Next Article in Journal
Acute Malnutrition in Children: Pathophysiology, Clinical Effects and Treatment
Next Article in Special Issue
Expanding and Enhancing Food and Nutrition Education in New York City Public Schools: An Examination of Program Characteristics and Distribution
Previous Article in Journal
Impacts of Habitual Diets Intake on Gut Microbial Counts in Healthy Japanese Adults
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of the Flipped Classroom and Gamification Methods in the Development of a Didactic Unit on Healthy Habits and Diet in Primary Education
Article

Evaluation of Glycemic Index Education in People Living with Type 2 Diabetes: Participant Satisfaction, Knowledge Uptake, and Application

1
Department of Applied Human Nutrition, Mount Saint Vincent University, 166 Bedford Highway, Halifax, NS B3M 2J6, Canada
2
Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, 1 King’s College Circle, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada
3
Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital, 61 Queen Street E, Toronto, ON M5C 2T2, Canada
4
Nutrition Department, St Michael’s Hospital, 61 queen St. E, Toronto, ON M5B 1W8, Canada
5
Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, St. Michael’s Hospital, 61 Queen St. E, Toronto, ON M5C 2T2, Canada
6
Physiology and Experimental Medicine Program, Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada
7
School of Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 7K4, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2020, 12(8), 2416; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12082416
Received: 29 June 2020 / Revised: 30 July 2020 / Accepted: 7 August 2020 / Published: 12 August 2020
The glycemic index (GI) has been included in the Canadian clinical practice guidelines for type 2 diabetes (T2D) management since 2003, and even longer in other parts of the world (e.g., Australia). Despite this, dietitians have reported that GI is “too difficult for patients to understand and apply.” They have called for diverse GI-utility data and evidence-informed education materials. To address these concerns, we developed and evaluated a GI education workshop and supporting materials, using the Kirkpatrick Model, for a T2D population. Participants (n = 29) with T2D attended a dietitian-facilitated workshop and received education materials. A mixed-form questionnaire (GIQ) and 3-day-diet-record were used to capture patient demographics, satisfaction, knowledge, and application, prior to and immediately after the workshop, 1-week, and 4-weeks post-education. Dietary GI was significantly lower at 1 and 4 weeks post-education (mean ± SEM; both 54 ± 1), compared to pre-education (58 ± 1; p ≤ 0.001). Participants (28/29) were satisfied with the intervention. The GI knowledge score was significantly higher post-education at baseline (83.5 ± 3.4%; p ≤ 0.001), week one (87.5 ± 2.6%; p = 0.035), and week four (87.6 ± 3.8%; p = 0.011) when compared to pre-education (53.6 ± 5.1%). A significant reduction in dietary GI was achieved by participants living with T2D, after completing the workshop, and they were able to acquire and apply GI knowledge in a relatively short period. View Full-Text
Keywords: glycemic index OR glycaemic index; diabetes; education evaluation; Kirkpatrick Model; nutrition education; integrative knowledge translation strategy; behavior change; practice-based research; patient-focused intervention glycemic index OR glycaemic index; diabetes; education evaluation; Kirkpatrick Model; nutrition education; integrative knowledge translation strategy; behavior change; practice-based research; patient-focused intervention
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

M. Grant, S.; J. Glenn, A.; M. S. Wolever, T.; G. Josse, R.; L. O’Connor, D.; Thompson, A.; D. Noseworthy, R.; Seider, M.; Sobie, M.; Bhatti, G.; Cavanagh, J.; Jones, E.; B. Darling, P. Evaluation of Glycemic Index Education in People Living with Type 2 Diabetes: Participant Satisfaction, Knowledge Uptake, and Application. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2416. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12082416

AMA Style

M. Grant S, J. Glenn A, M. S. Wolever T, G. Josse R, L. O’Connor D, Thompson A, D. Noseworthy R, Seider M, Sobie M, Bhatti G, Cavanagh J, Jones E, B. Darling P. Evaluation of Glycemic Index Education in People Living with Type 2 Diabetes: Participant Satisfaction, Knowledge Uptake, and Application. Nutrients. 2020; 12(8):2416. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12082416

Chicago/Turabian Style

M. Grant, Shannan, Andrea J. Glenn, Thomas M. S. Wolever, Robert G. Josse, Deborah L. O’Connor, Alexandra Thompson, Rebecca D. Noseworthy, Maxine Seider, Melissa Sobie, Gurita Bhatti, Julianne Cavanagh, Emily Jones, and Pauline B. Darling. 2020. "Evaluation of Glycemic Index Education in People Living with Type 2 Diabetes: Participant Satisfaction, Knowledge Uptake, and Application" Nutrients 12, no. 8: 2416. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12082416

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop