Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Systems thinking is recommended, but not required, for teaching food and water system sustainability in nutrition and dietetics education.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated systems thinking and sustainable, resilient, and healthy food and water systems (SRHFWS) in nutrition and dietetics programs. It examined program directors\' practices, values, attitudes, confidence levels, and the relationships between systems thinking, teaching SRHFWS topics, confidence levels, and years of experience as a dietitian and program director.
METHODS: Conducted in September 2022, the study used a descriptive design with a validated 20-item Systems Thinking Scale and a researcher-designed survey with 1-5 Likert-type scales.
METHODS: The online survey was distributed to 611 Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics program directors, with a 27% (N = 163) response.
METHODS: Descriptive statistics (frequency or mean ± SD) were calculated using Excel. Inferential statistics were examined using R. Analysis of variance was used to compare experience as a registered dietitian nutritionist and experience as a program director to confidence levels in teaching each SRHFWS topic. Linear regression was used determine the relationship between total Systems Thinking Scale score and demographic and programmatic variables.
RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of program directors scored high on the Systems Thinking Scale (mean score = 65.2 ± 8.4 on a 0 to 80 scale), and more than 85% of directors agreed that including systems thinking in dietetics was important. However, only 32.1% reported teaching systems thinking. Less than half of program directors agreed that systems thinking was adequately addressed in Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics standards, and nearly 80% of program directors agreed there was room to strengthen systems thinking content. Directors neither agreed nor disagreed there are adequate Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics standards addressing SRHFWS and reported SRHFWS topics were inconsistently taught. Confidence levels were lowest for teaching economic and environmental topics. Awareness and use of resources developed by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Foundation was low.
CONCLUSIONS: Integration of systems thinking in nutrition and dietetics education presents promising opportunities to address complexity in the field. Applying systems thinking to teach SRHFWS may narrow the disparity between educators\' perceived importance and program coverage. Enhancing program directors\' awareness and utilization of Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Foundation resources and improved alignment between practice standards and accreditation standards may empower program directors to use systems thinking to teach sustainability-related challenges in nutrition and dietetics.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated systems thinking and sustainable, resilient, and healthy food and water systems (SRHFWS) in nutrition and dietetics programs. It examined program directors\' practices, values, attitudes, confidence levels, and the relationships between systems thinking, teaching SRHFWS topics, confidence levels, and years of experience as a dietitian and program director.
METHODS: Conducted in September 2022, the study used a descriptive design with a validated 20-item Systems Thinking Scale and a researcher-designed survey with 1-5 Likert-type scales.
METHODS: The online survey was distributed to 611 Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics program directors, with a 27% (N = 163) response.
METHODS: Descriptive statistics (frequency or mean ± SD) were calculated using Excel. Inferential statistics were examined using R. Analysis of variance was used to compare experience as a registered dietitian nutritionist and experience as a program director to confidence levels in teaching each SRHFWS topic. Linear regression was used determine the relationship between total Systems Thinking Scale score and demographic and programmatic variables.
RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of program directors scored high on the Systems Thinking Scale (mean score = 65.2 ± 8.4 on a 0 to 80 scale), and more than 85% of directors agreed that including systems thinking in dietetics was important. However, only 32.1% reported teaching systems thinking. Less than half of program directors agreed that systems thinking was adequately addressed in Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics standards, and nearly 80% of program directors agreed there was room to strengthen systems thinking content. Directors neither agreed nor disagreed there are adequate Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics standards addressing SRHFWS and reported SRHFWS topics were inconsistently taught. Confidence levels were lowest for teaching economic and environmental topics. Awareness and use of resources developed by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Foundation was low.
CONCLUSIONS: Integration of systems thinking in nutrition and dietetics education presents promising opportunities to address complexity in the field. Applying systems thinking to teach SRHFWS may narrow the disparity between educators\' perceived importance and program coverage. Enhancing program directors\' awareness and utilization of Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Foundation resources and improved alignment between practice standards and accreditation standards may empower program directors to use systems thinking to teach sustainability-related challenges in nutrition and dietetics.
摘要：
背景：建议进行系统思考，但不是必需的,在营养和营养学教育中教授食品和水系统的可持续性。
目的：本研究调查了系统思维和可持续发展，弹性，以及营养和营养学计划中的健康食品和水系统（SRHFWS）。它检查了项目主管的做法，值,态度，信心水平,以及系统思维之间的关系，教授SRHFWS主题，信心水平,以及多年的营养师和项目总监经验。
方法：于2022年9月进行，该研究使用了具有经过验证的20项系统思维量表（STS）的描述性设计和具有1-5个李克特型量表的研究人员设计的调查。
方法：在线调查已分发给611名营养和饮食教育认证委员会（ACEND）计划负责人，27％（n=163）的反应。
方法：描述性统计(频率，意思是，标准偏差)使用Excel计算。使用R.使用ANOVA将作为RDN的经验和作为项目主管的经验与教学每个SRHFWS主题的信心水平进行比较。使用线性回归确定STS总分与人口统计学和程序变量之间的关系。
结果：77％的项目主管在STS上得分较高（平均得分为65.2，0-80分，SD8.4)，超过85%的董事同意在营养学中纳入系统思维很重要。然而,只有32.1%的人报告了教学系统的思维。不到一半的项目主管同意在ACEND标准中充分解决了系统思维，近80%的项目主管认为系统思维内容还有加强空间。董事们既不同意也不同意有足够的ACEND标准来解决SRHFWS，并且报告的SRHFWS主题教授不一致。教授经济和环境主题的信心水平最低。对营养与饮食学会基金会开发的资源的认识和利用程度很低。
结论：在营养和营养学教育中整合系统思维为解决该领域的复杂性提供了有希望的机会。应用系统思维来教授SRHFWS可能会缩小教育者的重要性和计划覆盖范围之间的差距。提高项目主管对基金会资源的认识和利用，提高实践标准和认证标准之间的一致性，可以使项目主管能够利用系统思维来教授营养和营养学方面与可持续性相关的挑战。
目的：本研究调查了系统思维和可持续发展，弹性，以及营养和营养学计划中的健康食品和水系统（SRHFWS）。它检查了项目主管的做法，值,态度，信心水平,以及系统思维之间的关系，教授SRHFWS主题，信心水平,以及多年的营养师和项目总监经验。
方法：于2022年9月进行，该研究使用了具有经过验证的20项系统思维量表（STS）的描述性设计和具有1-5个李克特型量表的研究人员设计的调查。
方法：在线调查已分发给611名营养和饮食教育认证委员会（ACEND）计划负责人，27％（n=163）的反应。
方法：描述性统计(频率，意思是，标准偏差)使用Excel计算。使用R.使用ANOVA将作为RDN的经验和作为项目主管的经验与教学每个SRHFWS主题的信心水平进行比较。使用线性回归确定STS总分与人口统计学和程序变量之间的关系。
结果：77％的项目主管在STS上得分较高（平均得分为65.2，0-80分，SD8.4)，超过85%的董事同意在营养学中纳入系统思维很重要。然而,只有32.1%的人报告了教学系统的思维。不到一半的项目主管同意在ACEND标准中充分解决了系统思维，近80%的项目主管认为系统思维内容还有加强空间。董事们既不同意也不同意有足够的ACEND标准来解决SRHFWS，并且报告的SRHFWS主题教授不一致。教授经济和环境主题的信心水平最低。对营养与饮食学会基金会开发的资源的认识和利用程度很低。
结论：在营养和营养学教育中整合系统思维为解决该领域的复杂性提供了有希望的机会。应用系统思维来教授SRHFWS可能会缩小教育者的重要性和计划覆盖范围之间的差距。提高项目主管对基金会资源的认识和利用，提高实践标准和认证标准之间的一致性，可以使项目主管能够利用系统思维来教授营养和营养学方面与可持续性相关的挑战。
