Leading research in nutrition and dietetics.

The December issue of Nutrition & Dietetics traditionally publishes the index of articles, so it is befitting that the Editorial reflects on the nature of the research being published. The Journal is one of many institutions in the professional environment shaped by current events and the changing capabilities of its referent community. As a prime agent for disseminating research, we may well ask, are we publishing leading research in nutrition and dietetics--whether leading by nature or leading by action?

Over the last few decades we have seen significant developments in areas that have major implications for research in nutrition and dietetics. These developments reflect coalescence of the nutrition sciences themselves, and with other disciplines, where the relative merits of each are recognised and enacted in projects that endeavour to address complex problems. Public health nutrition is one of the first contexts that come to mind. In 2004 we published eight original articles related to public health nutrition and a series on education and workforce issues. Most of these articles utilise a cross-sectional survey methodology, and address beliefs and behaviours of target members of the community. The knowledge produced by these studies will also inform public health and community nutrition projects. The leading edge of this research was the nature of the questions and the new insights the research delivered. In a number of cases common assumptions were put to the test and subsequently qualified. Not surprisingly, obesity, a significant complex problem recognised in public policy (1), was a common topic under study.

Another major category that emerged in 2004 related to food. While only three original articles addressed dietary intake methodology, the interest in vegetarian trends, fruit and vegetable consumption, food components of interest in the contemporary diet (omega-3 fatty acids, resistant starch), 'functional' foods and food allergies, all reflected food-related activity in which Nutrition & Dietetics clearly has a role. While some of this research has implications for public health and clinical nutrition practice, other aspects may relate to current global trends in assessing the scientific support for claims on foods (2,3). A leading edge of this research, substantiating the benefits of foods, requires a working knowledge of food composition and consumption patterns, and of dietary assessment methodology. This represents a real opportunity for leading research in Nutrition & Dietetics.

A less prominent area of publication in 2004, but one that is relevant to another important development in the field is research informing clinical practice. Like the standard setting underway for substantiation of claims on food, processes for developing guidelines in clinical practice is an important reference point for research development by health practitioners (4). Research in this area needs to examine the guideline framework so that studies in Nutrition & Dietetics meet acceptable standards for inclusion in evidence-based analyses.

Public health nutrition, food standards, and clinical practice: in each case the important question is, are we doing research referenced to policy frameworks? How can Nutrition & Dietetics do leading research in this area, and also lead aspects of broader research questions? How can this research reflect the strengths of the discipline so it is cutting edge and at the same time contributing to the solution of the cross-disciplinary problem?

One of the great strengths of the practitioner is proximity to the problem. The substantial work we have published this year in community and public health nutrition reflects the ability of the practitioner to ask a meaningful question and test some common assumptions that drive program development. We should also value the fact that dietitians give advice on food, so they have an appreciation of issues relating to the translation of science in food communications. There is opportunity to develop research in this area in clinical nutrition and claims substantiation. What needs to be done now is a further development of methodology in nutrition and dietetic research. For example, dietary assessment methodology is fundamental to practice in so many contexts, not just population surveys (5,6). Methodological studies should also be considered for publication (for example, see 7-9). Post-graduate research in Nutrition & Dietetics provides a formal opportunity for building research methodology and developing innovative research designs that address the fundamental questions of policy implementation and professional practice from the perspective of the discipline. These are all areas that we should now see reflected in future issues of the journal. This year has been a demonstration of good headway, and the index of publications reflects the potential. Let us see what meaning 'leading research in nutrition and dietetics' might evolve into in 2005.

References

1. Australian National Obesity Taskforce. Healthy Weight 2008: Australia's future.http://www.healthyandactive.health.gov.au Accessed 8 October 2004.

2. Asp N-G, Cummings JH, Howlett J, Rafter J, Riccardi G, Westenhoefer J, editors. PASSCLAIM Process for the assessment of scientific support for claims on foods. Eur J Clin Nutr 2004;43:Supplement 2.

3. Food Standards Australia New Zealand Initial Assessment Report Proposal P293. Nutrition. Health and Related Claims. http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/standardsdevelopment/proposals/proposalp293nutritionhealthandrelatedclaims/index.cfm Accessed 8 October 2004.

4. National Health and Medical Research Council. Standards and procedures for externally developed clinical practice guidelines. http://www.csp.nsw.gov.au/nhmrc/downloads/pdfs/cpg.pdf Accessed 8 October 2004.

5. Martin GS, Tapsell LC, Batterham, MJ, Russell KG. Relative validity of a diet history interview in an intervention trial manipulating dietary fat in the management of type II diabetes mellitus. Prev Med 2003;36:420-8.

6. Martin GS, Tapsell LC, Batterham MJ. Russell KG Relative bias in diet history measurements: a quality control technique for clinical intervention trials. Public Health Nutrition 2002;5:537-45.

7. Mackerras D, Levy J, Shaw J, Zimmet P. Comparison of fruit and vegetable frequency data from two Australian national surveys. Nutr Diet 2004;61:88-97.

8. Williams P, Reid M, Shaw K. The Illawarra Healthy Food Price Index. 1. Development of the food basket. Nutr Diet 2004;61:200-7.

9. Williams P, James Y, Kwan J. The Illawarra Healthy Food Price Index. 2. Pricing methods and index trends from 2000-2003. Nutr Diet 2004;61:208-14.

Professor Linda Tapsell APD