A dietetic consultation is a structured process aimed at supporting individual patients to modify their dietary behaviors to improve health outcomes. The body of evidence on the effectiveness of nutrition care provided by dietitians in primary health care settings has not previously been synthesized. This information is important to inform the role of dietitians in primary health care service delivery. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence of the effectiveness of individual consultations provided exclusively by dietitians in primary care to support adult patients to modify dietary intake and improve health outcomes. ProQuest Family Health, Scopus, PubMed Central, Medline, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane databases were searched for English language systematic reviews or randomized controlled trials published before October 2016. The key terms used identified the provision of nutrition care exclusively by a dietitian in a primary health care setting aimed at supporting adult patients to modify dietary behaviors and/or improve biomarkers of health. Interventions delivered to patients aged younger than 18 years, in hospital, via telephone only, in a group or lecture setting, or by a multidisciplinary team were excluded. The methodologic quality of each study was appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the body of evidence was assessed using the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence Analysis Manual. Outcomes included the effectiveness of dietetic interventions in terms of anthropometry, clinical indicators, and dietary intake. A statistically significant between-group difference was used to indicate intervention effectiveness (P<0.05). Twenty-six randomized controlled studies met eligibility criteria, representing 5,500 adults receiving dietetic consultations in a primary care setting. Eighteen of 26 included studies showed statistically significant differences in dietary, anthropometric, or clinical indicators between intervention and comparator groups. When focusing specifically on each study's stated aim, significant improvements favoring the intervention compared with control were found for the following management areas: glycemic control (four out of four studies), dietary change (four out of four studies), anthropometry (four out of seven studies), cholesterol (two out of eight studies), triglycerides (one out of five), and blood pressure (zero out of three) studies. Dietetic consultations for adults in primary care settings appear to be effective for improvement in diet quality, diabetes outcomes (including blood glucose and glycated haemoglobin values), and weight loss outcomes (eg, changes in weight and waist circumference) and to limit gestational weight gain (Grade II: Fair evidence). Research evaluated in this review does not provide consistent support for the effectiveness of direct dietetic counseling alone in achieving outcomes relating to plasma lipid levels and blood pressure (Grade III: Limited evidence). Therefore, to more effectively control these cardiovascular disease risk factors, future research might explore novel nutrition counseling approaches as well as dietitians functioning as part of multidisciplinary teams.

Effective, evidence-based strategies to prevent and treat obesity are urgently required. Dietitians have provided individualized weight management counselling for decades, yet evidence of the effectiveness of this intervention has never been synthesized. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of individualized nutrition care for weight management provided by dietitians to adults in comparison to minimal or no intervention. Databases (Cochrane, CINAHL plus, MedLine ovid, ProQuest family health, PubMed, Scopus) were searched for terms analogous with patient, dietetics and consultation with no date restrictions. The search yielded 5796 unique articles, with 14 randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria. The risk of bias for the included studies ranged from unclear to high. Six studies found a significant intervention effect for the dietitian consultation, and a further four found significant positive change for both the intervention and control groups. Data were synthesized through random effects meta-analysis from five studies (n = 1598) with weight loss as the outcome, and from four studies (n = 1224) with Body Mass Index (BMI) decrease as the outcome. Groups receiving the dietitian intervention lost an additional 1.03 kg (95% CI:−1.40; −0.66, p < 0.0001) of weight and 0.43 kg/m² (95% CI:−0.59, −0.26; p < 0.0001) of BMI than those receiving usual care. Heterogeneity was low for both weight loss and BMI, with the pooled means varying from 1.26 to −0.93 kg and −0.4 kg/m² for weight and BMI, respectively, with the removal of single studies. This study is the first to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of individualized nutrition care delivered by a dietitian. Well-controlled studies that include cost-effectiveness measures are needed to strengthen the evidence base.

Aim: Evidence of the effectiveness of dietetic consultation for the management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors has not been previously synthesised. A systematic review and four meta‐analyses evaluated the effectiveness of dietetic consultation for lowering blood lipid levels in high‐risk individuals in primary health‐care settings.Methods: Of the 4860 records identified, 10 eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs, n = 1530) were evaluated for reporting blood lipid outcomes following dietetic consultation (DN)—defined as at least one exclusive individual face‐to‐face consultation with a dietitian and comparators (C)—defined as no nutrition intervention or usual or minimal care provided by physicians and/or nurses.Results: DN groups were effective for lowering blood lipid levels across nine studies reporting total cholesterol (TC) and LDL; and across five of six studies reporting triglycerides (TG). Between‐group differences were not consistently assessed, with significance levels reported in four studies all in favour of DN, P < 0.05. Meta‐analyses for TC and LDL (seven studies) confirmed DN and C groups were equally effective, P > 0.05; and for TG (six studies) DN groups were significantly more effective than C groups, P < 0.05).Conclusions: This review provides RCT evidence that dietetic counselling is effective for lowering TG levels and at least as effective as usual and minimal care for improving cholesterol levels in high‐risk individuals in primary health care. However, more adequate reporting of methods and greater consistency in timing interventions and data collection will enhance the quality of the evidence and increase confidence in the health benefits of dietetic counselling for the management of CVD risk.

Salt substitution is a simple yet increasingly promising strategy to improve cardiovascular outcomes. To evaluate the long-term effects of salt substitution on cardiovascular outcomes. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL searched from inception to 23 August 2023. Trial registries, citation analysis, and hand-search were also done. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing provision of or advice to use a salt substitute with no intervention or use of regular salt among adults for 6 months or longer in total study duration. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes include mortality, major cardiovascular events (MACE), and adverse events at 6 months or greater. Secondary and post hoc outcomes include blood pressure, cause-specific mortality, and urinary excretion at 6 months or greater. Random-effects meta-analyses were done and certainty of effect estimates were assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Of the 16 included RCTs, 8 reported on primary outcomes. Most (n = 7 of 8) were done in China or Taiwan, 3 were done in residential facilities, and 7 included populations of older age (average 62 years) and/or with higher-than-average cardiovascular risk. In this population, salt substitute may reduce risk for all-cause mortality (6 RCTs; 27 710 participants; rate ratio [RR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82 to 0.93]; low certainty) and cardiovascular mortality (4 RCTs; 25 050 participants; RR, 0.83 [CI, 0.73 to 0.95]; low certainty). Salt substitute may result in a slight reduction in MACE (3 RCTs; 23 215 participants; RR, 0.85 [CI, 0.71 to 1.00]; very low certainty), with very low-certainty evidence of serious adverse events (6 RCTs; 27 995 participants; risk ratio, 1.04 [CI, 0.87 to 1.25]). The evidence base is dominated by a single, large RCT. Most RCTs were from China or Taiwan and involved participants with higher-than-average cardiovascular risk; therefore, generalizability to other populations is very limited. Salt substitution may reduce all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, but the evidence for reducing cardiovascular events and for not increasing serious adverse events is uncertain, particularly for a Western population. The certainty of evidence is higher among populations at higher cardiovascular risk and/or following a Chinese diet. National Health and Medical Research Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42022327566).

Background: The digital health divide for socioeconomic disadvantage describes a pattern in which patients considered socioeconomically disadvantaged, who are already marginalized through reduced access to face-to-face health care, are additionally hindered through less access to patient-initiated digital health. A comprehensive understanding of how patients with socioeconomic disadvantage access and experience digital health is essential for improving the digital health divide. Primary care patients, especially those with chronic disease, have experience of the stages of initial help seeking and self-management of their health, which renders them a key demographic for research on patient-initiated digital health access. Objective: This study aims to provide comprehensive primary mixed methods data on the patient experience of barriers to digital health access, with a focus on the digital health divide. Methods: We applied an exploratory mixed methods design to ensure that our survey was primarily shaped by the experiences of our interviewees. First, we qualitatively explored the experience of digital health for 19 patients with socioeconomic disadvantage and chronic disease and second, we quantitatively measured some of these findings by designing and administering a survey to 487 Australian general practice patients from 24 general practices. Results: In our qualitative first phase, the key barriers found to accessing digital health included (1) strong patient preference for human-based health services; (2) low trust in digital health services; (3) high financial costs of necessary tools, maintenance, and repairs; (4) poor publicly available internet access options; (5) reduced capacity to engage due to increased life pressures; and (6) low self-efficacy and confidence in using digital health. In our quantitative second phase, 31% (151/487) of the survey participants were found to have never used a form of digital health, while 10.7% (52/487) were low- to medium-frequency users and 48.5% (236/487) were high-frequency users. High-frequency users were more likely to be interested in digital health and had higher self-efficacy. Low-frequency users were more likely to report difficulty affording the financial costs needed for digital access. Conclusions: While general digital interest, financial cost, and digital health literacy and empowerment are clear factors in digital health access in a broad primary care population, the digital health divide is also facilitated in part by a stepped series of complex and cumulative barriers. Genuinely improving digital health access for 1 cohort or even 1 person requires a series of multiple different interventions tailored to specific sequential barriers. Within primary care, patient-centered care that continues to recognize the complex individual needs of, and barriers facing, each patient should be part of addressing the digital health divide.