Back

Current Approaches to Evaluating Energy Requirements and Intake among Practicing Registered Dietitians

Purcell, S. A.; Cohen, T. R.; Gosselin, E. K.; Hildebrand, H.; Drapeau, V.; Panahi, S.

2025-07-21 nutrition
10.1101/2025.07.21.25331863
Show abstract

Background/ObjectivesAssessment 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. MethodsA 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). Results212 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{square}{+/-}{square}2.2, 7.1{square}{+/-}{square}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%). ConclusionCurrent 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.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.