A time of change.

Abstract

Nutrition & DieteticsVolume 77, Issue 1 p. 3-5 EDITORIALFree Access A time of change First published: 05 February 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12607Citations: 1AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat This New Year heralded the beginning of a new decade and, for me, a new role as Editor in Chief for Nutrition & Dietetics. Thank you to the outgoing Editor in Chief, Professor Linda Tapsell, for her longstanding commitment to the journal and support in our recent transition. Thanks also to our Editorial Board and peer reviewers for their dedication in applying the highest editorial standards to all manuscripts submitted for publication. Change is happening faster than ever before. Within this era of accelerating change one of our greatest challenges lies in delivering excellence. But what does this mean for scientific publishing? And, importantly, what does it mean for the future of Nutrition & Dietetics? In the 580 years since the emergence of the printing press, mass printing and more recently digital technology have led to volumes of information, fast communication speed and 24/7 access. Although there have been numerous innovations that streamline processes in reporting and communication, scientific publishing has largely stalled in delivering a computerised output of a published work … the pdf. This format is easy to read, but has been described as “antithetical to the spirit of the Web, being static rather than interactive”(p. 87).1 This leaves us in a paradoxical situation where scientific information is sometimes so abundant that it is difficult to find and, despite its novelty and/or significance, is sometimes uninspiring. Simultaneously, metrics for translation and impact have become increasingly important compared with the traditional metrics of journal impact factor and citations. Conferences remain an important medium for research dissemination, but authors increasingly promote their outputs to assist readers to discover and connect with their research. This impact may be increased through the use of owned media (eg, websites, blogs, and social media), earned media (where others discuss your research on websites, television, etc.), and paid media (advertising and promotion).2 There are expectations that scientific journals and publishers should do more to improve the author/reader interface. Journals must deliver content that is discoverable, and, in a medium that best suits both authors and readers. Keeping pace with digital innovation is not easy. Described as “winning the battle for relevance,” businesses (and therefore scientific journals) need to re-calibrate, refocus, re-fresh, re-engineer, re-frame and re-position3 to endure. In practice, this means reconsidering the pdf and reimagining the appearance of a truly contemporary journal. The New England Journal of Medicine has embraced such opportunities through the inclusion of interactive cases and images, perspectives and audio summaries within their website to complement their traditional journal format. The journal website of our US colleagues, the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, hosts videos and podcasts by authors, and a research series facilitated by their editorial team. Can Nutrition & Dietetics evolve to deliver research that is modern in its interface while informing dietetic practice? For example, into the future, should a 3 minute thesis style presentation by authors be included to complement their pdf? Would a monthly podcast, downloadable through a digital store support translating expensive research into practice? Even more ambitiously, can research in the spoken form become publishable in scientific journals, including in Nutrition & Dietetics? How would peer review be conducted and which reporting frameworks would apply? These are questions in which we are engaged, and seek solutions in order to refocus—sooner rather than later. Paralleling this era of publishing change are ongoing pressures in the work environment that further compound difficulty in accessing and engaging with scientific evidence. For some practitioners research is not a priority.4 While dietitians set themselves apart from other nutritional professionals through their ability to deliver evidence based practice, practitioners report that they do not have time for evidence based practice activities.5 Evidence syntheses, often in the form of systematic reviews, present a potential solution as an efficient means to understand a subject. Although coming under some critique recently due to selection bias and the inclusion of poorly conducted trials,6 systematic reviews have been described as an elusive search for truth, aiming to address the needs both of decision makers and evidence users.7 Published in this issue, we learn that dietitians are confident in their use of systematic reviews, while reporting less confidence in their conduct.8 This confidence is reassuring since this issue of Nutrition & Dietetics comprises a series of recently accepted systematic reviews, including those submitted through our invitation to authors who presented their research at the 2019 Dietitians Association of Australia conference. In recent years, the presentation of systematic reviews in Australia has increased9 potentially associated with increasing academic capacity.10, 11 However their publication in Nutrition & Dietetics was limited to just four systematic reviews in 2018 to 2019.12-15 Thank you to the authors of conference abstracts who responded to our invitation to submit their systematic review through expedited peer-review. This issue contains seven systematic reviews across diverse areas of practice. Yii et al16 explore population based interventions that address food insecurity in Australia, highlighting that there is a lack of a coordinated and coherent national response to address the many determinants of food insecurity. Rounsefell et al17 have critiqued the impact of social media engagement/exposure to image-related content on body image and food choices in the population of healthy young adults. Complementing this review, Panão & Carraça18 have synthesised evidence for exercise motivations on body image and eating habits/behaviour. In the clinical setting, the review of Fleurke et al19 examines the role of the dietitian in the management of malnutrition in older adults. McLean et al20 have synthesised the evidence for nutritional interventions for people admitted to hospital for alcohol withdrawal. The identification and synthesis of the effects of nutritional interventions on markers of sarcopenia in hospitalised patients aged 65 years and above are the focus of the review of Rus et al,21 while MacKenzie-Shalders et al22 highlights outcomes that have arisen from implementation of electronic bedside meal ordering systems into hospital foodservice. Beyond systematic reviews, there are several key reports of professional issues for Australian dietitians published in this issue. These include research undertaken by Broome and Swanepoel10 who have benchmarked the research track records of dietetic academics in Australia, and the Hidden Jedi: a critical qualitative exploration of the Dietitians Association of Australia Fellow credential and advanced expertise.23 We also learn from the geographical system mapping undertaken by a research team at the University of Sydney24 that there are inequities in the access to dietitians for people with type 2 diabetes in rural, remote and disadvantaged areas. Challenges await us as a profession, and nation, in addressing such health inequalities. Several other papers present research across diverse areas of practice. In a large cross-sectional study reported by Lavelle et al 25 we learn that diet quality is more strongly related to food skills rather than cooking skills confidence. Original research investigating different aspects of renal function26 and management27 are included, as is the SPICE trial protocol.28 Although we live in a time of rapid change, a strong evidence base is critical to support our profession. As you read this issue, reflect how you would like to receive journal content into the future … how can this content be delivered to maximise its translation into practice? What would make research more engaging and easier to access? Opportunities for innovation await. Judi Porter PhD FDAA, Editor in Chief, Nutrition & Dietetics1,2 1. Department of Nutrition, Dietetics & Food, Monash University, Australia 2. Allied Health Clinical Research Office, Eastern Health, Australia. REFERENCES 1Shotton D. Semantic publishing: the coming revolution in scientific journal publishing. Learn Publ. 2009; 22: 85- 94. 2Green T. Maximizing dissemination and engaging readers: The other 50% of an author's day: a case study. Learn Publ. 2019; 32: 395- 405. 3McQueen M. Winning the Battle for Relevance: Why Even the Greatest Become Obsolete… and How to Avoid Their Fate. New York: Morgan James Publishing; 2016. 4Taylor N, Harding K, Lynch L, et al. Evaluating the introduction of an allied health clinical research office at a health service on research participation, interest and experience of allied health professionals. J Allied Health. 2019; 48(1): 46- 53. 5Harding K, Porter J, Thompson A, Donley E, Taylor N. Barriers to evidence-based practice for allied health clinicians. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2014; 34(4): 224- 231. 6Horton R. Offline: the gravy train of systematic reviews. Lancet. 2019; 394: 1790. 7Tovey D. Reflection on 10 years as Cochrane's Editor in Chief. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019; Issue 5. Art. No.: ED000137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000137. 8Gooding B, Probst Y, Houston L, Neale E. Exploring perceptions, barriers and use of systematic reviews amongst nutrition professionals and nutrition students. Nutr Diet. 2020; 77: 151- 159. 9Porter J, Bristow C, Charlton C, Tapsell L, Choi T. Changes in nutrition & dietetic research: a content analysis of the past decade of Dietitians Association of Australia conferences. Nutr Diet. 2019; 76(5): 634- 641. https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12563. 10Broome K, Swanepoel L. Benchmarking the research track record and level of appointment of Australian dietetic academics. Nutr Diet. 2020; 77: 160- 166. 11Morgan K, Kelly JT, Campbell KL, Hughes R, Reidlinger DP. Dietetics workforce preparation and preparedness in Australia: a systematic mapping review to inform future dietetics education research. Nutr Diet. 2019; 76: 47- 56. 12Lawlis T, Islam W, Upton P. Achieving the four dimensions of food security for resettled refugees in Australia: a systematic review. Nutr Diet. 2018; 75: 182- 192. 13Ross LJ, Barnes KA, Ball LE, et al. Effectiveness of dietetic consultation for lowering blood lipid levels in the management of cardiovascular disease risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Nutr Diet. 2019; 76: 199- 210. 14Young KG, Duncanson K, The BT. Influence of grandparents on the dietary intake of their two to twelve-year old grandchildren: a systematic review. Nutr Diet. 2018; 75: 291- 306. 15Wan CS, Nankervis A, Teede H, Aroni R. Dietary intervention strategies for ethnic Chinese women with gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Diet. 2019; 76: 211- 232. 16Yii V, Palermo C, Kleve S. Population-based interventions addressing food insecurity in Australia: a systematic scoping review. Nutr Diet. 2020; 77: 6- 18. 17Rounsefell K, Gibson S, McLean S, et al. Social media, body image and food choices in healthy young adults: a mixed methods systematic review. Nutr Diet. 2020; 77: 19- 40. 18Panão I, Carraça EV. Effects of exercise motivations on body image and eating habits/behaviours: a systematic review. Nutr Diet. 2020; 77: 41- 59. 19Fleurke M, Voskuil DW, Beneken Genaamd Kolmer DM. The role of the dietitian in the management of malnutrition in the elderly: a systematic review of current practices. Nutr Diet. 2020; 77: 60- 75. 20McLean C, Tapsell L, Grafenauer S, McMahon A. A systematic review of nutritional interventions for people admitted to hospital for alcohol withdrawal. Nutr Diet. 2020; 77: 76- 89. 21Rus GE, Porter J, Brunton A, et al. Nutrition interventions implemented in hospital to lower risk of sarcopenia in older adults: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Nutr Diet. 2020; 77: 90- 102. 22MacKenzie-Shalders K, Maunder K, So D, Norris R, McCray S. Impact of electronic bedside meal ordering systems on dietary intake, patient satisfaction, plate waste and costs: a systematic literature review. Nutr Diet. 2020; 77: 103- 111. 23Palermo C, Allen L, Dart J, Beck EJ, Daniels L, Ash S. Hidden Jedi: a critical qualitative exploration of the fellow credential and advanced expertise. Nutr Diet. 2020; 77: 167- 176. 24Siopis G, Jones A, Allman-Farinelli M. The dietetic workforce distribution geographic atlas provides insight into the inequitable access for dietetic services for people with type 2 diabetes in Australia. Nutr Diet. 2020; 77: 121- 130. 25Lavelle F, Bucher T, Dean M, Brown HM, Rollo ME, Collins CE. Diet quality is more strongly related to food skills rather than cooking skills confidence: results from a national cross-sectional survey. Nutr Diet. 2020; 77: 112- 120. 26Versele V, Clarys P, Deforche B, et al. Stability of potential renal acid load. Nutr Diet. 2020; 77: 139- 143. 27Roach LA, Russell KG, Lambert K, Holt JL, Meyer BJ. Polyunsaturated fatty acid food frequency questionnaire validation in people with end stage renal disease on dialysis. Nutr Diet. 2020; 77: 131- 138. 28Marx W, McCarthy A, Marshall S, et al. Supplemental prophylactic intervention for chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis (SPICE) trial: protocol for a multicentre double-blind placebo-controlled randomised trial. Nutr Diet. 2020; 77: 144- 150. Citing Literature Volume77, Issue1February 2020Pages 3-5 ReferencesRelatedInformation