Cited by 30Dietetics, Nutrition, and EducationHealth Education and ValidationNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

The international nutrition care process and terminology implementation survey: towards a global evaluation tool to assess individual practitioner implementation in multiple countries and languages

Lövestam, Elin, Vivanti, Angela, Steiber, Alison, Boström, Anne-Marie, Devine, Amanda, Haughey, Orla, Kiss, Caroline M., Lang, Nanna R. +13 more·2019·Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jand.2018.09.004

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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