ArticlePublic health nutrition2016
Validation of an instrument to measure registered dietitians'/nutritionists' knowledge, attitudes and practices of an intuitive eating approach.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of the present study was to develop and assess the construct validity of a tool to measure knowledge, attitudes and practices of registered dietitians/nutritionists (RD/N) regarding an intuitive eating lifestyle.
designCross-sectional study design that utilized a survey administered to a random sample and remaining full population of RD/N.
settingA national survey conducted via online survey software. SUBJECTS: A random sample of 10 % of all RD/N in the USA (n 8834) was invited to participate. Survey completion rate was 22·2 % (n 1897). After initial validation, the survey was distributed to the remaining 90 % of RD/N to confirm validation.
resultsAfter removing items with insufficient factor loadings, results were consistent with a four-factor solution: (i) knowledge of intuitive eating; (ii) attitudes towards intuitive eating; (iii) traditional and restrictive practices; and (iv) non-restrictive and intuitive eating practices. Confirmatory factor analysis provided further evidence of the validity of the four factors and the factors had strong reliability.
conclusionsUnlike the hypothesized three-factor solution (knowledge, attitudes and practices), validation analysis revealed that the survey measures knowledge of intuitive eating, attitudes towards intuitive eating, use of traditional and restrictive weight-management practices, and use of non-restrictive and intuitive eating practices. With the landscape of weight management and health promotion undergoing a shift towards a health centred, size acceptance approach, this instrument will provide valuable information regarding the current knowledge, attitudes and practices of RD/N and other health promotion professionals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.