Nutrition Knowledge in Practice : How Healthcare Professionals in Slovenia Source, Evaluate, and Communicate Information

Sammanfattning

Background: Healthcare professionals play a key role in shaping public understanding of nutrition, yet it remains unclear how they access, evaluate, and communicate dietary advice to patients, and how they negotiate uncertainty within nutrition science. This study examines these processes within the Slovenian context, with attention to evidence-based practice and patient-centered communication. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with dietitians, nutritionists, and head nurses working in chronic disease prevention. Data were analyzed thematically to explore how participants source, appraise, and communicate nutrition knowledge, including how they navigate conflicting evidence. Results: Participants relied on a combination of formal education, official dietary guidelines, and additional sources such as scientific literature, colleagues, and online materials. Differences emerged in the depth of engagement with evidence: dietitians and some nutritionists reported more direct interaction with research, while nurses relied more on institutional guidance. Across groups, trust in institutional authority was prominent, and critical appraisal of primary research was not extensively practised, particularly for well-established recommendations. Conflicting evidence was managed through prioritizing consensus, contextualizing advice, or deferring to guidelines. In practice, nutrition knowledge was adapted to individual patient contexts rather than communicated as fixed information. However, communication of scientific uncertainty was limited and depended on prior awareness. Conclusion: The findings highlight a key tension within evidence-based practice: while professionals aim to follow its principles, the evidence itself is often accessed indirectly through institutional interpretation. As a result, practitioners rely on pre-interpreted knowledge without fully engaging with its scientific basis, raising questions about how “best available evidence” is defined in practice. Given the influential role of healthcare professionals, this has implications for both individual counselling and population-level health. These findings point to the need for greater transparency in how evidence is sourced and appraised within guideline-forming institutions, as well as stronger support for critical engagement in practice.