Analysis identifies gaps in nutrition counselling competencies in paediatrics, suggesting targeted training.
Objective: Breastfeeding and Nutrition Counselling (NC) plays an important role in paediatric and adolescent medicine for the prevention of nutrition-related diseases. The necessary fundamentals should already be taught during undergraduate medical education. The objectives of this paper were 1. to analyse the National Competence-Based Catalogue of Learning Objectives 2.0 (NKLM) with regard to nutrition-related competencies, 2. to identify possible discrepancies, and 3. to formulate recommendations. Methodology: With the help of a structured literature research, the competency goals which are necessary for primary preventive NC were identified and summarised in a theoretical catalogue of criteria. The NKLM 2.0 was subsequently checked for its content using the qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. Results: The final code system consisted of 82 codes. All 1,426 coded segments were distributed across the code categories as follows: “Preventive nutritional knowledge”: 532 (37.31%), “Communication competencies”: 442 (31%), “NC competencies”: 216 (15.15%), “Nutritional medicine”: 236 (16.55%). No teaching content was identified for 5 codes. Teaching formats and time frames were not specified. Conclusion: NKLM 2.0 covers most of the competencies required for adequate preventive medical NC. There are gaps in nutritional knowledge (nutrition of breastfeeding mothers, cooking and kitchen techniques, eating behaviour) and in nutrition counselling competencies (nudging, sensitive communication about body weight, systemic counselling). These topics can be taught in a targeted manner in communication courses or as part of culinary medicine programs. Mandatory advanced training in paediatrics and adolescent medicine, as well as clear guidelines regarding teaching formats and time requirements, appear to be sensible measures to ensure lasting learning success and effective prevention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rudolf et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: