Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T07:57:16.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dietitians’ involvement, confidence and perceptions around processed foods and health: Preliminary Survey Results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2024

V. Moran
Affiliation:
School of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, LS2 9JT
SG. Moore
Affiliation:
School of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, LS2 9JT
P. Ho
Affiliation:
School of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, LS2 9JT
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Food processing, defined as a range of processes which convert fresh food into safe products, is of interest to nutrition professionals including dietitians given associations between consumption of highly processed products and health(1). Given such products contribute between 51-68% to UK diets(2), dietetic practice is now likely to encompass this topic. This study aimed to explore dietitians’ involvement in professional practice around the topic of processed foods and health, and their perceptions of individual products displaying label information (nutrition and ingredients).

An online survey was developed using (5-point likert scale) items adapted from other surveys(3,4) to evaluate levels of professional involvement (1 = never, 5 = daily) and confidence (1 = not confident, 5 = very high) around this topic. For three products displaying label information (tinned tomatoes, Quorn Mince, wholemeal bread), respondents’ perceptions of; level of processing (i.e. ranging from

“minimally processed” to “highly/ultra-processed”) and recommended frequency of consumption (FoC) (1 = should be avoided, 5 = several times a day) were evaluated. Ethical approval was granted before survey invites were sent via email to over 10,000 members of the British Dietetic Association between November 2023 and January 2024. Data analysis quantified percentages of all responses (%) and Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcox Pairwise tests were performed to explore differences in respondents’ overall responses across, and between pairs of products.

A total of 366 dietitians completed the survey. Most (96%) were female with an average of 13 ±9.8 years in practice across specialisms including diabetes, paediatrics, and gastroenterology. In practice, around half of respondents were regularly (weekly or daily) engaged in discussion of processed foods and health (51%) and provided guidance on this topic (46%). Most reported high confidence in discussing (61%) and providing guidance (59%) on processed foods and health. Most strongly agreed/agreed that healthy balanced diets can include some processed (94%) and “highly/ultra” processed (71%) foods, and that nutritional content is more important than level of processing (61%). Most respondents reported high/very high confidence (range: 60%-62%) in their classifications of processing levels for each product. Respondents’ most popular classification of products were: tomatoes “minimally processed” (54%), Quorn mince “highly/ultra-processed” (57%), and bread “processed” (46%), which were significantly different across products (p = <0.01). Perceptions of recommended FoC were also significantly different across products; tomatoes and bread “several times a week” (69%, 58%, respectively), and Mince “several times a month” (40%) (p = <0.01).

Surveyed dietitians reported high involvement and confidence in discussing and providing guidance around processed food and health. Perceptions of individual product’s level of processing varied across three processed products which displayed label information. This is the first insight into dietitians and the topic of processed foods, and further work is warranted to support dietetic practice and training.

Type
Abstract
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society

References

Lasschuijt, M et al. (2023) European Journal of Nutrition 29492962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SACN (2023) SACN statement on processed foods and health - summary report.Google Scholar
Roper, H (2022) Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whelan, K, McCarthy, S & Pufulete, M (2007) BJN 2328.Google Scholar