The international nutrition care process and terminology implementation survey: towards a global evaluation tool to assess individual practitioner implementation in multiple countries and languages
Abstract
Background The Nutrition Care Process (NCP) and NCP Terminology (NCPT) is a systematic framework for critical thinking, decision making, and communication for dietetics practitioners worldwide, aiming to improve quality and patient safety in nutrition care. Although dietetics practitioners in several countries have implemented the NCP/NCPT during recent years, to date there is no globally validated instrument for the evaluation of NCP/NCPT implementation that is available in different languages and applicable across cultures and countries. Objective The aim of this study was to develop and test a survey instrument in several languages to capture information at different stages of NCP/NCPT implementation across countries and cultures. Setting In this collaboration between dietetics practitioners and researchers from 10 countries, an International NCP/NCPT Implementation Survey tool was developed and tested in a multistep process, building on the experiences from previous surveys. The tool was translated from English into six other languages. It includes four modules and describes demographic information, NCP/NCPT implementation, and related attitudes and knowledge. Methods The survey was reviewed by 42 experts across 10 countries to assess content validity and clarity. After this, 30 dietetics practitioners participated in cognitive interviews while completing the survey. A pilot study was performed with 210 participants, of whom 40 completed the survey twice within a 2- to 3-week interval. Results Scale content validity index average was 0.98 and question clarity index was 0.8 to 1.0. Cognitive interviews and comments from experts led to further clarifications of the survey. The repeated pilot test resulted in Krippendorff's α=.75. Subsequently, refinements of the survey were made based on comments submitted by the pilot survey participants. Conclusions The International NCP/NCPT Implementation Survey tool demonstrated excellent content validity and high test-retest reliability in seven different languages and across an international context. This tool will be valuable in future research and evaluation of implementation strategies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
RDs/RDNs in many countries globally are trained to use the Nutrition Care Process (NCP) as the foundation of their practice regardless of setting.
“RDs/RDNs—instrumental members of the healthcare team—in many countries globally are trained to use the Nutrition Care Process (NCP) as the foundation of their practice regardless of setting [33,34].”
From The Value of Integrating the Nutritional Ecology into the Nutrition Care Continuum—A Conceptual and Systems Approach (2025) · cites this paper as [34]
Cites
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.20147 · Cited by 7,510 · see citing works
Acquadro, C., Conway, K., Hareendran, A., & Aaronson, N. (2008) · Value in Health · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00292.x · Cited by 715 · see citing works
Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questions
Presser, S., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J. M., & Singer, E. (2004) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfh008 · Cited by 546 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lövestam, E., Steiber, A., Vivanti, A., Boström, A.-M., Devine, A., Haughey, O., Kiss, C. M., Lang, N. R., Lieffers, J., Lloyd, L., et al. (2019) · Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1016/j.jand.2018.09.002 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Self-citationRaiten, D. J., Steiber, A. L., & Bremer, A. A. (2025) · Advances in Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100385 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Lövestam, E., Vivanti, A., Steiber, A., Boström, A.-M., Devine, A., Haughey, O., Kiss, C. M., Lang, N. R., Lieffers, J., Lloyd, L., O’Sullivan, T. A., Papoutsakis, C., Thoresen, L., Orrevall, Y., Corish, C., Eisenbraun, C., Hanning, R., Kristiansen, I., Lorentzen, S. S., MacLean, A. K., & Peerson, C.
- Affiliations
- VIA University College (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Lövestam, Elin
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 119
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 242-260
- ISSN
- 2212-2672 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2905053423
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 3.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Edith Cowan University Research Online (Edith Cowan University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Stavanger Universitetssjukehus
- Universitätsspital Basel
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
- Keywords
- Nutrition Care Process, implementation evaluation, questionnaire development, multilingual survey, cross-cultural validation, content validity, test-retest reliability
- MeSH terms
- Dietetics, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Language, Terminology as Topic, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Process Assessment, Health Care, Nutrition Therapy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review