The EAL is seeking RDNs and NDTRs who work with patients, clients, or the public to treat children and adolescents living with type 1 diabetes, for participation in a usability test and focus group. Interested participants should email a professional resume to by July 15, 2024.

MNT: RDN in Medical Team (2015)


Siwinska J, Lesiak-Kalukin M, Przybylowski P, Sadowski J. Health behavior of patients after heart transplantation as an indicator of patient compliance. Transplant Proc. 2011; 43 (8): 3,086-3,088. 

PubMed ID: 21996232
Study Design:
Descriptive Study
D - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Negative NEGATIVE: See Quality Criteria Checklist below.
Research Purpose:

To describe and assess compliance to a healthy lifestyle among patients living with a heart transplant.

Inclusion Criteria:
Not reported.
Exclusion Criteria:
Not reported.
Description of Study Protocol:

Cross-sectional descriptive study in which patients completed a 25-item Health Behavior Inventory after working with a transplantation team (physician, psychologist, physiotherapist, nurse and dietitian).

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

Cross-sectional study (one time point).

Dependent Variables

  • Demographic (sex, age, education, martial status; period of post-transplantation)
  • Health Behavior Inventory (25-item survey; five-point Likert-scale to describe and assess compliance to a healthy lifestyle)

Independent Variables

Post-transplant period.

Description of Actual Data Sample:
  • Initial N: N=100 (23 females, 77 males)
  • Attrition (final N): N=100 (0% attrition)
  • Age: Mean=53.5 years (21 years to 75 years)
  • Other relevant demographics: Time post-transplant was 0.5 years to 19 years (mean post-transplant was 10.5±4.7 years)
  • Location: Krakow, Poland.
Summary of Results:

Key Findings

Variable General Indicator
Mean (SD)
Proper Nutrition
Mean (SD)
Prophylactic Behavior
Mean (SD)
Positive Psychological Attitude
Mean (SD)
Health Practice
Mean (SD)
Post-transplant 7.3 (1.6) 3.5 (0.7) 4.1 (0.7) 3.8 (0.1) 3.8 (0.7)
7.8 (1.3) 3.7 (0.7) 4.3 (0.4) 3.9 (0.6) 4.0 (0.6)
Male post-transplant 7.1 (1.8) 3.5 (0.7) 4.0 (0.7) 3.8 (0.7) 3.7 (0.7)


  • The results obtained in the general index among women was high, whereas men achieved middle scores. Women scored slightly higher in the individual indicators, particularly prophylactic behaviors and healthy practices. Women complied more conscientiously with the prescriptions, attended regularly planned tests, avoided infections and looked for medical information about disease prevention. They also tried to get sufficient rest and sleep and avoided overwork.
  • The whole group took care of proper nutrition, used diet to prevent atherosclerosis, avoided salt and sugar and significantly reduced their intake of meat and processed meat with preservatives
  • They seek to think positively and live in stable family relationships and friendly relationships. They avoided experiencing strong negative emotions and stress.
Author Conclusion:

Heart transplant patients adopted health-related behaviors at a high level, indicating that post-surgery education should place even greater emphasis on shaping healthy eating habits, prevention-oriented behavior and positive mental attitudes. Heart transplant patients should obtain professional, interdisciplinary assistance to shape healthy behaviors.

Funding Source:
Other: Not Reported.
Reviewer Comments:
Limited information was provided. 
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? No
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? No
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? No
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? ???
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? No
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? ???
3. Were study groups comparable? ???
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) N/A
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? ???
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) No
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? ???
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? No
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? N/A
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) No
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? ???
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? N/A
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? N/A
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? N/A
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) N/A
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? N/A
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? No
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? N/A
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? No
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? ???
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? No
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? N/A
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? ???
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? No
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? No
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? ???
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? ???
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? ???
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? No
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? No
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? No
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? N/A
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? No
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? N/A
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? No
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? No
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? No
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? No
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? No
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? ???
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? No
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes