Purpose To verify if there is an agreement between speech-language pathologists and nutritionists about the classification of food textures used in hospitals and their opinions about the possible consequences of differences in this classification. Methods This is a descriptive, cross-sectional study with 30 speech-language pathologists and 30 nutritionists who worked in 14 hospitals of public and/or private network in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. The professionals answered a questionnaire, prepared by the researchers, and classified five different foods, with and without theoretical direction. The data were analyzed using Fisher's exact and Z -tests to compare ratios with a 5% significance level. Results Both speech-language therapists (100%) and nutritionists (90%) perceive divergence in the classification and, 86.2% and 100% of them, respectively, believe that this difference may affect the patients' recovery. Aspiration risk was the most mentioned problem. For the general classification of food textures, most of the professionals (88.5%) suggested four to six terms. As to the terminology used in the classification of food presented without theoretical direction, the professionals cited 49 terms and agreed only in the solid and liquid classifications. With theoretical direction, the professionals also agreed in the classification of thick and thin paste. Conclusion Both the professionals recognized divergences in the classification of food textures and the consequent risk of damage to patient's recovery. The use of theoretical direction increased the agreement between these professionals.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
3%
Other
1
3%
Unknown
19
53%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 May 2016.
All research outputs
#18,575,050
of 27,777,630 outputs
Outputs from CoDAS
#135
of 450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,679
of 367,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CoDAS
#7
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,777,630 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 450 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
