Public perceptions of nutrition diagnosis terminology and implications for clinical practice.

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to investigate public perceptions of the Nutrition Care Process standardised diagnosis terms.

Methods: This cross-sectional study used a 5-point Likert scale survey asking participants to rate nutrition diagnosis terms based on the degree of acceptability (offensiveness). Inclusion criteria were adults ≥18 years, living in the United States and fluent in English. Descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis and chi-squared tests were conducted, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Qualitative analysis of optional written participant comments was conducted, using an inductive-deductive thematic analysis approach.

Results: The majority of participants (n = 185, average age 46.5 ± 17.8 years) were female (77.8%), White (80.5%), degree-educated (79.5%) and did not work in healthcare (73.0%). The top offensive term was 'undesirable food choices' (20.5% rated the term as offensive). Younger participants found the terms 'undesirable food choices' and 'obesity' more offensive compared to older adults (p < 0.05). Qualitative analysis revealed concerns with and/or understandability of specific nutrition diagnosis terms.

Conclusions: In general, nutrition diagnosis terms were considered acceptable by study participants. The main offensive terms are in the Behavioral-Environmental domain. Findings from our study serve as a foundation for further research and provide rationale to advocate for changes to Nutrition Care Process terminology in the spirit of fostering more inclusive, person-centred care.