Evidence-based practice attitudes and nutrition support guideline knowledge between holders and nonholders of the Certified Nutrition Support Clinician credential.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice frequently changes, and professionals should stay abreast of evidence-based practice (EBP) guidelines. Negative attitudes towards EBP are a barrier to guideline adoption. This study explored EBP attitudes and knowledge of a complex nutrition support clinical case scenario of individuals holding or not holding the Certified Nutrition Support Clinician (CNSC) credential. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used an online survey sent to American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) members with and without the CNSC credential and all CNSC credential holders from the National Board of Nutrition Support Certification email list. The survey included the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale Score (EBPAS-15) and eight knowledge questions using a nutrition support case scenario. An independent samples t test compared knowledge and EBPAS-15 total scores and subscores between CNSC holders and nonholders. Pearson correlation determined the correlation between knowledge and EBPAS-15 scores. RESULTS: The response rate was 7.8% (N = 706). CNSC holders (n = 536) had significantly higher mean knowledge scores (4.7 ± 1.6 out of 8) than nonholders (n = 159, 4.1 ± 1.7) (P < 0.001). Total EBPAS-15 scores were not significantly different between CNSC holders (n = 542, 2.9 ± 0.4 out of 4) and nonholders (n = 164, 2.8 ± 0.7) (P = 0.434), and knowledge scores and total EBPAS-15 scores (P = 0.639) or subscores were not significantly correlated. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of holding the CNSC credential, EBPAS-15 scores indicated respondents had positive EBP attitudes. CNSC holders had significantly higher knowledge scores of recent nutrition support EBP guidelines compared with non-CNSC credential holders. Positive EBP attitudes are a precursor to clinical decision-making, but future research should determine the use of guidelines in clinical practice.

A review of the efficacy of appetite stimulating medications in hospitalized adults.

BACKGROUND: The majority of evidence on efficacy of appetite-stimulating medications is limited to specific populations and the outpatient treatment setting. However, hospitalized adults remain at risk for poor appetite and inadequate intake. METHOD: The purpose of this review was to assess recent evidence on the efficacy of dronabinol, megestrol acetate, and mirtazapine (used to stimulate appetite) on promoting change in intake; somatic symptoms, such as appetite and nausea; and weight change during hospital stay. The population was limited to hospitalized adults or adults who demonstrated a need for appetite stimulation during hospitalization. RESULTS: Of the 382 articles screened, four met inclusion criteria (one randomized control trial, two retrospective cohort studies, and one retrospective case series). Based on the studies included, these appetite stimulants have limited efficacy on improving appetite and meal intake. There was no significant change in weight. CONCLUSION: Current data lack standardization, generalizability, and comparability, and higher quality evidence is needed before conclusions can be identified on the efficacy of dronabinol, megestrol acetate, and mirtazapine in the inpatient setting.