Ultra-Processed Foods and Dietetic Practice: Findings From a Survey and Focus Group With UK Dietitians

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics Pub Date : 2025-02-11 DOI:10.1111/jhn.70029
Veronica Moran, Sally G. Moore, Peter Ho
{"title":"Ultra-Processed Foods and Dietetic Practice: Findings From a Survey and Focus Group With UK Dietitians","authors":"Veronica Moran,&nbsp;Sally G. Moore,&nbsp;Peter Ho","doi":"10.1111/jhn.70029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Food 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To explore dietitians' professional practice around the topic of processed foods and health, including their perceptions of individual food products.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>An 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Survey respondents (<i>n</i> = 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This 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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":54803,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jhn.70029","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jhn.70029","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Food 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.

Objective

To explore dietitians' professional practice around the topic of processed foods and health, including their perceptions of individual food products.

Methods

An 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.

Results

Survey 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.

Conclusion

This 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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
15.20%
发文量
133
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics is an international peer-reviewed journal publishing papers in applied nutrition and dietetics. Papers are therefore welcomed on: - Clinical nutrition and the practice of therapeutic dietetics - Clinical and professional guidelines - Public health nutrition and nutritional epidemiology - Dietary surveys and dietary assessment methodology - Health promotion and intervention studies and their effectiveness - Obesity, weight control and body composition - Research on psychological determinants of healthy and unhealthy eating behaviour. Focus can for example be on attitudes, brain correlates of food reward processing, social influences, impulsivity, cognitive control, cognitive processes, dieting, psychological treatments. - Appetite, Food intake and nutritional status - Nutrigenomics and molecular nutrition - The journal does not publish animal research The journal is published in an online-only format. No printed issue of this title will be produced but authors will still be able to order offprints of their own articles.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of a Trauma-Informed Nutrition Curriculum for Women With Children Living in Transitional Housing Socio-Demographic Determinants of Mediterranean Diet Adherence: Results of the EU-National Health Interview Survey (EHIS-3) Ultra-Processed Foods and Dietetic Practice: Findings From a Survey and Focus Group With UK Dietitians Pregnant Women's Experiences With a Collaborative Midwife-Dietitian Empowerment Programme to Improve Diet Quality Expert Opinions on an Optimal Infant Feeding Quantitative Data Framework: A Mixed Methods Delphi-Style Study in the UK
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1