Factors Associated with the Intention of Registered Dietitians to Discuss Nutrigenetics with their Patients/Clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to investigate factors affecting the intention of Registered Dietitians (RDs) to discuss nutrigenetics with their patients/clients. METHODS: A survey based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB; attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control) was developed and sent by email to RD members of the Ordre professionnel des diététistes du Québec. Multiple regression analyses were performed to examine the determinants of intention and behaviour. RESULTS: A total of 141 RDs completed the questionnaire (5.8% response rate). On a scale from -2 to 2 (from strongly disagree to strongly agree), the intention of discussing nutrigenetics with patients/clients was neutral (mean of -0.07 ± 0.92). The TPB construct of attitude was the most strongly associated with intention (β = 0.66, P < 0.0001) followed by perceived behavioural control (β = 0.33, P < 0.0001) and subjective norm (β = 0.21, P = 0.03). Finally, 13 out of 141 RDs (~9%) actually practiced the behaviour, which was to have discussed nutrigenetics with their patients/clients in the last 3 months. Only perceived behavioural control contributed to explain the behaviour (β = 0.17, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Main determinants of the intention of RDs to discuss nutrigenetics with their patients/clients were determined. This knowledge will help inform the design of future educational content about nutrigenetics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".