ArticleJournal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association2025
Ultra-Processed Foods and Dietetic Practice: Findings From a Survey and Focus Group With UK Dietitians.
Article in Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFood processing converts fresh food into products and is of interest to nutrition professionals including dietitians given emerging evidence linking consumption of 'ultra-processed' products with health.
objectiveTo explore dietitians' professional practice around the topic of processed foods and health, including their perceptions of individual food products.
methodsAn online survey was developed to evaluate professional involvement, confidence and views using a 5-point scale (i.e., 1 = never, 5 = daily). Respondents' perceptions of three products were also obtained, including level of processing (LoP) (from 1 = unprocessed to 5 = ultra-processed) and recommended frequency of consumption (FoC) (from 1 = avoid to 5 = several times/day). Eligible survey respondents (UK dietitians) were recruited via the British Dietetic Association and social media. Data were analysed descriptively. A focus group was held with five dietitians to discuss current practice around this topic. Verbal data were thematically analysed.
resultsSurvey respondents (n = 366) possessed an average of 13 ± 9.8 years practising across various specialisms. Most discussed (82%) and provided guidance on (77%) processed foods and health monthly or more frequently, with 'high' levels of confidence (61%-59%), and agreed that healthy diets may include processed (94%) or 'highly/ultra' processed (71%) foods. Perceptions of each individual food product varied, yet the largest proportion of respondents selected LoP and FoC options for Tinned tomatoes: 'minimally processed' (54%), 'several times/week' (69%); mycoprotein mince: 'highly/ultra-processed' (57%), 'several times/month' (40%); and wholemeal bread: 'processed' (46%), 'several times/week' (58%). Focus group themes included uncertainties in definitions of ultra-processed and negative consumer perceptions around processing.
conclusionThis first survey of UK dietitians on processed foods suggests that dietetic practice frequently involves this topic and that views on the role of these foods in healthy diets are varied. Respondents also possessed a range of perceptions on the LoP of individual products, and further work is now warranted to support future development for dietetic practice.
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.