Is there enough behaviour change science in nutrition and dietetics curricula in Australia and New Zealand? A descriptive study

Abstract

Aim: The application of behaviour change science is fundamental to the role of dietitians. This study aimed to describe how behaviour change science is embedded within the curricula of accredited/registered dietetics programs in Australia and New Zealand.

Methods: A descriptive study triangulated quantitative document analysis of curricula content from university websites (Part 1) with qualitative, structured interviews with dietetics academics (Part 2). Part 2 verified and advanced upon information captured in Part 1 and was analysed using thematic content analysis.

Results: Twenty-five courses from 18 university programs (15 Australia and 3 New Zealand) were synthesised. Fifteen interviews (12 Australia, 3 New Zealand) were conducted. Behaviour change science was taught and assessed at varying levels across all programs. It was taught primarily within lectures or workshops where students apply skills learnt in practical case-based activities, and assessed through small group education planning or demonstrating communication and counselling skills. Five themes were identified from the interviews: (1) behaviour change science should be foundational; (2) integrate and scaffold within curricula; (3) structural limitations within curricula; (4) challenging for students and (5) recommendations for competencies.

Conclusion: Behaviour change science is clearly of value to the dietetics profession. Core content appears to be embedded across all university programs; however, the level and depth of the content varied. The knowledge gained from this study provides direction for curricular improvements.

Keywords: behaviour change; curricula; curriculum; dietetics; qualitative research; transtheoretical model; universities.

FIGURE 1

Flow diagram for a descriptive study of behaviour change science in Australian and New Zealand dietetics education programs (Source: Part 1 adapted from Rohwer and colleagues and Part 2 included structured interviews and thematic analysis with program directors )