Comparison of nutrition knowledge among health professionals, patients with eating disorders and the general population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim: To investigate and compare the level of nutrition knowledge of health professionals, patients with eating disorders and individuals without an eating disorder as controls. Methods: Participants were recruited online through an Australian and New Zealand professional eating disorder organisation and community eating disorder organisations and a university in Australia. Assessment was conducted online using the General Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire and SCOFF. Demographic data were also collected. Results: Dietitians had greater nutrition knowledge than all other health professionals, except medical doctors. Psychologists and dietitians had similar knowledge for choosing everyday foods. Dietitians had greater nutrition knowledge than eating disorder patients and controls in all areas of nutrition knowledge, while other health professionals had similar knowledge to patients. Patients with eating disorders had greater knowledge of sources of nutrients than controls. Conclusions: Australian health professionals exhibited higher levels of nutrition knowledge than health professionals in previous studies in other countries. However, non‐dietitian health professionals had similar levels of knowledge to individuals with eating disorders. Training and continuing education in nutrition is needed so health professionals can confidently identify when a patient has misleading information about nutrition and either correct the misinformation or refer the patient on to a qualified dietitian.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".