Evidence Hub

The effect of telehealth-based medical nutrition therapy on cardiovascular disease risk factors in a rural population: a secondary analysis of outcomes related to nutrition, health and well-being from the healthy rural hearts randomised controlled trial

T. Schumacher, E. Clarke, J. Herbert, A. Jansson, C. Oldmeadow, M. Rollo, P. Milson, C. Alderton et al.

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2025

5 citations

Abstract

Adults in rural Australia are at elevated risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). To date, no intervention trials have evaluated the impact of dietitian delivered nutrition therapy using telehealth exclusively in patients recruited in the primary care setting. The primary aim was to assess effectiveness of telehealth delivered Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) on change in dietary intake energy, reported as percent energy derived from nutrient-dense (core) foods. Secondary aims included assessment of the intervention effects on percentage weight loss, quality of life, health literacy and patient engagement in their health (patient activation). This was a secondary data analysis of a pragmatic cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT). Adults from rural areas within the New England North West and Upper Hunter regions of New South Wales, Australia, were identified by their general practitioner (GP) following a Heart Health Check, as being at moderate-to-high risk of CVD and invited to participate. General practices were randomised into intervention or usual care groups. Intervention participants received five personalised telehealth MNT consultations over 6 months. Usual care received stand-alone personalised nutrition reports. All participants were managed by their GP and followed up after 12 months. Primary and secondary outcomes were analysed using Bayesian linear mixed models. Models included fixed categorical effects for time, group, group-by-time interaction, age, and sex,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free