3.9 Article

Evidence-based nutrition practice guidelines for diabetes and scope and standards of practice

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION
Volume 108, Issue 4, Pages S52-S58

Publisher

AMER DIETETIC ASSOC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2008.01.021

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the 1990s, the American Dietetic Association (ADA) began developing nutrition practice guidelines for registered dietitians (RDs) and evaluating how their use affected clinical outcomes. Clinical trials and outcomes research report that diabetes medical nutrition therapy, delivered using a variety of nutrition interventions and multiple encounters, is effective in improving glycemic and other metabolic outcomes. The process of developing nutrition practice guidelines has evolved into evidence-based nutrition practice guidelines, which are disease/ condition-specific recommendations and toolkits. An expert work group identified important clinical questions related to diabetes nutrition therapy. Research studies were analyzed and evidence summaries and conclusion statements written and graded for strength of research design. Based on the research conclusions, evidence-based nutrition recommendations and guidelines for adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes were formulated. The ADA evidence-based nutrition practice guidelines for diabetes are published in the Web-based evidence analysis library. The recommendations are similar to those of the American Diabetes Association, although developed using a different method. To define the RD's professional practice, the ADA has published the Scope of Dietetics Practice Framework, the Standards of Practice and Standards of Professional Performance, and specialized standards for the RD in diabetes nutrition care. The latter defines the knowledge, skills, and competencies required by RDs to provide diabetes care at the generalist, specialist, and advanced practice level.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available