Knowledge and clinical practice of ASPEN registered dietitian nutritionist members regarding blenderized tube feedings.
blended foods
blenderized tube feeding
dietitians
enteral nutrition
nutrition support
tube feeding
Journal
Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
ISSN: 1941-2452
Titre abrégé: Nutr Clin Pract
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8606733
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Mar 2024
20 Mar 2024
Historique:
revised:
17
01
2024
received:
14
11
2023
accepted:
25
02
2024
medline:
20
3
2024
pubmed:
20
3
2024
entrez:
20
3
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Blenderized tube feedings (BTFs) are used by patients/caregivers who report improvements in gastrointestinal tolerance compared with standard commercial feedings. Despite positive outcomes, registered dietitian nutritionists or international equivalents (RDN/Is) hesitate to recommend BTFs. We aimed to determine if an association exists between dietitian characteristics and willingness to recommend BTFs. A BTF-specific survey (N = 157) assessed for validity and reliability was administered to the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) RDN/I members. Binary logistic regression analyses examined the association between age, years of clinical practice, BTF training/education, patient population served, and willingness to recommend BTFs. The response rate was 4.3% of ASPEN RDN/I members. Most respondents were White females with a median age of 39.0 years and 12 years of clinical experience. Although 98.7% of respondents expressed a willingness to support and 73% to recommend BTFs, 60% were not using BTFs in clinical practice. For 94.8% of RDN/Is, the primary reason for BTF use was patient/caregiver requests. After adjustment for age and years of clinical practice, RDN/Is who served pediatric populations (odds ratio [OR] = 4.28; 95% CI, 1.52-12.09) or used three or more professional resources (OR = 2.49; 95% CI, 1.12-5.57), industry-sponsored resources (OR = 3.15; 95% CI, 1.39-7.15), or one or more experiential learning resources (OR = 3.14; 95% CI, 1.38-7.17) were more likely to recommend BTFs whereas those serving adults were less likely to recommend BTFs (OR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.95). Pediatric RDN/Is and individuals with BTF-specific education/training were more inclined to recommend BTFs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Blenderized tube feedings (BTFs) are used by patients/caregivers who report improvements in gastrointestinal tolerance compared with standard commercial feedings. Despite positive outcomes, registered dietitian nutritionists or international equivalents (RDN/Is) hesitate to recommend BTFs. We aimed to determine if an association exists between dietitian characteristics and willingness to recommend BTFs.
METHODS
METHODS
A BTF-specific survey (N = 157) assessed for validity and reliability was administered to the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) RDN/I members. Binary logistic regression analyses examined the association between age, years of clinical practice, BTF training/education, patient population served, and willingness to recommend BTFs.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The response rate was 4.3% of ASPEN RDN/I members. Most respondents were White females with a median age of 39.0 years and 12 years of clinical experience. Although 98.7% of respondents expressed a willingness to support and 73% to recommend BTFs, 60% were not using BTFs in clinical practice. For 94.8% of RDN/Is, the primary reason for BTF use was patient/caregiver requests. After adjustment for age and years of clinical practice, RDN/Is who served pediatric populations (odds ratio [OR] = 4.28; 95% CI, 1.52-12.09) or used three or more professional resources (OR = 2.49; 95% CI, 1.12-5.57), industry-sponsored resources (OR = 3.15; 95% CI, 1.39-7.15), or one or more experiential learning resources (OR = 3.14; 95% CI, 1.38-7.17) were more likely to recommend BTFs whereas those serving adults were less likely to recommend BTFs (OR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.95).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Pediatric RDN/Is and individuals with BTF-specific education/training were more inclined to recommend BTFs.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. Nutrition in Clinical Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.
Références
Strategic Marketing Research. Over 3 million people globally and 0.5 million in the United States receive enteral tube feeding yearly. Updated September 2022. Accessed November 13, 2023. https://www.strategicmarketresearch.com/blogs/people-receive-enteral-tube-feeding
Markets and Markets. Enteral feeding formula market. Updated August 2022. Accessed October 31, 2023. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/enteral-feeding-formulas-market-74876393.html
Epp L, Blackmer A, Church A, et al. Blenderized tube feedings: practice recommendations from the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. Nutr Clin Pract. 2023;38(6):1190-1219. doi:10.1002/ncp.11055
Oparaji JA, Sferra T, Sankararaman S. Basics of blenderized tube feeds: a primer for pediatric primary care clinicians. Gastroenterol Res. 2019;12(3):111-114. doi:10.14740/gr1192
Harkness L. The history of enteral nutrition therapy. J Am Diet Assoc. 2002;102(3):399-404. doi:10.1016/s0002-8223(02)90092-1
Epp L, Lammert L, Vallumsetla N, Hurt RT, Mundi MS. Use of blenderized tube feeding in adult and pediatric home enteral nutrition patients. Nutr Clin Pract. 2017;32(2):201-205. doi:10.1177/0884533616662992
Hurt RT, Edakkanambeth Varayil J, Epp LM, et al. Blenderized tube feeding use in adult home enteral nutrition patients: a cross-sectional study. Nutr Clin Pract. 2015;30(6):824-829. doi:10.1177/0884533615591602
Johnson TW, Spurlock A, Pierce L. Survey study assessing attitudes and experiences of pediatric registered dietitians regarding blended food by gastrostomy tube feeding. Nutr Clin Pract. 2015;30(3):402-405. doi:10.1177/0884533614564996
Kariya C, Bell K, Bellamy C, Lau J, Yee K. Blenderized tube feeding: a survey of dietitians' perspectives, education, and perceived competence. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2019;80(4):190-194. doi:10.3148/cjdpr-2019-007
Boston M, Wile H. Caregivers' perceptions of real-food containing tube feeding: a canadian survey. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2020;81(4):193-197. doi:10.3148/cjdpr-2020-012
Johnson TW, Spurlock AL, Epp L, Hurt RT, Mundi MS. Reemergence of blended tube feeding and parent's reported experiences in their tube fed children. J Altern Complement Med. 2018;24(4):369-373. doi:10.1089/acm.2017.0134
Birkhäuer J, Gaab J, Kossowsky J, et al. Trust in the health care professional and health outcome: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0170988. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170988
Phillips G. Patient and carer experience of blended diet via gastrostomy: a qualitative study. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2019;32(3):391-399. doi:10.1111/jhn.12614
Soscia J, Adams S, Cohen E, et al. The parental experience and perceptions of blenderized tube feeding for children with medical complexity. Paediatr Child Health. 2021;26(8):462-469. doi:10.1093/pch/pxab034
Bobo E. Reemergence of blenderized tube feedings: exploring the evidence. Nutr Clin Pract. 2016;31(6):730-735. doi:10.1177/0884533616669703
Hron B, Fishman E, Lurie M, et al. Health outcomes and quality of life indices of children receiving blenderized feeds via enteral tube. J Pediatr. 2019;211:139-145. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.04.023
Schultz ER, Kim Y. Clinical outcomes associated with blenderized tube feedings in adults: a systematic review. Nutr Clin Pract. 2024;39(2):330-343. doi:10.1002/ncp.11087
Batsis ID, Davis L, Prichett L, et al. Efficacy and tolerance of blended diets in children receiving gastrostomy feeds. Nutr Clin Pract. 2020;35(2):282-288. doi:10.1002/ncp.10406
Gallagher K, Flint A, Mouzaki M, et al. Blenderized enteral nutrition diet study: feasibility, clinical, and microbiome outcomes of providing blenderized feeds through a gastric tube in a medically complex pediatric population. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2018;42(6):1046-1060. doi:10.1002/jpen.1049
Kariya C, Vardi L. Blenderized tube feeding and enterostomy tube occlusions among adults with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and primary lateral sclerosis. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2021;82(4):196-199. doi:10.3148/cjdpr-2021-019
Cantwell LA, Ellahi B. The use and experience of registered dietitians with blended diets given via a gastrostomy in the UK. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2017;22:116-117. doi:10.1016/j.clnesp.2017.07.007
Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2014.
Qualtrics. Homepage. Accessed October 31, 2023. https://www.qualtrics.com/
Chow SC, Shao J, Wang H. Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research. 2nd ed. Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2008:58.
Hsieh FY, Bloch DA, Larsen MD. A simple method of sample size calculation for linear and logistic regression. Stat Med. 1998;17(14):1623-1634. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980730)17:14<1623::aid-sim871>3.0.co;2-s
Tsang S, Royse C, Terkawi A. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J Anaesth. 2017;11(5):80. doi:10.4103/sja.SJA_203_17
IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Version 27.0. IBM Corp; 2020. Accessed October 31, 2023. https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics
Eustace K, Cole L, Hollaway L. Attitudes and perceptions of blenderized tube feed use among physicians and advanced practice providers. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2021;45(8):1755-1761. doi:10.1002/jpen.2069
O'Sullivan K, O'Sullivan M, Quigley S, Delahunt A, Sugrue S. Dietitians' attitudes and experiences of blended tube feeding in paediatrics. Ir Med J. 2019;112(7):967.
Armstrong J, Buchanan E, Duncan H, Ross K, Gerasimidis K. Dietitians' perceptions and experience of blenderised feeds for paediatric tube-feeding. Arch Dis Child. 2017;102(2):152-156. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2016-310971
Shrager S, Adigun A, Motolongo S, Santos CS, Rowe-King P, Duro D. Comparison of home-blenderized formula and commercial enteral formulas for gastrostomy tube-fed children: a retrospective, prospective cohort study. Cureus. 2023;15(4):e37944. doi:10.7759/cureus.37944
Schmitz ÉPCR, Silva EC, Lins Filho OL, Antunes MMC, Brandt KG. Blenderized tube feeding for children: an integrative review. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2022;40:e2020419. doi:10.1590/1984-0462/2022/40/2020419
Spurlock AY, Johnson TW, Pritchett A, et al. Blenderized food tube feeding in patients with head and neck cancer. Nutr Clin Pract. 2022;37(3):615-624. doi:10.1002/ncp.10760
Brown T, Zelig R, Radler DR. Clinical outcomes associated with commercial and homemade blenderized tube feedings: a literature review. Nutr Clin Pract. 2020;35(3):442-453. doi:10.1002/ncp.10487
Ojo O, Adegboye ARA, Ojo OO, Wang X, Brooke J. An evaluation of the nutritional value and physical properties of blenderised enteral nutrition formula: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2020;12(6):1840. doi:10.3390/nu12061840
Milton DL, Johnson TW, Johnson K, et al. Accepted safe food-handling procedures minimizes microbial contamination of home-prepared blenderized tube-feeding. Nutr Clin Pract. 2020;35(3):479-486. doi:10.1002/ncp.10450
Johnson TW, Milton DL, Johnson K, et al. Comparison of microbial growth between commercial formula and blenderized food for tube feeding. Nutr Clin Pract. 2019;34(2):257-263. doi:10.1002/ncp.10226
Ojo O, Adegboye ARA, Ojo OO, Wang X, Brooke J. The microbial quality and safety of blenderised enteral nutrition formula: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(24):9563. doi:10.3390/ijerph17249563
Pediatric Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group. Infant and Pediatric Feedings: Guidelines for Preparation of Human Milk and Formula in Health Care Facilities. 3rd ed. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics; 2018.