Different dietary assessment methods, similar conclusions? Comparison of a country's adherence to food-based dietary guidelines as depicted in two population-based surveys using different dietary assessment methods.

OBJECTIVE: Different methods of dietary intake assessment are frequently used to assess a population's diet. In this study, we aimed to compare the adherence to Swiss food-based dietary guidelines as depicted in two Swiss population-based surveys using different methods of dietary assessment. DESIGN: Two population-based, cross-sectional surveys were compared. In the Swiss Health Survey (SHS), diet was assessed via a short set of questions on specific food groups, while in menuCH by two non-consecutive 24-h dietary recall interviews. SETTING: To compare the diet depicted in these surveys, we used the Swiss food-based dietary guidelines on vegetable, fruit, dairy product, meat and meat product, fish and alcohol. The weighted proportion of responders meeting these guidelines was calculated for both surveys and was compared overall and by selected characteristics. PARTICIPANTS: Residents of Switzerland, selected from a stratified random sample of the non-institutionalised residents, who agreed to participate in the respective survey. To ensure comparability between the surveys, the age of the study populations was restricted to 18-75 years. RESULTS: In menuCH, approximately 2 % of responders met ≥4 of the selected Swiss food-based dietary guidelines. In the SHS, using a cruder dietary assessment, the corresponding percentage was 20 %. In both surveys, more women and never smokers were meeting ≥4 food-based dietary guidelines compared to men and current or former smokers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study comparing the diet in two population-based, representative surveys detected large variations in guideline adherence depending on the dietary assessment method used.

National study for multidisciplinary outpatient oncological rehabilitation: online survey to support revised quality and performance criteria.

PURPOSE: More and more people survive cancer, but the disease and its treatment often lead to impairment. Multidisciplinary ambulatory oncological rehabilitation (OR) programs have thus been developed. SW!SS REHA, the organization of major Swiss rehabilitation clinics, has defined ambulatory OR quality criteria for its members (about 50% of the Swiss rehabilitation capacity). However, SW!SS REHA criteria are not fully implemented and/or interpreted differently by different specialties or in different linguistic regions in Switzerland. The aim of our study was to carry out an online survey of existing outpatient programs to define quality criteria for an ideal OR program in Switzerland. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was used for the survey-qualitative and quantitative. The qualitative part consisted of a guided discussion with OR experts and the quantitative part of an online survey. The quantitative part comprised the development and evaluation of an online questionnaire. It served to record the opinions of OR centers in Switzerland on the desired situation of outpatient rehabilitation. RESULTS: Eighteen OR centers and 71 (49.7% response rate) OR actors participated in the online survey. The survey results indicate that some of the SW!SS REHA quality and performance criteria only partially match with the desired OR criteria for Switzerland. Key disparities occur particularly in the program design and structure and specifically around how many interventions are required to constitute an OR program, the extent of standardization versus individualization of the program, i.e., how many and which modules in a program should be obligatory, and finally the duration and intensity of the program. The online survey did not generate any statistical evidence that OR requirements vary significantly between different linguistic regions and among different specialties. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients are heterogeneous with respect to cancer type, prognosis, and disability level, such that a standard program cannot be uniformly applied. Therefore, a flexible program is required with few mandatory modules and additional individual modules to achieve the threshold number of modules that would constitute a multidisciplinary OR program. Intensity and frequency of OR needs to consider the health state of the participants. The results indicate a need to modify some of the existing SW!SS REHA criteria to ensure that more patients can gain access and benefit form evidence-based OR interventions. Furthermore, the survey provides important findings so that the existing OR offer can be improved with the goal that OR centers will be able to be quality certified in the future.

Multidisciplinary Outpatient Cancer Rehabilitation Can Improve Cancer Patients' Physical and Psychosocial Status-a Systematic Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This systematic review aimed to determine the effects of interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary outpatient rehabilitation programmes by looking at physical, psychosocial and return to work status of adult cancer patients. RECENT FINDINGS: There is growing evidence that emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary rehabilitation especially in outpatient care, which addresses the complex and individual needs of cancer patients. Many studies focus on measuring the effect of individual rehabilitation interventions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and before-after studies examining the effects of interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary outpatient rehabilitation programmes were included in this systematic review. The electronic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PEDro. The PICO statement was used for selection of the studies. Six randomized controlled trials and six before-after studies were included. Interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary outpatient cancer rehabilitation programmes improved physical and/or psychosocial status of cancer patients. However, non-significant changes in a variety of single physical and psychosocial measures were also common. The findings of the systematic review indicate that interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary outpatient cancer rehabilitation can improve cancer patients' physical and psychosocial status. This review is limited by the narrative approach due to the heterogeneity of outcome measures. To evaluate effects of rehabilitation, better comparable studies are necessary. Further research is needed in regard to long-term outcomes, effects on return to work status and on the associations depending on cancer type.