Search

Aim Research conducted by dietitians is encouraged by national and international organisations, yet research output remains low. The attitudes towards and experiences with research and research methods course work of students and practitioners in Australia and the United States were examined. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was conducted. Participants were contacted by email; 173 Australian (N = 50 students; 123 practitioners) and 499 US (N = 231 students; 268 practitioners) respondents completed the survey. Results A smaller proportion of American students (74%) indicated that they would consider conducting research in the future compared to Australian students (84%) ( P < 0.001). More Australian than American practitioners indicated interest in conducting research in their current position (87% vs 66%; P < 0.001). Research training did not increase future research plans, but respondents who had conducted research either as a student or at work responded more favourably to conducting research in the future ( P < 0.001). In general, Australian respondents were more supportive of and more experienced with research. Conclusions Unlike classroom training, past research experiences supported plans for future research. Further work needs to investigate how the culture of the profession can be changed to support more dietitian-conducted research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To obtain expert consensus to develop and evaluate a rating system on the relative healthiness of Australian suburbs’ food outlet types. Methods: Twenty ‐ four food outlet types and 10 local suburbs were identified from previous mapping studies and based on a scan of suburbs across one large Australian geographical region. Initial food outlet ‘scores’ for relative healthiness were proposed based on available literature, classified into five categories, from ‘most’ to ‘least’ healthy. In round 1 of a modified Delphi survey, participants, Australian public health and nutrition experts, were given each outlet type's definition and the proposed scores and invited to modify the scores based on their perceived ‘healthiness’. In round 2, participants were able to revise or adjust their scores. Results: Median scores for food outlet types from both rounds highly correlated with the originally proposed scores (two ‐ tailed Pearson's correlation coefficient 0.97 and 0.96, respectively, P = 0.01), and scores from round 1 highly correlated with those from round 2 (Pearson's coefficient 0.998, P = 0.01). Round 2 scores were used to calculate suburbs’ overall food environment score, healthiness score, unhealthiness score and a ratio of unhealthiness to healthiness scores. There was strong positive correlation between suburbs’ ratio of unhealthiness to healthiness scores and a previously recognised scoring ratio, Retail Food Environment Index (Spearman's rho 0.847, P < 0.01). Conclusions: The study generated experts’ consensus about relative healthiness of food outlet types found in Australian neighbourhoods. Proposed scores can be used to assess and compare healthiness of community food environments and to explore their associations with area characteristics, population's diet and health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]