ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2024
[Nutrition counseling in medical practices-a cross-sectional study].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- How does culinary medicine training impact the diet-related knowledge, skills and attitudes of undergraduate medical students in Germany?-A systematic review.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Competencies for medical nutritional counselling of children and adolescents: Analysis of NKLM 2.0 based on an evidence-based catalogue of criteria.GMS journal for medical education · 2026Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this study was to assess the status of nutrition care and counseling in German medical practices, including physicians' nutrition interest and knowledge, existing obstacles, and possible ways of improving nutrition care.
methodsAfter development and a two-stage pretest, questionnaires with 32 items were distributed to all resident doctors of general medicine, internal medicine, gynecology and obstetrics, orthopedics, and occupational medicine in Aachen (n = 360) in early spring 2022.
resultsThe response rate was 29.2% and n = 105 participants were included in the analysis. During their consultation hours, 85.7% of the doctors conducted nutrition counseling (NC). While doctors estimated that 39.5% of their patients need NC, they counseled only 28.1%. General practitioners spent an average of 13 min on NC; all other specialties spent 9.5 min. Most participants felt well informed about healthy nutrition (95.2%). Nutrition was of high personal interest to 57.7% of the participants, and 47.6% considered it important for their work as a doctor. Barriers preventing better NC included the lack of nutrition education during medical studies (89.5%) and specialist training (79.6%), and the lack of time (75.2%). Most participants were willing to conduct more NC if they were paid better and had more time for NC during their working hours. DISCUSSION: Doctors consider NC a relevant part of their work, despite many barriers. To make better use of NC as a measure for treating and preventing common diseases, improvements like better nutrition education for doctors, better funding, and more time for NC are required.
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.