Cross-sectional survey reveals collaboration interest among mental health and nutrition professionals, highlighting training gaps.
Background: The integration of nutrition into mental health care has gained increasing attention with the emergence of Nutritional Psychology as an interdisciplinary field. However, little is known about how professionals approach this interface or the barriers they face. This study explored the extent to which mental health and nutrition profes-sionals engage with each other’s domains. Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed survey responses from 199 professionals, including psychologists, dieti-tians/nutritionists, and other health providers, to examine training, practices, perceived barriers, and interest in collaboration. Descriptive statistics summarized categorical and quantitative variables. Mann-Whitney U tests with rank-biserial correlation examined ordinal data. Exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring, varimax rotation) was applied to barrier ratings, which approximated Likert scaling. Results: A total of 98% of mental health professionals reported addressing nutrition in their practice, while nearly all nutritionists (99%) discussed mental health with clients. Despite this engagement, 44% of respondents reported no formal training in the complementary field, with most knowledge acquired through informal routes such as self-study or workshops. The most significant barriers included lack of training, unclear professional boundaries, and lim-ited access to resources, whereas lack of evidence was perceived as the least critical. Importantly, 99.5% of respondents expressed interest in evidence-based interdiscipli-nary training, and 99% agreed that collaboration would improve patient outcomes, although fewer than half had collaborative experience. Conclusions: These findings highlight both the readiness and unmet needs of professionals at the psychology–nutrition interface and underscore the urgency of developing structured educational pathways and formalized collaborative models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gurrieri et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: