Assessment of Registered Dietitians’ Beliefs and Practices for a Nutrition Counselling Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study describes registered dietitians' (RDs) perceptions and use of a nutrition counselling approach (NCA) as defined by the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Nutrition Care Process terminology (NCPT). METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was administered to approximately 500 RDs in Alberta, Canada. Items included demographics, job characteristics, perceived knowledge, competence, use of an NCA, training experience, and theory of planned behaviour salient beliefs. Descriptive analyses compared RDs who counselled "all or most" of their clients with those who counselled "some or none." Salient beliefs were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Of the 349 RDs who completed the survey, 64.2% provided an NCA to "all or most" of their patients. RDs were supportive of using an NCA (mean = 8.7/10, SD = 1.9) and most RDs (84.5%) had received training on an NCA. Salient beliefs included advantages (e.g., improved behaviour change in patients) and disadvantages (e.g., inadequate time). Normative referents included colleagues (e.g., multidisciplinary team), managers, patients/clients, College of RDs of Alberta, and counsellors. The barriers and enablers were related to patients' situations, infrastructure, and RD supports. CONCLUSIONS: These results may enable decision makers to more effectively design and target training and implementation programs to improve RDs' NCA.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".