ArticlePloS one2026
It would be really great if I had greater confidence and ability there: Understanding the primary care physician experience with nutrition in training, clinical practice, and interprofessional collaboration.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care physicians (PCPs) are on the front lines of health promotion and disease prevention, yet evidence supports a longstanding gap in physicians' capacity to counsel about diet, a key factor in patient health and chronic disease risk. Momentum to address the nutrition training needs of physicians is growing; however, challenges PCPs experience due to inadequate training are further complicated by clinical practice barriers. This study seeks to better understand the complex problem PCPs face addressing nutrition with patients to inform potential solutions. METHODS AND
findingsThis qualitative study takes a design thinking approach to understanding the problem by learning from PCPs about their experience, challenges, and priorities addressing nutrition with patients. Findings from semi-structured interviews with 32 PCPs revealed that while they value nutrition and believe they have an important role in addressing diet with patients, their role as a generalist in addressing nutrition lacks clarity. PCPs describe learning their current approach to nutrition primarily outside of formal medical training, resulting in variability and inconsistency in approaches and recommendations and general frustrations about their ability to give actionable guidance. While registered dietitians (RDs) are often viewed as valuable support for patients, PCPs describe multiple challenges to RD utilization and subsequently at times may be the only ones with the opportunity to address diet with patients. Additional system- and societal-level barriers, such as time limitations and the food environment, further complicate PCPs' experiences advising patients about nutrition. Main limitations of this study are limited generalizability from recruiting graduates of a single medical school and PCPs with greater interest in nutrition or more frustration with their current approach to nutrition may have been more likely to participate.
conclusionsOur results support the need to clearly define a realistic role for PCPs as generalists addressing nutrition. Clarified expectations in turn can inform nutrition training of physicians and guiding frameworks and strategies for giving practical, evidence-based nutrition guidance. PCPs also need increased support through access to resources, strategies to improve RD collaboration, and attention to system- and societal-level challenges influencing dietary interventions in primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.