Expanding collaborative care: integrating the role of dietitians and nutrition interventions in services for people with mental illness.

OBJECTIVE: This article aims to draw mental health clinicians' attention to the connections between nutrition and mental health, and the roles that Accredited Practising Dietitians play in improving mental and physical health through dietary change. METHODS: Selective narrative review. RESULTS: Unhealthy dietary practices are common in high prevalence and severe mental illness. Epidemiological evidence demonstrates that nutrients and dietary patterns impact on mental health. In addition, poor physical health is well documented in people with mental illness and the greatest contributor to the mortality gap. Dietary intervention studies demonstrate improved mental and physical health outcomes. Accredited Practising Dietitians translate nutrition science into practical advice to improve the nutritional status of patients with mental illness, and prevent and manage comorbidities in a variety of care settings. CONCLUSIONS: Medical Nutrition Therapy offers opportunities to improve the physical and mental health of people living with mental illness.

Development and validation of the Dietetic Confidence Scale for working with clients experiencing psychological issues.

AIM: A standardised tool was needed to measure a generalist dietitian's confidence about working with clients experiencing psychological issues in order to effectively evaluate mental health-related professional development activities. The aim of this study was to develop, pilot and validate a robust instrument that measures a generalist dietitian's professional confidence for working with clients experiencing psychological issues. METHODS: The Dietetic Confidence Scale (DCS) was developed. Two cross-sectional samples of practicing dietitians (n = 185; 458) from various settings and locations were recruited. Study 1: principal components analysis (PCA) helped refine scale items and derive a model, which was then validated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA, Study 2). Cronbach's alpha estimated scale reliability. Correlations assessed associations between factors. RESULTS: Study 1: A 13-item, two-factor solution accounted for 69.1% of the total variance. Total Cronbach's α = 0.92. Dietetic confidence was associated with: (i) Confidence using the Nutrition Care Process and (ii) Confidence Advocating for Self care and Client care. Study 2: The CFA supported the proposed scale and model. A Good Fit Index of 0.95 indicated a strong fit. Item-factor correlations ranged from r = 0.50 to 0.91. The final scale showed good reliability (α = 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first self-efficacy scale for dietetic practitioners subjected to PCA and CFA using two independent samples. The DCS is a psychometrically robust instrument with strong internal consistency. It can be used to measure dietetic confidence about working with clients experiencing psychological issues and to highlight areas where additional support or training may be needed. Further validity and reliability testing is needed to enhance scale generalisability and use.

A Methodological Review of Confidence Measurement Scales for Dietitians Working with Individuals.

Confidence is frequently used to assess practitioner effectiveness, and its evaluation requires valid and reliable domain-specific tools. However, the quality of existing measures is unknown. This review identifies studies measuring dietitians' confidence in working with individuals; assesses psychometric (measurement) qualities of relevant tools; and identifies areas for future research. Seven electronic databases, the internet, and reference lists were searched to identify the development or use of relevant confidence measurement scales. A quality assessment of psychometric properties was conducted using guidelines developed by Terwee and colleagues. Of the 15 measures reviewed, 4 were subject to factor analysis. Overall, content validity was strong. However, many measures rated poorly due to lack of factor analysis, inadequate sampling, or poor reporting. Of the dietetics-specific instruments, the Dietetic Confidence Scale and Nutrition Counselling Self-Efficacy Scale received the best ratings. The General Self-Efficacy Subscale also rated highly due to validation with the general population. This article highlights the need for dietitians to incorporate evidence-based methods into practice evaluation and instrument development. Dietitians need an awareness of the terminology and key criteria used to evaluate instrument quality to effectively collaborate with statisticians and scale development experts, and critically evaluate the quality of existing measures. Future scale development and reporting must incorporate psychometric evaluation, such as factor analysis, which should be used to explore and/or confirm scale dimensionality. There is broad scope for future methodological research with existing and new measures for nutrition and dietetics practitioners.