Attitudes and opinions of dietetics professionals toward cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses

Judith Gilbride, Sara C. Parks, Radech Rao Palakurthi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective To compare the attitudes and opinions of dietitians and dietary managers in regard to cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Design A questionnaire was sent nationwide to a sample of 1,074 dietitians and 545 dietary managers. Subjects/samples The dietitians were randomly selected from the dietitians practice groups of The American Dietetic Association that have practitioners with administrative responsibilities in health care: Clinical Nutrition Management, Consultant Dietitians in Health Care Facilities, and Management in Healthcare Systems. The random sample of dietary managers was drawn from the membership list of the Dietary Managers Association. Main outcome measures We hypothesized that there would be a difference between the dietitians managers in their attitudes about, and experiences in conducting CBA and CEA. Statistical analyses Data analysis incorporated frequencies, means, and standard deviations to describe the respondents. Pearson's pairwise correlations and analysis of variance examined the significance of the relationships among the variables of the study. Scheffe's test was conducted to identify which variables related closely to each other. Results Seven hundred twenty-two usable questionnaires were returned, which gave an overall response rate of 47%. Although both professional groups had experience with reducing costs at their jobs, they did not think it important to conduct CBA and CEA. Neither group could distinguish between CBA and CEA. Dietitians, who were more positive toward using CBA and CEA, saw them as important techniques that could justify the value of dietetics services. Dietitians were also more likely than the dietary managers to use the techniques in the future. Dietitians were beginning to explore the techniques, but they did not feel that good sources of information were available for conducting CBA and CEA studies. Applications/conclusions Our findings suggest a strong need to educate dietitians and dietary managers in the technique and proper use of CBA and CEA in practice settings. Dietitians need to be guided to appropriate teaching materials and educational programs, and dietary managers first have to be educated about the importance and the benefits of using the techniques. J Am Diet Assoc. 1994; 94: 386-389.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)386-389
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of the American Dietetic Association
Volume94
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 1994

Fingerprint

Dietetics
dietitians
cost effectiveness
dietetics
Cost-Benefit Analysis
cost benefit analysis
Nutritionists
managers
health services
Costs and Cost Analysis
questionnaires
educational materials
methodology
clinical nutrition
consultants
Delivery of Health Care
information sources
education programs
sampling
data analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Food Science
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Attitudes and opinions of dietetics professionals toward cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. / Gilbride, Judith; Parks, Sara C.; Palakurthi, Radech Rao.

In: Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 94, No. 4, 1994, p. 386-389.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gilbride, Judith ; Parks, Sara C. ; Palakurthi, Radech Rao. / Attitudes and opinions of dietetics professionals toward cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. In: Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 1994 ; Vol. 94, No. 4. pp. 386-389.
@article{da1071db2c7c4624ba08d9385a3a2239,
title = "Attitudes and opinions of dietetics professionals toward cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses",
abstract = "Objective To compare the attitudes and opinions of dietitians and dietary managers in regard to cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Design A questionnaire was sent nationwide to a sample of 1,074 dietitians and 545 dietary managers. Subjects/samples The dietitians were randomly selected from the dietitians practice groups of The American Dietetic Association that have practitioners with administrative responsibilities in health care: Clinical Nutrition Management, Consultant Dietitians in Health Care Facilities, and Management in Healthcare Systems. The random sample of dietary managers was drawn from the membership list of the Dietary Managers Association. Main outcome measures We hypothesized that there would be a difference between the dietitians managers in their attitudes about, and experiences in conducting CBA and CEA. Statistical analyses Data analysis incorporated frequencies, means, and standard deviations to describe the respondents. Pearson's pairwise correlations and analysis of variance examined the significance of the relationships among the variables of the study. Scheffe's test was conducted to identify which variables related closely to each other. Results Seven hundred twenty-two usable questionnaires were returned, which gave an overall response rate of 47{\%}. Although both professional groups had experience with reducing costs at their jobs, they did not think it important to conduct CBA and CEA. Neither group could distinguish between CBA and CEA. Dietitians, who were more positive toward using CBA and CEA, saw them as important techniques that could justify the value of dietetics services. Dietitians were also more likely than the dietary managers to use the techniques in the future. Dietitians were beginning to explore the techniques, but they did not feel that good sources of information were available for conducting CBA and CEA studies. Applications/conclusions Our findings suggest a strong need to educate dietitians and dietary managers in the technique and proper use of CBA and CEA in practice settings. Dietitians need to be guided to appropriate teaching materials and educational programs, and dietary managers first have to be educated about the importance and the benefits of using the techniques. J Am Diet Assoc. 1994; 94: 386-389.",
author = "Judith Gilbride and Parks, {Sara C.} and Palakurthi, {Radech Rao}",
year = "1994",
doi = "10.1016/0002-8223(94)90091-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "94",
pages = "386--389",
journal = "Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics",
issn = "2212-2672",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Attitudes and opinions of dietetics professionals toward cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses

AU - Gilbride, Judith

AU - Parks, Sara C.

AU - Palakurthi, Radech Rao

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - Objective To compare the attitudes and opinions of dietitians and dietary managers in regard to cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Design A questionnaire was sent nationwide to a sample of 1,074 dietitians and 545 dietary managers. Subjects/samples The dietitians were randomly selected from the dietitians practice groups of The American Dietetic Association that have practitioners with administrative responsibilities in health care: Clinical Nutrition Management, Consultant Dietitians in Health Care Facilities, and Management in Healthcare Systems. The random sample of dietary managers was drawn from the membership list of the Dietary Managers Association. Main outcome measures We hypothesized that there would be a difference between the dietitians managers in their attitudes about, and experiences in conducting CBA and CEA. Statistical analyses Data analysis incorporated frequencies, means, and standard deviations to describe the respondents. Pearson's pairwise correlations and analysis of variance examined the significance of the relationships among the variables of the study. Scheffe's test was conducted to identify which variables related closely to each other. Results Seven hundred twenty-two usable questionnaires were returned, which gave an overall response rate of 47%. Although both professional groups had experience with reducing costs at their jobs, they did not think it important to conduct CBA and CEA. Neither group could distinguish between CBA and CEA. Dietitians, who were more positive toward using CBA and CEA, saw them as important techniques that could justify the value of dietetics services. Dietitians were also more likely than the dietary managers to use the techniques in the future. Dietitians were beginning to explore the techniques, but they did not feel that good sources of information were available for conducting CBA and CEA studies. Applications/conclusions Our findings suggest a strong need to educate dietitians and dietary managers in the technique and proper use of CBA and CEA in practice settings. Dietitians need to be guided to appropriate teaching materials and educational programs, and dietary managers first have to be educated about the importance and the benefits of using the techniques. J Am Diet Assoc. 1994; 94: 386-389.

AB - Objective To compare the attitudes and opinions of dietitians and dietary managers in regard to cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Design A questionnaire was sent nationwide to a sample of 1,074 dietitians and 545 dietary managers. Subjects/samples The dietitians were randomly selected from the dietitians practice groups of The American Dietetic Association that have practitioners with administrative responsibilities in health care: Clinical Nutrition Management, Consultant Dietitians in Health Care Facilities, and Management in Healthcare Systems. The random sample of dietary managers was drawn from the membership list of the Dietary Managers Association. Main outcome measures We hypothesized that there would be a difference between the dietitians managers in their attitudes about, and experiences in conducting CBA and CEA. Statistical analyses Data analysis incorporated frequencies, means, and standard deviations to describe the respondents. Pearson's pairwise correlations and analysis of variance examined the significance of the relationships among the variables of the study. Scheffe's test was conducted to identify which variables related closely to each other. Results Seven hundred twenty-two usable questionnaires were returned, which gave an overall response rate of 47%. Although both professional groups had experience with reducing costs at their jobs, they did not think it important to conduct CBA and CEA. Neither group could distinguish between CBA and CEA. Dietitians, who were more positive toward using CBA and CEA, saw them as important techniques that could justify the value of dietetics services. Dietitians were also more likely than the dietary managers to use the techniques in the future. Dietitians were beginning to explore the techniques, but they did not feel that good sources of information were available for conducting CBA and CEA studies. Applications/conclusions Our findings suggest a strong need to educate dietitians and dietary managers in the technique and proper use of CBA and CEA in practice settings. Dietitians need to be guided to appropriate teaching materials and educational programs, and dietary managers first have to be educated about the importance and the benefits of using the techniques. J Am Diet Assoc. 1994; 94: 386-389.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028210379&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028210379&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0002-8223(94)90091-4

DO - 10.1016/0002-8223(94)90091-4

M3 - Article

VL - 94

SP - 386

EP - 389

JO - Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

JF - Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

SN - 2212-2672

IS - 4

ER -