Technology-supported models of nutrition care: Perspectives of health service providers

Amandine Barnett; Jaimon T Kelly; Charlene Wright; Katrina L Campbell

doi:10.1177/20552076221104670

Technology-supported models of nutrition care: Perspectives of health service providers

Digit Health. 2022 Jun 3:8:20552076221104670. doi: 10.1177/20552076221104670. eCollection 2022 Jan-Dec.

Authors

Amandine Barnett^{1

2}, Jaimon T Kelly^{1

2

3}, Charlene Wright^{3

4}, Katrina L Campbell^{3

5}

Affiliations

¹ Centre for Online Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
² Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
³ Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.
⁴ Centre for Applied Health Economics, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
⁵ Healthcare Excellence and Innovation, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Abstract

Objective: To determine the perspectives to the adoption, scale-up, sustainability, and spread of technology-supported models of nutrition care, in hospital and ambulatory care settings.

Methods: Thirty-one health service providers participated in individual semi-structured interviews from a tertiary health service in Queensland, Australia. The Non-adoption, Abandonment, and challenges to the Scale up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) framework, designed to evaluate technology-supported models' success, informed the qualitative design.

Results: Key findings were that technology-supported models of care could benefit many chronic condition patient groups; dietitians are well suited to adopting this technology: and the value proposition in creating efficiency gains in the health service. However, challenges of transitioning and sustainability were identified. Perceived enablers for technology supported models of care included: previous intentions for technology supported models of care prior to the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic; opportunity for clinicians to complete higher valued tasks; and integration of technology systems and assisted staff roles. Perceived barriers included: suitability for patients is dependent on experience and ability to use technology, varied confidence by clinicians when conducting clinical assessments; high investment required for set up and ongoing maintenance; and patients desire for adopting face-to-face care over technology. Health service providers perceived that embedding and adapting such models requires maintenance of high-quality service and continued research.

Conclusions: Health service providers recognize adopting, scaling, and sustaining technology-supported models of nutrition care benefits patients, clinicians, and health services in general. Robust clinical trials and health service evaluations of technology-supported models of care, across practice settings are now needed.

Keywords: Digital health; chronic disease; eHealth; health services; mHealth; nutrition; technology; telehealth; telemedicine.