ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
Exploration of barriers and enablers for the use of the nutrition care process among a diverse sample of registered dietitian nutritionists: a mixed methods analysis.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) use the Nutrition Care Process and its Terminology (NCP/T) to generate outcomes and demonstrate the impact of medical nutrition therapy. Despite integration into education in 2009, many RDNs continue to face challenges in its application. Objective: This study aimed to identify barriers and enablers to NCP/T use to better understand how adoption can be improved, and to assess whether qualitative feedback from practicing RDNs aligns with quantitative findings from the 2017 International Nutrition Care Process and Terminology Implementation Survey (INIS). Design: An explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach was used. Quantitative data was from United States based RDNs who participated in the 2017 INIS. The focus group discussion questions were informed by the INIS study and grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior (13). Zoom technology (14) was used and all the discussions were audio recorded. Only participants and the interviewer were present on the call. Qualitative data from the focus group discussions included RDNs in clinical, community, and academic settings. Semantic thematic analysis was conducted to identify themes related to barriers and enablers to using NCP/T. Participants/setting: INIS study recruitment utilized email lists, e-newsletters, and social media groups; responses from 4,426 active RDNs were analyzed. Focus group inclusion criterion was active RDNs based in the US; 38 RDNs participated in the focus groups. Statistical analyses performed: Cross-tabulation identified correlations between barriers/enablers and characteristics such as years of practice and practice setting ( Results: INIS data showed an association between practice area, years of experience, and NCP/T use ( Conclusion: The INIS study and focus groups revealed consistent barriers and enablers, underscoring the need for authoritative state-of-the-art training to address these factors and enhance NCP/T utilization.
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.