Research shows that Canadian dietitians find in-person, hands-on training most effective for learning and changing their practice, yet 74.7% attend these sessions less often than they would like due to cost, scheduling, and location barriers. According to Gram Research analysis of a 2026 survey of 428 dietitians, 91% participate in prerecorded videos instead, which are more accessible but perceived as less effective for practice change.
A new Canadian survey asked 428 dietitians about their continuing education preferences, revealing a significant gap between what works best and what they actually attend. According to Gram Research analysis, while hands-on, in-person training proved most effective for learning and changing practice, cost, scheduling conflicts, and location barriers prevented most dietitians from attending these sessions. Instead, dietitians participated most frequently in prerecorded videos and live online presentations, which were easier to access but perceived as less effective. The findings highlight opportunities to redesign professional training to better support healthcare providers who directly care for patients.
Key Statistics
A 2026 cross-sectional survey of 428 Canadian dietitians found that 91% had participated in prerecorded video continuing education at least once in the preceding 12 months, making it the most frequently attended format despite being perceived as less effective than in-person training.
According to research reviewed by Gram, 74.7% of Canadian dietitians reported attending in-person continuing education sessions less often than they would ideally like, with cost (68%), scheduling conflicts (60%), and location (51%) cited as the primary barriers.
A 2026 survey of 428 registered dietitians across Canada found that in-person, hands-on sessions were perceived as most effective for knowledge acquisition and enabling practice change, yet these formats had the lowest participation rates among all continuing education types.
Research shows that 50.7% of Canadian dietitians felt they attended virtual continuing education as often as they ideally wanted to, suggesting that accessibility and convenience are driving participation patterns even when perceived effectiveness is lower.
The Quick Take
- What they studied: How Canadian dietitians feel about different types of continuing education and training programs, and what barriers prevent them from attending the types they find most helpful.
- Who participated: 428 registered dietitians from across Canada who work directly with patients in various healthcare settings. This represented 9.2% of dietitians invited to participate in the online survey.
- Key finding: In-person, hands-on training sessions were rated as most effective for learning and changing how dietitians practice, yet 74.7% of respondents said they attended these sessions less often than they would like. Meanwhile, 91% had participated in prerecorded videos, which were easier to access but considered less effective.
- What it means for you: If you work with a dietitian or are considering nutrition counseling, this research suggests that professional training gaps may exist. Dietitians want better access to high-quality, interactive learning opportunities. Supporting improved continuing education could lead to better patient care and faster adoption of new nutrition science.
The Research Details
Researchers created a 25-question online survey and invited Canadian dietitians to participate. The survey was open to any registered dietitian providing direct patient care. A total of 428 dietitians completed the survey, answering questions about the types of continuing education they had attended in the past year, how often they participated in different formats, how effective they found each type, and what barriers prevented them from attending more training.
The researchers analyzed the responses by counting how many dietitians selected each answer and calculating percentages. They looked at patterns across different types of training (in-person, virtual, prerecorded) and identified the most common barriers that prevented participation.
This type of study, called a cross-sectional survey, captures a snapshot of opinions and behaviors at one point in time. It’s useful for understanding what people think and do, but it cannot prove that one type of training actually causes better patient outcomes.
Understanding what dietitians need from their professional training is important because these healthcare providers directly influence patient nutrition decisions and health outcomes. If dietitians cannot access the training formats they find most effective, it may slow down the adoption of new, evidence-based nutrition practices in hospitals, clinics, and communities. This survey provides concrete data to help professional organizations and educators redesign training programs to better meet real-world needs.
The survey had a relatively low response rate (9.2% of invited dietitians), which means the results may not represent all Canadian dietitians equally. The researchers used a convenience sample, meaning they invited dietitians they could easily reach rather than randomly selecting from the entire population. This approach is practical but can introduce bias. The survey relied on self-reported information, so responses reflect what dietitians remember and believe rather than objective measures. Despite these limitations, the large sample size (428 responses) and diverse geographic representation across Canada strengthen the findings.
What the Results Show
The survey revealed a striking mismatch between what dietitians find effective and what they actually attend. In-person sessions with hands-on components were rated as most effective for both learning new knowledge and changing clinical practice. However, 74.7% of dietitians reported attending in-person continuing education less often than they would ideally like to attend.
In contrast, virtual and prerecorded formats had much higher participation rates. Prerecorded videos were the most commonly attended format, with 91% of dietitians having participated at least once in the preceding 12 months. Live virtual presentations were the second most common, with 87% participation. Yet these formats were not perceived as equally effective for learning and practice change.
Three major barriers emerged that prevented dietitians from attending more in-person training: cost (reported by 68% of respondents), scheduling conflicts (60%), and location or travel distance (51%). These practical obstacles appear to be pushing dietitians toward virtual and prerecorded options, even when they believe in-person training would benefit them more.
The survey found that 50.7% of dietitians felt they attended virtual continuing education as often as they ideally wanted to, suggesting that virtual formats may be meeting their accessibility needs better than in-person options. However, this satisfaction with frequency did not translate to perceived effectiveness. The data suggests that convenience and accessibility are driving participation patterns, while effectiveness ratings remain lower for the most accessible formats. This creates a challenge for professional development: the most accessible options are not perceived as the most impactful.
This research aligns with broader trends in professional education showing that virtual and asynchronous learning have become dominant since the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it adds important nuance by showing that healthcare professionals still perceive hands-on, interactive learning as superior for practice change. The findings echo previous research in medical and allied health education indicating that interactive, in-person learning produces better outcomes than passive, online formats, but that practical barriers often prevent participation in these higher-quality programs.
The response rate of 9.2% is relatively low, meaning the results may not represent all Canadian dietitians. Dietitians who responded may differ from those who did not, potentially skewing results. The survey captured perceptions and self-reported behavior rather than actual learning outcomes or practice changes. The study was conducted at a single point in time, so it cannot show how preferences or barriers change over time. The survey did not measure whether dietitians who attended in-person training actually achieved better patient outcomes compared to those who attended virtual training. Finally, the study focused only on Canadian dietitians, so findings may not apply to other countries with different healthcare systems and professional structures.
The Bottom Line
Professional organizations and continuing education providers should prioritize making high-quality, hands-on training more accessible by addressing cost, scheduling, and location barriers. This could include offering hybrid models that combine in-person interactive components with virtual access, providing subsidies or employer support for training costs, and scheduling sessions at multiple times and locations. For individual dietitians, the research suggests advocating for better access to in-person training opportunities and seeking out interactive, hands-on learning when possible, even if it requires extra effort. These recommendations are supported by moderate evidence from this survey, though stronger evidence would come from studies measuring actual patient outcomes.
Dietitians and nutrition professionals should care about these findings because they directly affect their professional development and ability to provide current, evidence-based care. Healthcare administrators and employers should care because investing in effective continuing education can improve patient outcomes and staff retention. Patients and the public should care because better-trained dietitians lead to better nutrition counseling and health results. Professional organizations and educators should use these findings to redesign training programs. Policymakers should consider whether current funding models for professional education adequately support the formats that healthcare providers find most effective.
Changes in how dietitians access continuing education could begin immediately through hybrid program offerings and scheduling flexibility. However, meaningful changes in practice patterns and patient outcomes would likely take 6 to 12 months to become apparent as dietitians complete training and implement new knowledge. Systemic changes to remove cost and location barriers may take 1 to 2 years to fully implement across professional organizations and educational institutions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What type of training do dietitians find most effective for learning?
In-person, hands-on training sessions are perceived as most effective by Canadian dietitians for both acquiring new knowledge and changing clinical practice. However, cost, scheduling, and location barriers prevent most from attending these sessions as often as they would like.
Why do dietitians attend more virtual training if in-person is better?
Virtual and prerecorded formats are more accessible and convenient, requiring no travel or scheduling around fixed in-person sessions. A 2026 survey found that 91% of dietitians had participated in prerecorded videos, compared to much lower in-person attendance, despite perceiving in-person training as more effective.
What barriers prevent dietitians from attending in-person continuing education?
The primary barriers are cost (reported by 68% of dietitians), scheduling conflicts (60%), and location or travel distance (51%). These practical obstacles push dietitians toward more accessible virtual options, even when they believe in-person training would benefit them more.
How can professional organizations improve dietitian continuing education?
Organizations should address cost, scheduling, and location barriers by offering hybrid programs combining in-person and virtual components, providing subsidies, and scheduling sessions at multiple times and locations. This could increase participation in high-quality, interactive learning formats.
Does this research prove that in-person training produces better patient outcomes?
This survey measured dietitian perceptions of effectiveness, not actual patient outcomes. While dietitians believe in-person training is more effective for learning and practice change, stronger evidence would require studies comparing patient outcomes between dietitians trained through different formats.
Want to Apply This Research?
- Track the type of nutrition education or training you complete each month, noting whether it was in-person, live virtual, or prerecorded. Also record how you felt about the learning experience and whether you made any changes to your nutrition practices as a result. This helps identify which formats work best for your learning style.
- If you work with a dietitian or are pursuing nutrition education, seek out opportunities for interactive, hands-on learning when possible. Ask your employer or professional organization about in-person workshops, group consultations, or hybrid programs that combine virtual access with interactive components. If cost is a barrier, inquire about subsidies, employer support, or group rates.
- Over 3 to 6 months, track which types of nutrition education or training you participate in and rate how well each format helped you learn and apply new information. Compare your engagement and retention between formats. Use this personal data to advocate for the types of professional development that work best for you and to guide your own learning choices.
This research describes dietitian perceptions of continuing education formats and barriers to participation. It does not prove that any particular training format produces better patient health outcomes. Individual dietitians should consult with their employers, professional organizations, and colleagues about the most appropriate continuing education for their specific practice setting and learning needs. This information is intended for educational purposes and should not replace professional guidance from healthcare organizations or regulatory bodies.
This research translation is published by Gram Research, the science division of Gram, an AI-powered nutrition tracking app.