(P19-14-26) Differences of Patient and Clinician Perceptions on Return of Diet Quality Results Within a Community-Engaged Dietary Behavior Intervention

Objectives: Evaluate participant and clinician perception of Healthy Eating Index (HEI) results from the Diet History Questionnaire III (DHQ III) returned to study participants in a community-engaged intervention.

Methods: Participants enrolled in a cooking intervention among African American adults with cardiovascular disease risk completed the web-based DHQ III prior to their baseline and 12-week post-intervention visits. DHQ III generated a patient-facing report with HEI total and sub-scores and individualized recommendations of food groups to increase or limit. Participants reviewed the reports on their own, with a dietitian, and the study physician. Participants and the physician completed Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) to assess readability, perceived utility, and report complexity. Paired sample t-tests were used to determine differences in responses. Dietitians provided narrative comments.

Results: Participants (n = 17) agreed that the reports showed the ‘right amount of information’ (M = 4.50, SD = .61), were ‘easy to read’ (M = 3.76, SD = 1.1), and ‘most people would be able to understand’ (M = 3.41, SD = 1.1). They did not think ‘the reports were too complex’ (M = 2.06, SD = 1.1) or that ‘they would need to ask a lot of questions to understand them’ (M = 2.22, SD = 1.1). Participants felt they understood the overall diet quality score (M = 3.76, SD = 1.1), including personalized guidance on foods to eat more (M = 4.56, SD = .51) and to limit (M = 4.39, SD = .78). Dietitians reported that most questions were on total HEI score and individualized guidance. Participant responses stated that reports were more complex (Δx̄ = -.875, p = .002) and less easy to read (Δx̄ = 1.00, p = .019) than the physician reported. The participants less strongly agreed that the reports contained the right amount of information to make healthy choices (Δx̄ = .438, p = .004).

Conclusions: Participants and clinicians responded positively to the inclusion of the HEI Report within a community-engaged study but were not fully aligned regarding the simplicity and ease of comprehension. Additional evaluation may focus on participant comprehension and the context of a supportive/constrained environment for potential behavior change for healthy eating.

Funding Sources: National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program