Do Primary Health Professionals in Brazil Have a Misperception about Food? The Role of Food Literacy as a Positive Predictor

• Published in: Nutrients 2024-01, Vol.16 (2), p.302
• Main Authors: Zeminian, Larissa Baungartner, Corona, Ligiana Pires, da Silva, Marcela Chagas, Batista, Isabelle do Nascimento, da Cunha, Diogo Thimoteo
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Attitude; Brazil; Data analysis; Dietitians; Food; Health care policy; Health Literacy; Health promotion; Humans; Information communication; Information sharing; Knowledge; Literacy; Medical personnel; Nutrition; Nutrition education; Nutrition research; Nutritional Status; Perceptions; Primary care; Primary health care; Processed foods; Professionals; Public health; Questionnaires; Requirements; Teams
• ISSN: 2072-6643; 2072-6643
• DOI: 10.3390/nu16020302

Risk perception is socially constructed; psychological elements control people's reactions to a hazard, and even health professionals may have difficulty determining what healthy food is. This work aimed to measure food literacy and food risk perceptions among primary healthcare professionals in a Brazilian city. In the first phase, 280 health professionals working in primary care in Rio Claro, Brazil, were studied. The Short Food Literacy Questionnaire (SFLQ-Br) and scales of risk and benefit perception of 50 foods were used. In the second phase, 20 professionals were interviewed to investigate the responses to different foods observed in the first phase. In this second phase, 16 users of the health system were also enrolled to understand their perceptions and how the nutrition messages conveyed by the health team reached them. Professionals scored an average of 34.5 on food literacy (for which there is a maximum score of 52). They showed difficulty with dietary guidelines and their interpretation. Food's risk and benefit perception were generally consistent with the recommendations of the Food Guide for the Brazilian Population. However, some processed foods or those with no proven health benefits were considered healthy by the study participants, indicating a biased perception (e.g., gelatin, processed turkey breast, cream crackers, and cereal bars). Less misperception was observed when food literacy was higher, which positively predicted risk perception. The reasons for identifying benefits of these foods ranged from the false impression that they are natural and nutritious foods to the comparative claim that they are better for health than similar foods. The results indicate the need to educate health professionals based on current references to avoid bias in population counseling.