Literature DB >> 12663318

Relative efficacy of differential methods of dietary advice: a systematic review.

Rachel L Thompson1, Carolyn D Summerbell, Lee Hooper, Julian P T Higgins, Paul S Little, Diane Talbot, Shah Ebrahim.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dietary advice to lower blood cholesterol may be given by a variety of means. The relative efficacy of the different methods is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the effects of dietary advice given by dietitians compared with advice from other health professionals, or self-help resources, in reducing blood cholesterol in adults.
DESIGN: We performed a systematic review, identifying potential studies by searching the electronic databases of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Human Nutrition, Science Citation Index, and Social Sciences Citation Index. We also hand-searched relevant conference proceedings, reference lists in trial reports, and review articles. Finally, we contacted experts in the field. The selection criteria included randomized trials of dietary advice given by dietitians compared with advice given by other health professionals or self-help resources. The main outcome was difference in blood cholesterol between the dietitian group compared with other intervention groups. Inclusion decisions and data extraction were duplicated.
RESULTS: Eleven studies with 12 comparisons met the inclusion criteria. Four studies compared dietitians with doctors, 7 with self-help resources, and 1 with nurses. Participants receiving advice from dietitians experienced a greater reduction in blood total cholesterol than those receiving advice from doctors (-0.25 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.37, -0.12 mmol/L). There was no statistically significant difference in change in blood cholesterol between dietitians and self-help resources (-0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.22, 0.03 mmol/L).
CONCLUSIONS: Dietitians appeared to be better than doctors at lowering blood cholesterol in the short to medium term, though the difference was small (about 4%), but there was no evidence that they were better than self-help resources or nurses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12663318     DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/77.4.1052S

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr        ISSN: 0002-9165            Impact factor:   7.045


  6 in total

1.  Effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention on metabolic syndrome. A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Simona Bo; Giovannino Ciccone; Carla Baldi; Lorenzo Benini; Ferruccio Dusio; Giuseppe Forastiere; Claudio Lucia; Claudio Nuti; Marilena Durazzo; Maurizio Cassader; Luigi Gentile; Gianfranco Pagano
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-10-06       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Measuring and Leveraging Motives and Values in Dietary Interventions.

Authors:  Sarah J Eustis; Gabrielle Turner-McGrievy; Swann A Adams; James R Hébert
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2021-04-25       Impact factor: 5.717

3.  Is there scope for community health nurses to address lifestyle risk factors? the community nursing SNAP trial.

Authors:  Bibiana C Chan; Rachel A Laws; Anna M Williams; Gawaine Powell Davies; Mahnaz Fanaian; Mark F Harris
Journal:  BMC Nurs       Date:  2012-03-15

4.  Adding diet and exercise counseling to the health promotion plan alleviates anthropometric and metabolic complications in patients with metabolic syndrome.

Authors:  S Morita-Suzuki; Y Fujioka; H Mitsuoka; M Tashiro; M Harada
Journal:  Nutr Metab Insights       Date:  2012-08-29

5.  A qualitative study of adherence to nutritional treatment: perspectives of patients and dietitians.

Authors:  Ronit Endevelt; Anat Gesser-Edelsburg
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 2.711

6.  Factors Influencing Men's Experiences and Engagement with the Rugby Fans in Training-New Zealand Pilot Trial: A Healthy Lifestyle Intervention for Men.

Authors:  Elaine Anne Hargreaves; Samantha Marsh; Ralph Maddison
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-16
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.