Cross-sectional survey reveals variability in energy assessment methods among registered dietitians, highlighting critical gaps in tools and resources.
Background/Objectives: Assessment of energy requirements and intake is central to the nutrition care process, yet current practices among registered dietitians (RDs) are not well characterized. This study examined how RDs assess energy requirements and intake, including perceived accuracy and resources, and differences by setting and experience. Methods: A cross-sectional bilingual online survey was administered to RDs in Canada. The survey collected information on practice setting and experience, access to variables influencing energy requirements/intake, tool use, and opinions on accuracy and resource needs. Descriptive statistics and comparisons were made by practice setting (clinical, community, other) and years in practice (<5, 5−10, >10 years). Results: 212 RDs completed the survey (62% clinical, 16% community, 22% other settings; 36% <5 years, 23% 5−10 years, 42% >10 years of practice). Participants rated importance of assessing energy requirements and energy intake as moderately high (6.8 ± 2.2, 7.1 ± 2.3 out of 10, respectively) and had regular access to variables needed to calculate energy requirements and intake (e.g., age, sex, weight, disease), although access to body composition, sleep, and stress was limited. Commonly-used tools included body weight-based equations and 24-hour recalls. Confidence was highest for delivering interventions and lowest for assessing intake (p < 0.001), especially among less experienced RDs (p = 0.002). Most respondents expressed interest in improved tools for assessing energy requirements (76%) and intake (74%). Conclusion: Current RD practices vary, and access to key data is limited, underscoring the need for validated, accessible tools and training to support accurate energy assessment in dietetic care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Purcell et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: