An Exploration of the Utilisation and Preference of Nutrition Information Sources in Australia Tracee Cash 1
1,2
, Ben Desbrow
2,3
4
, Michael Leveritt, , Lauren Ball
2,3
School of Nursing & Midwifery, Griffith University, 2 Griffith Health Institute, 3 School of Allied Health Sciences, Griffith University, 4 School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland
Background:
Results:
Discussion:
The prevalence of chronic disease in Australia is rising and poor nutrition
Dietitians, nutritionists and GPs were the three most preferred sources and were perceived to be
A considerable proportion of respondents reported having neutral perceptions of
behaviour is a modifiable risk factor for many chronic diseases. The utilisation of
most trustworthy, credible and effective. However the most utilised nutrition information sources
trustworthiness, credibility and effectiveness of many of the frequently utilised
appropriate nutrition information has been recommended to promote optimal
were the internet (62.9%), friends (59.8%), family (58.8%) and magazines (57.7%).
nutrition information sources. Additionaly, 50% of respondents in this study reported a previous diagnosis of a nutrition-related chronic disease however
nutrition behaviour.
between 32% and 60% of all respondents were uncertain about the
Previous utilization of nutrition information sources (in descending order). Internet Search Friends Family Magazines General Practitioner Pamphlets Personal Trainer Weight Loss Group Naturopath Dietitian Social media Television Nutritionist Pharmacist Nurse Radio Exercise Physiologist
N
%
61 58 57 56 52 38 37 36 33 31 28 27 23 14 10 10 7
62.9 59.8 58.8 57.7 53.6 39.2 38.1 37.1 34.0 32.0 28.9 27.8 23.7 14.4 10.3 10.3 7.2
trustworthiness, credibility and effectiveness of the nutrition information provided by the most frequently utilised sources. These findings further highlight the need for improved health literacy within the Australian population in order for individuals to access, interpret, evaluate and apply nutrition information to improve nutrition behaviours. Almost one-third of respondents reported a lack of time as a barrier to utilising their most preferred nutrition information sources. The four most preferred sources were health professionals who generally provide information during face-to-face consultations. The internet was the next most preferred nutrition information
Objective:
Over 30% of respondents reported time to attend appointments as a barrier to accessing their
source and has been found to be effective when delivering tailored nutrition
most preferred nutrition information sources. Between 32% and 60% of respondents reported To investigate individuals’ utilisation and preference of nutrition information
information.(19) These findings suggest potential for strategies that provide access to
neutral perceptions of the most frequently utilised nutrition information sources in relation to
sources as well as perceptions of trustworthiness, credibility and effectiveness
appropriate nutrition information provided by health professionals in a format that
trustworthiness, credibility and effectiveness.
is convenient and timely (such as via the internet) for individuals unable to attend
of sources.
Methods:
face-to-face appointments. Top five nutrition information sources perceived to be most trustworthy, credible and effective and the five nutrition information sources perceived to be not trustworthy, credible and effective for information relating to general health and wellbeing and chronic disease. General Health & Wellbeing
A cross-sectional online survey was used to investigate the utilisation and preference of nutrition information sources of individuals living on the Gold Coast, Australia as well as perceptions of trustworthiness, credibility and effectiveness of those sources.
Very trustworthy
Dietitian Nutritionist GP Exercise Phys Naturopath
%
49 48 29 28 14
62.8 61.5 37.2 35.9 24.6
Very credible
Using a convenience sampling method e-mails were sent to members of school
local health organisation inviting their participation in the survey. Only
Dietitian Nutritionist GP Exercise Phys Naturopath
respondents who were adults residing on the Gold Coast were eligible for
Very effective
communities, sporting associations and a panel of community members of a
inclusion (n=190). The study protocol was approved by Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (PBH/04/13/HREC).
Dietitian GP Nutritionist Nurse Exercise Phys
Chronic Disease
Not trustworthy
N
Online social media Radio Television Magazines Personal trainer
Very trustworthy
N
%
25 31 31 15 12
40.3 39.7 39.7 19.2 16.2
Not credible
N
%
45 41 34 21 16
59.2 53.9 44.7 27.6 21.1
Television Radio Social Media Magazines Weight loss group
Conclusion:
GP Dietitian Nutritionist Exercise Phys Pharmacist
Not trustworthy
N
%
45 44 38 18 16
58.4 57.1 49.4 23.4 20.8
Very credible
N
%
40 39 38 27 21
52.6 51.3 50.0 35.5 27.6
N
%
36 36 36 26 22
48.0 48.0 46.7 34.7 29.3
Dietitian GP Nutritionist Nurse Exercise Phys
Television Radio Social media Magazines Weight loss group
N
%
40 39 37 32 29
51.9 50.6 48.1 41.6 37.7
%
47 41 37 18 17
61.8 53.9 48.7 23.7 22.4
Social Media Television Radio Magazines Weight loss group
information sources in terms of utilisation and individuals’ perception of trustworthiness, credibility and effectiveness. The most frequently utilised nutrition information sources are often not the most preferred of perceived as trustworthy,
Not credible
N
This study has found that there is a great deal of variability between nutrition
N
%
42 41 38 38 28
55.3 53.9 50.0 50.0 36.8
credible and effective. Further research is warranted on the impact of these discrepancies on overall nutrition-related health literacy and behaviour.
Not effective N
%
47 41 37 18 17
61.8 53.9 48.7 23.7 22.4
Television Radio Online social media Magazines Weight loss group
References: 1. National Health Priority Action Council (NHPAC). National Chronic Disease Strategy. In: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, editor. Canberra2006; 2. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Health Survey: First Results, 2011-2012. 2012 [5/03/2013]; Available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/ ausstats/
[email protected]/Latestproducts/034947E844F25207CA257AA30014BDC7?opendocument.; 3. Bodenheimer T, Lorig K, Holman H, Grumback K. Patient Selfmanagement of Chronic Disease in Primary Care. Innovations in Primary Care. 2002;288(19):2469-75.; 4. Dart J, Gallois C, Yellowlees P. Community health information sources - a survey in three disparate communities. Australian Health Review. 2008;32(1):186-96; 5. Ball L, Desbrow B, Leveritt M. An exploration of individuals' preferences for nutrition care from Australian primary care health professionals. Australian Journal of Primary Health. 2013; 6. Calnan M, Rowe R. Researching trust relations in health care. Journal of Health Organization Management. 2006;20(5):349-58; 7. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011 Census Community Profiles: Gold Coast. In: Statistics ABo, editor. Canberra2013; 7. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia's health 2012. Canberra2012. Report No.: 13; 17. Dewalt D, Berkman N, Sheridan S, K L, MP P. Literacy and health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2004;19(12):1228-39; 8. Howard DH, Gazmararian JA, Parker RM. The impact of low health literacy on medical costs for Medicare managed care enrollees. American Journal of Medicine. 2005;118(4):371-7; 9. Adams RJ, Appleton SL, Hill CL, Dodd M, Findlay C, Wilson DH. Risks associated with low functional health literacy in an Australian population. Medical Journal of Australia [NLM - MEDLINE]. 2009;191(10):530-4; 10. Thompson R, DE T. A cross-sectional survey of the opinions on weight loss treatments of adult obese patients attending a dietetic clinic. International Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorders. 2000;24(2):164-70;
