2016 Journal Reader Survey Results

FROM THE ACADEMY

2016 Journal Reader Survey Results

T

HE BIENNIAL JOURNAL OF THE Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Reader Survey gives recipients the chance to share their estimation of the Journal with the editorial office. The 2016 Reader Survey shows an engaged readership that continues to hold a high opinion of the Journal. Every 2 years, Readex Research, an independent research company in Stillwater, MN, surveys Journal readers to find out what you think about the Journal, and where you, as a nutrition and dietetics practitioner, are interested in seeing the Journal go in the future. In this most recent survey, a sample of 5,000 was selected by Readex, the Academy, and the Journal’s publisher, Elsevier, from domestic, non-library, e-mailable recipients of the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics who receive the Journal in print and have digital access. The sample represented 55,310 individuals, which amounts to 96% of the Journal’s entire 57,894 circulation. Data were collected via online survey from September 8 to 21, 2016; a 22% response rate resulted in 1,122 usable responses. The margin of error was
2.9 percentage points at the 95% confidence level, which means that 95% of the time, percentages in the overall population will not vary by more than 2.9% in either direction.1 This article highlights the most interesting aspects of the study, and provides an overview that will give you an idea of how your fellow readers feel about the Journal.

DEMOGRAPHICS The average Journal reader is a highlyeducated, experienced professional,

This article was written by Dan Carroll, editor of the Journal, Chicago, IL. 2212-2672/Copyright ª 2017 by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2016.11.020

ª 2017 by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

and is currently employed in the field of dietetics and nutrition. Average education, experience, and income have all steadily increased over the past 6 years; average income has risen from $92,000 in 2010 to

$101,000 in 2016, and 48% of Journal readers have a master’s degree, up from 46% in the previous survey.2 Ninety-five percent of Journal readers have a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Table. Practice areas in which Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 2016 Reader Survey recipients currently spend the greatest amount of time, the second greatest amount of time, and the third greatest amount of time

Clinical nutrition, general

Greatest amount (%)

2nd Greatest amount (%)

3rd Greatest amount (%)

19

14

8

Community nutrition

8

9

7

Food and nutrition management/administration

8

5

4

Education

8

9

5

Long-term/skilled/rehab care

6

3

1

Business/industry

5

2

2

Consultation and private practice

5

5

4

Diabetes care

4

5

5

Wellness/prevention

4

6

11

Weight management

4

5

7

Renal nutrition

4

1

1

Pediatric

3

3

1

School nutrition

3

2

2

Gerontology

3

2

2

Research

3

2

2

Oncology

2

1

1

Nutrition support

2

4

3

Communication/publication

1

2

2

Culinary

1

3

3

Integrative/functional nutrition

1

1

1

Sports nutrition

1

2

2

Hunger/environmental nutrition

0

1

1

Policy/advocacy

0

0

1

Vegetarian nutrition

0

1

1

Other

2

1

1

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS

311

FROM THE ACADEMY common area, each with 8%. These were followed by long-term/skilled/ rehab care (6%), business/industry (5%), and consultation and private practice (5%). Only 4% of readers identified wellness/prevention as their primary practice area, but it was far and away the most highly-identified area in which readers spend their third greatest amount of time, at 11%, which indicates that wellness/prevention, while not often a primary practice area in and of itself, is a responsibility that crosses several fields.

INTERNET

Figure 1. Reasons for visiting Journal website among recipients of the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 2016 Reader Survey.

PRACTICE AREA In 2014, the survey began asking recipients to not only identify the practice area in which they spend the greatest amount of time, but also to identify the areas in which they spend the second and third greatest amount of time. This framework was repeated in 2016, and Journal readers provided a wide array of responses, including 25

different practice areas (Table). Clinical nutrition continues to be the most common practice area, with 19% of Journal readers spending the greatest amount of their time there, and an additional 22% for whom clinical nutrition was their second or third most common practice area. Community nutrition, food and nutrition management/administration, and education all roughly tied for second-most

Figure 2. Frequency of reading each department among recipients of the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 2016 Reader Survey. 312

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS

Time spent on the internet professionally is on the rise, from 14.5 hours per week in 2014 to 15 hours in 2016. This continues the upward trend from 13.1 hours in 2012 and 10.8 hours in 2010. When asked what electronic devices they currently use for professional reading, 78% of Journal readers indicated they use a computer, 54% a smartphone, 33% a tablet, and 8% an e-reader. A full 88% use at least one electronic device for professional reading. The number of Journal readers who have visited the website is up again, at 57% in 2016 . an upward trend from 53% in 2014 and 49% in 2012. The average website visitor accesses the Journal site 2.1 times per month, which is similar to the results of 2014. More than half of visitors access the site through eatright.org; Journal recipients who have visited the website have most commonly done so to read Journal content (80%). This is up from 77% in 2014. Other reasons given include to use the search features (39%), to read Academy position papers (36%), to review back issues (32%), and to access article collections (29%) (Figure 1). The latter reason, to access article collections, is the most drastic rise from 2014, up from 23%. Website users were asked to give their opinion of the website’s offerings on a 5-point scale in several categories: comprehensiveness, provision of new information, speed of access, application to personal needs, and ease of use. Readers who have visited the site provided average ratings of 3.5 to 3.7, placing their ratings above the scale’s mid-point of 3.0, and showing across-the-board increase from 2014. February 2017 Volume 117 Number 2

FROM THE ACADEMY PracƟce Area Where Greatest Amount of Time Is Spent

Discussed arƟcle with others Used as a resource Filed arƟcle for future reference Passed arƟcle along to others Used for CPEa Sought further informaƟon Used / modified an idea Visited a Web site Purchased/ ordered a product/ service Other TOOK ACTION

Total

Clinical nutriƟon

Community nutriƟon

EducaƟon/ research

Food/ nutriƟon management

Long-term care/skilled rehab

ConsultaƟon/ private pracƟce

46%

46%

46%

56%

38%

54%

38%

41%

37%

30%

63%

41%

39%

42%

29%

22%

27%

49%

28%

29%

27%

27%

26%

26%

42%

36%

21%

15%

20%

21%

24%

21%

23%

29%

13%

18%

17%

20%

25%

14%

13%

13%

15%

16%

11%

19%

16%

14%

8%

15%

16%

15%

14%

15%

16%

15%

2%

2%

2%

2%

4%

2%

4%

1% 77%

1% 78%

1% 71%

2% 89%

0% 73%

0% 80%

0% 69%

5%-19%

20%-39%

40%+

Figure 3. Actions taken due to reading articles by practice area where greatest amount of time is spent. Base: all 1,122 respondents; those in each segment (multiple answers). aCPE¼Continuing Professional Education.

READER ENGAGEMENT

Figure 4. Satisfaction with coverage of topics in each section of the Journal as well as overall coverage of practice content among recipients of the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 2014 Reader Survey. Base¼all answering respondents. Satisfied¼rating of 4 or 5 on 5-point scale; 5¼very satisfied, 1¼not at all satisfied. February 2017 Volume 117 Number 2

A majority of recipients read all departments (with one exception) of the Journal (ranging from 53% to 80%, each). The only exception is Letters to the Editor, which is read at least sometimes by 41% of readers. Academy Position Papers continue to be the most frequently-read department of the Journal, read at least sometimes by 80% of recipients, and as with previous years, Academy Position Papers are followed by Table of Contents (78%), Topics of Professional Interest (77%), Continuing Professional Education (CPE) Articles (70%), and New Products and Services (67%) (Figure 2). The popularity of these departments has remained relatively unchanged across the 2010, 2012, and 2014 surveys. Recipients of the Journal don’t just read articles; more than three-quarters

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS

313

FROM THE ACADEMY PracƟce Area Where Greatest Amount of Time Is Spent

Clinical nutriƟon Community nutriƟon EducaƟon Research ConsultaƟon and business pracƟces Food and nutriƟon management 50%-59%

Total

Clinical nutriƟon

Community nutriƟon

EducaƟon/ research

Food/ nutriƟon management

Long-term care/skilled rehab

ConsultaƟon/ private pracƟce

72%

91%

54%

66%

70%

86%

58%

62%

55%

91%

70%

56%

50%

35%

59% 58% 49%

55% 56% 41%

67% 57% 43%

79% 89% 47%

48% 39% 44%

55% 43% 57%

65% 56% 77%

41%

40%

37%

38%

83%

52%

15%

60%-79%

80%+

Figure 5. Interest in seeing topics covered in future issues of the Journal by practice area in which greatest amount of time is spent among recipients of the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 2016 Reader Survey. Base: all 1,122 respondents; those in each segment. of recipients (77%) took action in the last 12 months as a result of reading articles in the Journal—similar to the findings of the 2014 survey (78%). Forty-six percent reported discussing articles with others, up from 39% in 2014, while 27% passed the article along to others, up from 22% in 2014. Other common actions included using an article as a resource (41%), filing an article for future reference (29%), and using an article for CPE (20%). Recipients whose greatest amount of time is spent in education/resource were the most likely to take further action as a result of reading the Journal; 56% discussed an article with others, 63% used an article as a resource, 49% filed an article for future reference, and 42% passed an article along to others. More than half of those who spent the greatest amount of time in long-term care/skilled rehab (54%) were very likely (54%) to discuss articles with others, and almost half of those who spent the greatest amount of time in clinical nutrition or community nutrition (46%) did so as well (Figure 3).

READER OPINIONS Readers of the Journal were asked to rate their satisfaction with coverage in each of the Journal’s three main

314

sections: Practice Applications, Research, and From the Academy. Each rating used a 5-point scale in which 5¼very satisfied and 1¼not at all satisfied. Each of the sections earned a mean score ranging from 3.5 to 3.6, above the 3.0 midpoint and in the same range as previous studies in 2010, 2012, and 2014. The average rating for practice issues, which appear in all three sections, was 3.5; the same as in all three previous surveys (Figure 4). Readers were also asked to identify topic areas they would like to see covered in future issues of the Journal; a majority of recipients indicated an interest in clinical nutrition (72%), community nutrition (62%), education (59%), and research (58%). A smaller but noteworthy number of readers are interested in seeing articles in the areas of consultation and business practices (49%) and/or food and nutrition management (41%). The proportions of readers interested in these topics have stayed relatively stable since 2010, varying by no more than a few percentage points in either direction. As one might expect, interest in topics varies by primary practice area; Readers are most likely to be interested in seeing articles related to the practice area in which they spend the

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS

greatest amount of time. Of the six practice areas analyzed, the only one of interest to a majority recipients in each area was clinical nutrition (Figure 5). Perhaps most importantly, readers were asked whether they felt the Journal lived up to its mission as “the premier source for the evidence-based practice and science of food, nutrition, and dietetics.” Two-thirds of recipients (66%) agreed (rating of þ1 or þ2 on a 5-point scale where þ2¼agree strongly and 2¼disagree strongly) that the Journal has lived up to its mission over the course of the preceding 12 months, an increase from 63% in 2014. The average rating on this scale has held steady at 0.8 since 2010. Readers continue to express overall satisfaction with the Journal, and the Journal will in turn continue to strive to live up to the high standards set by our mission, and continue to justify the engagement and enthusiasm of our readership.

References 1.

Readex Research. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 2016 Reader Survey. Stillwater, MN: Readex Research; 2016.

2.

Baechler R. 2014 Journal Reader Survey results. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015;115(2):195199.

February 2017 Volume 117 Number 2