Cargando…
The Content and Accuracy of the SmartBrief for Nutrition Professionals
OBJECTIVES: SmartBrief (SB) emails, which include reports on nutrition related research and other topics related to the nutrition profession, are sent on weekdays, by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) to their members. The objective of this study was to describe the content, sources, and...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9193419/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzac056.012 |
_version_ | 1784726456647024640 |
---|---|
author | Metallinos-Katsaras, Elizabeth Losak, Rachel O'Brien, Jolene |
author_facet | Metallinos-Katsaras, Elizabeth Losak, Rachel O'Brien, Jolene |
author_sort | Metallinos-Katsaras, Elizabeth |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: SmartBrief (SB) emails, which include reports on nutrition related research and other topics related to the nutrition profession, are sent on weekdays, by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) to their members. The objective of this study was to describe the content, sources, and accuracy of the summaries (Briefs) provided in the SBs. METHODS: This was a content analysis of five randomly selected SB email weeks (June 1, 2019-December 1, 2019). Overall, 25 SBs emails containing 267 SB brief summaries (Briefs) were examined. Two researchers abstracted the data with inter-rater reliabilities >.9. To replicate the readers’ access in seeking more information, accuracy was assessed by comparing each Brief with sources provided (news article or both news and journal article). RESULTS: The content of the Briefs (n = 267) fell into two categories: research related and news-related content (59.9% and 40.1% of Briefs, respectively). Overall, 56.6% of Briefs had solely a news source link; only 43.0% had a link to the original source, which was a journal article. Of those with a news source, 25.8% targeted only health professionals; 67.3% targeted solely the public and 6.9% targeted both. Overall, 17.8% of briefs had ≥1 errors but this varied (p < .05) by type of information presented; 21.2% of research related vs.12.7% of news related topics had ≥1 error. Among research-related briefs, a significantly greater percentage of those that included the journal article link and the news link (and were compared to these sources), had ≥1 errors compared to those linking solely to a news article (34.8% vs. 3.8%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although SB emails are sent out to AND members to provide accurate health-based information, this study found more than half of the articles examined used non-scientific sources, and contained errors. Thus, AND members should be cautious of using solely the SB articles in practice without consulting the original published source. FUNDING SOURCES: None. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9193419 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91934192022-06-14 The Content and Accuracy of the SmartBrief for Nutrition Professionals Metallinos-Katsaras, Elizabeth Losak, Rachel O'Brien, Jolene Curr Dev Nutr Education and Teaching OBJECTIVES: SmartBrief (SB) emails, which include reports on nutrition related research and other topics related to the nutrition profession, are sent on weekdays, by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) to their members. The objective of this study was to describe the content, sources, and accuracy of the summaries (Briefs) provided in the SBs. METHODS: This was a content analysis of five randomly selected SB email weeks (June 1, 2019-December 1, 2019). Overall, 25 SBs emails containing 267 SB brief summaries (Briefs) were examined. Two researchers abstracted the data with inter-rater reliabilities >.9. To replicate the readers’ access in seeking more information, accuracy was assessed by comparing each Brief with sources provided (news article or both news and journal article). RESULTS: The content of the Briefs (n = 267) fell into two categories: research related and news-related content (59.9% and 40.1% of Briefs, respectively). Overall, 56.6% of Briefs had solely a news source link; only 43.0% had a link to the original source, which was a journal article. Of those with a news source, 25.8% targeted only health professionals; 67.3% targeted solely the public and 6.9% targeted both. Overall, 17.8% of briefs had ≥1 errors but this varied (p < .05) by type of information presented; 21.2% of research related vs.12.7% of news related topics had ≥1 error. Among research-related briefs, a significantly greater percentage of those that included the journal article link and the news link (and were compared to these sources), had ≥1 errors compared to those linking solely to a news article (34.8% vs. 3.8%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although SB emails are sent out to AND members to provide accurate health-based information, this study found more than half of the articles examined used non-scientific sources, and contained errors. Thus, AND members should be cautious of using solely the SB articles in practice without consulting the original published source. FUNDING SOURCES: None. Oxford University Press 2022-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9193419/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzac056.012 Text en © The Author 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The International Society for Human and Animal Mycology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Education and Teaching Metallinos-Katsaras, Elizabeth Losak, Rachel O'Brien, Jolene The Content and Accuracy of the SmartBrief for Nutrition Professionals |
title | The Content and Accuracy of the SmartBrief for Nutrition Professionals |
title_full | The Content and Accuracy of the SmartBrief for Nutrition Professionals |
title_fullStr | The Content and Accuracy of the SmartBrief for Nutrition Professionals |
title_full_unstemmed | The Content and Accuracy of the SmartBrief for Nutrition Professionals |
title_short | The Content and Accuracy of the SmartBrief for Nutrition Professionals |
title_sort | content and accuracy of the smartbrief for nutrition professionals |
topic | Education and Teaching |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9193419/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzac056.012 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT metallinoskatsaraselizabeth thecontentandaccuracyofthesmartbrieffornutritionprofessionals AT losakrachel thecontentandaccuracyofthesmartbrieffornutritionprofessionals AT obrienjolene thecontentandaccuracyofthesmartbrieffornutritionprofessionals AT metallinoskatsaraselizabeth contentandaccuracyofthesmartbrieffornutritionprofessionals AT losakrachel contentandaccuracyofthesmartbrieffornutritionprofessionals AT obrienjolene contentandaccuracyofthesmartbrieffornutritionprofessionals |