Registered dietitians’ beliefs and behaviours related to counselling patients on physical activity and sedentary behaviour from a theory of planned behaviour perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Registered dietitians working in team-based primary care settings (e.g., family health teams [FHTs]) are positioned to counsel on physical activity and sedentary behaviour when providing nutrition-related services to promote health and prevent disease. This qualitative study explored FHT registered dietitians' beliefs and behaviours related to counselling patients on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. METHODS: Twenty registered dietitians in FHTs in Ontario, Canada were interviewed in person. Theory of planned behaviour guided the development of this cross-sectional, descriptive study. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes within each of the following theoretical constructs (topics): registered dietitians' behaviour (practice), behavioural intention, attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control related to physical activity and sedentary behaviour counselling. RESULTS: All participants counselled patients on physical activity, using some motivational interviewing strategies, and most counselled on sedentary behaviour. Many participants intended to continue their current physical activity counselling practices and increase sedentary behaviour counselling. Some participants had a positive attitude about the effectiveness of counselling on physical activity and sedentary behaviour, but their belief about effectiveness was dependent on factors such as time frame for behaviour change. Many participants felt that other health care professionals expected them to counsel on physical activity and they believed that other registered dietitians counsel on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Facilitators to counselling included FHT dynamics and time with patients. In terms of barriers, almost all participants were confident in basic PA counselling only and contended that only this is within their scope of practice. Many participants posited that exercise prescription is outside their scope of practice. Other barriers included registered dietitians' lack of knowledge and not having a physical activity expert on the team. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that strategies are warranted to improve FHT registered dietitians' knowledge, attitude, and counselling skills related to physical activity and sedentary behaviour. This study provides a strong foundation to develop a theory-based, quantitative measure to assess physical activity and sedentary behaviour counselling practices and determinants among registered dietitians.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".