Get access

Current practice in nutrition assessment for the management of Parkinson's disease in Australia and Canada

Authors

  • Jamie M Sheard,

    Corresponding author
    1. Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia
    2. School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia
    • Correspondence: J.M. Sheard, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059, Australia. Email: jamiesheard@gmail.com

    Search for more papers by this author
    • J.M. Sheard, BHlthSci (Nutr & Diet) (Hons), BAppSci (HMS) (Hons), APD, PhD candidate
  • Susan Ash

    1. Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia
    2. School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
    • S. Ash, PhD, AdvAPD, Professor

Abstract

Aim

To document and compare current practice in nutrition assessment of Parkinson's disease by dietitians in Australia and Canada in order to identify priority areas for review and development of practice guidelines and direct future research.

Methods

An online survey was distributed to DAA (Dietitians Association of Australia) members and PEN (Practice-based Evidence in Nutrition) subscribers through their email newsletters. The survey captured current practice in the phases of the Nutrition Care Plan. The results of the assessment phase are presented here.

Results

Eighty-four dietitians responded. Differences in practice existed in the choice of nutrition screening and assessment tools, including appropriate body mass index ranges. Nutrition impact symptoms were commonly assessed, but information about Parkinson's disease medication interactions was not consistently assessed.

Conclusions

The variation in practice related to the use of screening and assessment methods may result in the identification of different goals for subsequent interventions. Even more practice variation was evident for those items more specific to Parkinson's disease and may be due to the lack of evidence to guide practice. Further research is required to support decisions for nutrition assessment of Parkinson's disease.

Ancillary