Understanding and Usefulness of Effect Size and Certainty of Evidence: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Evidence-Based Practice Competencies Among US Registered Dietitians

INTRODUCTION: Understanding of absolute and relative effect estimates, and determining effect size and certainty of evidence corresponding to effect estimates, represent fundamental evidence-based practice competencies that promote informed clinical decision-making. While research has been conducted in the medical profession, based on our literature review there is no published research on these competencies in the nutrition and dietetics profession. METHODS: Among registered dietitians, our main objectives were to assess (1) their understanding and perceived usefulness of three absolute and two relative effect estimate approaches to determine effect size, (2) their perceived usefulness of certainty of evidence, and (3) factors influencing their understanding and perceived usefulness. We conducted a web-based, cross-sectional survey by recruiting dietitians from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (United States). Participants received effect estimates based on hypothetical dietary interventions vs. usual diet for reducing myocardial infarction risk. RESULTS: = 114) were included in our analysis. Participants demonstrated a similar understanding of the relative (27.6%) and absolute (27.5%) effect estimates, with Risk Difference being the best understood approach and Number Needed to Treat being the least (30.7% vs. 24.6% correct responses). While perceived usefulness scores were similar between five approaches, they were highest when data was presented as Relative Risk [mean (SD): 4.82 (1.50)]. Dietitians rated the usefulness of certainty of evidence favorably [mean (SD): 5.07 (1.83), on a 7-point scale], and no factors were associated with correct understanding. CONCLUSION: Dietitians may have limited understanding of effect size thresholds presented in our survey, a finding mostly consistent with surveys of other health professionals. To optimize informed decision-making between dietitians and clients, dietetic programs and continuing education platforms should consider additional training on effect estimate approaches (relative and absolute), and determining effect sizes and certainty of evidence for effect estimates.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the American Nutrition Association
Published
2026-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/27697061.2026.2719458
Primary Topic
Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Understanding and Usefulness of Effect Size and Certainty of Evidence: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Evidence-Based Practice Competencies Among US Registered Dietitians

Geoff D.C. Ball, Kevin C. Klatt, Emily Riddle, Rosa K. Hand et al.
Journal of the American Nutrition Association
Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
article

Understanding and Usefulness of Effect Size and Certainty of Evidence: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Evidence-Based Practice Competencies Among US Registered Dietitians

Geoff D.C. Ball, Kevin C. Klatt, Emily Riddle, Rosa K. Hand, Nirjhar R. Ghosh, Aaron Riviere, Elizabeth P. Neale, Bradley C. Johnston
article en

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Understanding of absolute and relative effect estimates, and determining effect size and certainty of evidence corresponding to effect estimates, represent fundamental evidence-based practice competencies that promote informed clinical decision-making. While research has been conducted in the medical profession, based on our literature review there is no published research on these competencies in the nutrition and dietetics profession. METHODS: Among registered dietitians, our main objectives were to assess (1) their understanding and perceived usefulness of three absolute and two relative effect estimate approaches to determine effect size, (2) their perceived usefulness of certainty of evidence, and (3) factors influencing their understanding and perceived usefulness. We conducted a web-based, cross-sectional survey by recruiting dietitians from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (United States). Participants received effect estimates based on hypothetical dietary interventions vs. usual diet for reducing myocardial infarction risk. RESULTS: = 114) were included in our analysis. Participants demonstrated a similar understanding of the relative (27.6%) and absolute (27.5%) effect estimates, with Risk Difference being the best understood approach and Number Needed to Treat being the least (30.7% vs. 24.6% correct responses). While perceived usefulness scores were similar between five approaches, they were highest when data was presented as Relative Risk [mean (SD): 4.82 (1.50)]. Dietitians rated the usefulness of certainty of evidence favorably [mean (SD): 5.07 (1.83), on a 7-point scale], and no factors were associated with correct understanding. CONCLUSION: Dietitians may have limited understanding of effect size thresholds presented in our survey, a finding mostly consistent with surveys of other health professionals. To optimize informed decision-making between dietitians and clients, dietetic programs and continuing education platforms should consider additional training on effect estimate approaches (relative and absolute), and determining effect sizes and certainty of evidence for effect estimates.

Journal of the American Nutrition Association
SUNY Oneonta (US), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US), University of Alberta (CA), University of Toronto (CA), University of Wollongong (AU), Texas A&M Health Science Center (US), Case Western Reserve University (US), Texas A&M University (US)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.