Search

Background: Ambivalence towards food and diet, which favours behavioural inertia, might be a barrier to adopting healthier eating behaviours. Measuring it can help researchers to better understand its relationship with behaviour change and design interventions aimed at resolving it. In this scoping review, we map and describe methods and tools employed in studies to assess, measure or classify the ambivalence of participants towards food‐ and diet‐related attitude objects. Methods: In accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for conducting scoping reviews, we retrieved peer‐reviewed studies from MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, FSTA and Food Science Source and preprints from PsyArXiv and MedRxiv. Two independent reviewers screened the articles. We considered for inclusion peer‐reviewed studies and preprints that assessed the ambivalence of participants of any age, sex or sociodemographic group towards food and diet. Results: We included 45 studies published between 1992 and 2022, which included participants from 17 countries. Eighteen methods were employed across the included studies to assess different types of ambivalence (felt, potential or cognitive–affective), the most frequent of which were the Griffin Index, the Subjective Ambivalence Questionnaire, the MouseTracker Paradigm and the Orientation to Chocolate Questionnaire. Conclusion: This scoping review identified several methods and tools to assess different types of ambivalence towards food‐ and diet‐related objects, providing an array of options for future studies. Key points: We identified 45 studies from 17 countries that assessed ambivalence towards food‐ and diet‐related attitude objects across eight databases. Most authors seem consistent in their definitions of ambivalence, referring to the simultaneous presence of positive and negative evaluations towards an attitude object, with some authors emphasising the similarity in the intensity of these evaluations. A total of 18 different methods to assess ambivalence towards food and diet were identified. The most frequently employed methods across the literature identified in this review were the Griffin Index, the Subjective Ambivalence Questionnaire, the MouseTracker Paradigm and the Orientation to Chocolate Questionnaire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Oral health is affected by dietary practices and may impact quality of life. Collaboration between dietetics and dental professionals for oral health promotion and disease prevention is recommended. The present study aimed to determine the knowledge and practice of dentists and dietitians on diet and dental health. Methods: The study comprised a cross‐sectional online questionnaire, which was disseminated electronically to dentists and dietitians in the UK and Ireland, via national networks. Questions assessed participants' knowledge of the cariogenicity of different foods, snacking behaviours, familiarity with UK dietary guidelines, dietary advice and their recommendations for cross‐professional consistency. Results: In total, 418 responses were received (60% dentists, 40% dietitians). Inter‐profession knowledge differences were observed for the cariogenicity of sports drinks (p < 0.001), chocolate/confectionary (p < 0.001), yoghurt (p < 0.001) and sugar‐coated breakfast cereals plus milk (p < 0.0001). Dentists showed greater concern over the timings and frequency of food consumption than dietitians. A greater proportion of dentists felt nutrition and oral health counselling is a key component of regular patient care (58.4% versus 8.2%, p < 0.001). Only 18% of dietitians, compared to 56% of dentists, considered that they had received sufficient training about diet and dental health. Both professions indicated the need for multi‐disciplinary training. Conclusions: Dietitians and dentists differ with respect to their knowledge about the effects of snacks and snacking behaviours on dental health, as well as how they prioritise this in their clinical practice. Both professions show a willingness to work collaboratively to ensure accurate and consistent advice‐giving and expertise‐sharing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]