear and concise. Significance and implications are innovative and stated well.
Interesting survey and an important area to research. A more granular analysis could have been done by exploring covariates along with the prevalence of mindful eating.
The introduction and rationale for the study are clearly stated - the inclusion of the definition of ME enhanced clarity. Objective - good to specify the University of Saskatchewan community, clearly stated objective. Methods - comment on if there are any specific exclusion criteria when recruiting staff or students may add clarity, how many questions were included in the survey? Results - was ME on the weekend assessed as well? Were demographic characteristics of respondents collected in addition to sex (e.g. academic major, year of study, food security status)? The conclusion was clearly stated and significance was portrayed, with good inclusion of the need to assess barriers.
"When a certification logo is displayed on a new product, 35% will buy it without further checking the label, compared to only 12% when products only display a gluten-free claim."
What does the others do ? They don't buy the products or they buy it but read the label before ? Just curious !
The rationale for the study was clearly stated (perhaps reorder the background information in the objective section, into the Introduction section). Methods - mention of how nutritional status will be assessed can be included to enhance clarity. Methods appear to be sound (specifying the number of 24-hour recalls would add clarity). The significance was convincing and stated very well.
Additional detail would be useful. i.e. year of university student's survey and year of CCHS. The study should also consider possible covariates i.e. income, sex, age.
The introduction was clearly stated, linkage to the implications of low vitamin D with maternal and infant outcomes provided a clear rationale. The objective is clearly stated. Dietary assessment in both methods is clearly stated. Trade-offs with dietary assessment and sample size of the nutrition student groups could be something to consider. Consideration of eating patterns/diet and demographic characteristics of nutrition students would be an interesting addition to the analysis of vitamin D intake. Results clearly stated, interesting addition of top food sources. The conclusion was justified by results and the significance was clearly stated.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
