Exploring dietitians’ views on digital nutrition educational tools in Malaysia: a qualitative study

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Dietitians frequently use nutrition education tools to facilitate dietary counselling sessions. Nevertheless, these tools may require adaptation to keep pace with technological advancements. This study had a 2-fold purpose: first, to identify the types of nutrition education tools currently in use, identify their limitations, and explore dietitians' perspectives on the importance of these tools; second, to investigate the features that dietitians prefer in digital nutrition education tools. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A semi-structured face-to-face interview was conducted among 15 dietitians from selected public hospitals, primary care clinics, and teaching hospitals in Malaysia. Inductive thematic analysis of the responses was conducted using NVivo version 12 software. RESULTS: Most dietitians used physical education tools including the healthy plate model, pamphlets, food models, and flip charts. These tools were perceived as important as they facilitate the nutrition assessment process, deliver nutrition intervention, and are time efficient. However, dietitians described the current educational tools as impersonal, outdated, limited in availability due to financial constraints, unhandy, and difficult to visualise. Alternatively, they strongly favoured digital education tools that provided instant feedback, utilised an automated system, included a local food database, were user-friendly, developed by experts in the field, and seamlessly integrated into the healthcare system. CONCLUSION: Presently, although dietitians have a preference for digital educational tools, they heavily rely on physical nutrition education tools due to their availability despite the perception that these tools are outdated, impersonal, and inconvenient. Transitioning to digital dietary education tools could potentially address these issues.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.