Association between nutrition self-efficacy, health locus of control and food choice motives in consumers in nine European countries.

We investigated associations between food choice motives and psychological determinants of dietary health behaviour change (nutrition self-efficacy, NS-E, and health locus of control, HLoC) among 9381 participants (18-65 years, 49.4% females) from nine European countries. Price was the highest rated food choice motive. Higher importance of all motives was associated with higher NS-E and with higher Internal HLoC. Relationships between food choice motives and External HLoC were also in the expected direction in showing negative associations with Health, Natural Content, Weight Control, Mood and Sensory Appeal. Higher External HLoC was also associated with perceived greater importance of 'external' motives Ethical Concern, Familiarity and Convenience. Relationships between External HLoC and food choice motives were not all in the expected direction. Price was unrelated to External HLoC. Females rated the importance of all motives higher than males. People with less education ascribed greater importance to Price in motivating food choices. Together, these findings imply that self-efficacy and health locus of control should be considered along with motivations for food choice in dietary health promotion.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, so that many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients. This is the third update of this Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions, alone or in combination, in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 13 January 2021, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies. We ran updated searches in February 2023 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Characteristics of studies awaiting classification'. SELECTION CRITERIA: For this update, we included randomised trials only. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy (four or more medicines) in people aged 65 years and older, which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, and two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 38 studies, which includes an additional 10 in this update. The included studies consisted of 24 randomised trials and 14 cluster-randomised trials. Thirty-six studies examined complex, multi-faceted interventions of pharmaceutical care (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patients' outcomes), in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists, nurses and geriatricians, and most were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low. It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool) (mean difference (MD) -5.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.26 to -2.06; I2 = 97%; 8 studies, 947 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.05; I2 = 67%; 9 studies, 2404 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIM (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; I2 = 84%; 13 studies, 4534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.09; I2 = 92%; 3 studies, 691 participants; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only three studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk of bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPO (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.91; I2 = 95%; 7 studies, 2765 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to hospital admissions (data not pooled; 14 studies, 4797 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to quality of life (data not pooled; 16 studies, 7458 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in 10 studies (6740 participants) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies. This also applied to studies examining adherence to medication (nine studies, 3848 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy resulted in clinically significant improvement. Since the last update of this review in 2018, there appears to have been an increase in the number of studies seeking to address potential prescribing omissions and more interventions being delivered by multidisciplinary teams.

An external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care (PolyPrime).

BACKGROUND: For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy (use of multiple medications) is a standard practice. PolyPrime is a theory-based intervention developed to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care. This pilot study aims to assess the feasibility of the PolyPrime intervention in primary care in Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). METHODS: This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aimed to recruit 12 general practitioner (GP) practices (six in NI; six in the ROI counties that border NI) and ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥ 4 medications) per GP practice (n = 120). Practices allocated to the intervention arm watched an online video and scheduled medication reviews with patients on two occasions. We assessed the feasibility of collecting GP record (medication appropriateness, health service use) and patient self-reported data [health-related quality of life (HRQoL), health service use)] at baseline, 6 and 9 months. HRQoL was measured using the EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and medication-related burden quality-of-life (MRB-QoL) tool. An embedded process evaluation and health economics analysis were also undertaken. Pre-specified progression criteria were used to determine whether to proceed to a definitive cRCT. RESULTS: Twelve GP practices were recruited and randomised. Three GP practices withdrew from the study due to COVID-related factors. Sixty-eight patients were recruited, with 47 (69.1%) being retained until the end of the study. GP record data were available for 47 patients for medication appropriateness analysis at 9 months. EQ-5D-5L and MRB-QoL data were available for 46 and 41 patients, respectively, at 9 months. GP record and patient self-reported health service use data were available for 47 patients at 9 months. Health service use was comparable in terms of overall cost estimated from GP record versus patient self-reported data. The intervention was successfully delivered as intended; it was acceptable to GPs, practice staff, and patients; and potential mechanisms of action have been identified. All five progression criteria were met (two 'Go', three 'Amend'). CONCLUSION: Despite challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study has demonstrated that it may be feasible to conduct an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care across two healthcare jurisdictions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897 . Registered 19 November 2019. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

Theoretically derived interventions aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in primary care: A systematic review.

Background: Polypharmacy (the use of multiple medications) is common in older patients and achieving a balance between appropriate and inappropriate polypharmacy is a challenge routinely faced by prescribers. It is recommended to incorporate the use of theory when developing complex interventions, but it is not known if theoretically derived interventions aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy are effective. Objective: This systematic review aimed to establish the overall effectiveness of theoretically derived interventions on improving appropriate polypharmacy and to investigate the degree to which theory informed intervention design. Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2021 including hand-searching of reference lists. Interventions developed using a theory, involving the use of a validated tool to assess prescribing, delivered in primary care to participants with a mean age of ≥65 years and prescribed ≥four medications, were included. Data was extracted independently by two reviewers. The Theory Coding Scheme (TCS) was applied to evaluate the use of theory; Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Results: Two studies, one feasibility study and one randomised controlled trial (RCT) were included, and therefore overall effectiveness of the theoretically derived intervention could not be assessed. Theory used in development included the Theoretical Domains Framework and Reason's system-based risk management theory. The RCT was rated to have a high RoB. Based on the TCS, neither study used theory completely. Conclusion: The effectiveness of theoretically derived interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy in primary care could not be determined due to the small number of studies and their heterogeneity. Further incorporation of theory into intervention development is required to understand the effectiveness of this approach.Prospero registration: CRD42020157175.

Sex and age differences in attitudes and intention to adopt personalised nutrition in a UK sample.

AIM: There has been an increase in the development of technologies that can deliver personalised dietary advice. Devising healthy, sustainable dietary plans will mean taking into consideration extrinsic factors such as individual social circumstances. The aim of this study was to identify societal groups more or less receptive to and likely to engage with personalised nutrition initiatives. SAMPLE AND METHODS: Volunteers were recruited via a social research agency from within the UK. The resultant sample (N = 1061) was 49% female, aged 18-65 years. RESULTS: MANOVA (Tukey HSD applied) indicated that females and younger people (aged 18-29 years) had more favourable attitudes and were more likely to intend to adopt personalised nutrition. There were no differences in attitude toward or intention to adopt personalised nutrition between different education levels, income brackets or occupational groups. CONCLUSION: These results imply that females and younger people may be most likely to adopt personalised nutrition in the future. Initiatives to promote healthy eating should target males and older people.

Protocol for a process evaluation of an external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care: the PolyPrime study.

BACKGROUND: The PolyPrime intervention is a theory-based intervention aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in older people (aged ≥65 years) in primary care. The intervention consists of an online video which demonstrates how general practitioners (GPs) can prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. The aim of the process evaluation is to further examine the implementation of the PolyPrime intervention in primary care. This will involve investigating whether the PolyPrime intervention can be delivered as intended across two healthcare systems, how acceptable the intervention is to GPs, practice staff and patients, and to identify the intervention's likely mechanisms of action. METHODS: The PolyPrime study is an external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) which aims to recruit 12 GP practices across Northern Ireland [NI] (n=6) and the six counties in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) that border NI (n=6). Practices have been randomised to intervention or usual care. An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention to GPs, practice staff and patients and potential mechanisms of action (i.e. what components of the intervention were perceived to be effective). Quantitative data will be collected from data collection forms completed by GPs and practice staff and a feedback questionnaire completed by patients from intervention arm practices, which will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with GPs and practice staff and audio-recordings of medication review appointments from the intervention arm practices which will be transcribed and analysed using the framework method. Quantitative and qualitative data will be triangulated to provide an overall assessment of intervention fidelity, intervention acceptability, and mechanisms of action. DISCUSSION: This process evaluation will add to feasibility data from the pilot cRCT by providing evidence on the fidelity of implementing the intervention package across two healthcare systems, the acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN41009897 . Registered on 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

An external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care (PolyPrime): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The use of multiple medications (polypharmacy) is a concern in older people (≥65 years) and is associated with negative health outcomes. For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy is the reality and the key challenge is ensuring appropriate polypharmacy (as opposed to inappropriate polypharmacy). This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aims to further test a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care in two jurisdictions, Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). METHODS: Twelve GP practices across NI (n=6) and the six counties in the ROI that border NI will be randomised to either the intervention or usual care group. Members of the research team have developed an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. The intervention consists of two components: (1) an online video which demonstrates how a GP may prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and (2) a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. Ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥4 medications) will be recruited per GP practice (n=120). GP practices allocated to the intervention arm will be asked to watch the online video and schedule medication reviews with patients on two occasions; an initial and a 6-month follow-up appointment. GP practices allocated to the control arm will continue to provide usual care to patients. The study will assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention and study procedures including collecting data on medication appropriateness (from GP records), quality of life and health service use (i.e. hospitalisations). An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action. DISCUSSION: This pilot cRCT will provide evidence of the feasibility of a range of study parameters such as recruitment and retention, data collection procedures and the acceptability of the intervention. Pre-specified progression criteria will also be used to determine whether or not to proceed to a definitive cRCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897 . Registered 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

Application of the intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews within a Cochrane review: an illustrative case study.

Background: The intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (iCAT_SR) has been developed to facilitate detailed assessments of intervention complexity in systematic reviews. Worked examples of the tool's application are needed to promote its use and refinement. The aim of this case study was to apply the iCAT_SR to a subset of 20 studies included in a Cochrane review of interventions aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in older people. Methods: Interventions were assessed independently by two authors using the six core iCAT_SR dimensions: (1) 'Target organisational levels/categories'; (2) 'Target behaviour/actions'; (3) 'Active intervention components'; (4) 'Degree of tailoring'; (5) 'Level of skill required by intervention deliverers'; (6) 'Level of skill required by intervention recipients'. Attempts were made to apply four optional dimensions: 'Interaction between intervention components'; 'Context/setting'; 'Recipient/provider factors'; 'Nature of causal pathway'. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. Disagreements were resolved by consensus discussion. The findings are presented narratively. Results: Assessments involving the core iCAT_SR dimensions showed limited consistency in intervention complexity across included studies, even when categorised according to clinical setting. Interventions were delivered across various organisational levels and categories (i.e. healthcare professionals and patients) and typically comprised multiple components. Intermediate skill levels were required by those delivering and receiving the interventions across all studies. A lack of detail in study reports precluded application of the iCAT_SR's optional dimensions. The inter-rater reliability was substantial (Cohen's Kappa = 0.75) Conclusions: This study describes the application of the iCAT_SR to studies included in a Cochrane systematic review. Future intervention studies need to ensure more detailed reporting of interventions, context and the causal pathways underlying intervention effects to allow a more holistic understanding of intervention complexity and facilitate replication in other settings. The experience gained has helped to refine the original guidance document relating to the application of iCAT_SR.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 7 February 2018, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older, prescribed polypharmacy (four or more medicines), which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 32 studies, 20 from this update. Included studies consisted of 18 randomised trials, 10 cluster randomised trials (one of which was a stepped-wedge design), two non-randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support (CDS); and 31 were complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical-care based approaches (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patient's outcomes), one of which incorporated a CDS component as part of their multi-faceted intervention. Interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists and geriatricians, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low.It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool), mean difference (MD) -4.76, 95% CI -9.20 to -0.33; 5 studies, N = 517; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05; 7 studies; N = 1832; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs, (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02; 11 studies; N = 3079; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.81, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.64; 2 studies; N = 569; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPOs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 5 studies; N = 1310; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in hospital admissions (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 4052; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in quality of life (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 3211; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in eight studies (N = 10,087) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as reviews of patients' prescriptions, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they may be slightly beneficial in terms of reducing potential prescribing omissions (PPOs); but this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias.

Food choice motives, attitude towards and intention to adopt personalised nutrition.

OBJECTIVE: The present study explored associations between food choice motives, attitudes towards and intention to adopt personalised nutrition, to inform communication strategies based on consumer priorities and concerns.Design/SettingA survey was administered online which included the Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) and items assessing attitudes towards and intention to adopt personalised nutrition. SUBJECTS: Nationally representative samples were recruited in nine EU countries (n 9381). RESULTS: Structural equation modelling indicated that the food choice motives 'weight control', 'mood', 'health' and 'ethical concern' had a positive association and 'price' had a negative association with attitude towards, and intention to adopt, personalised nutrition. 'Health' was positively associated and 'familiarity' negatively associated with attitude towards personalised nutrition. The effects of 'weight control', 'ethical concern', 'mood' and 'price' on intention to adopt personalised nutrition were partially mediated by attitude. The effects of 'health' and 'familiarity' were fully mediated by attitude. 'Sensory appeal' was negatively and directly associated with intention to adopt personalised nutrition. CONCLUSIONS: Personalised nutrition providers may benefit from taking into consideration the importance of underlying determinants of food choice in potential users, particularly weight control, mood and price, when promoting services and in tailoring communications that are motivationally relevant.

Core Outcome Set for Trials Aimed at Improving the Appropriateness of Polypharmacy in Older People in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in effectiveness trials of interventions aiming to improve the appropriateness of polypharmacy in older people in primary care. DESIGN: Standard COS development methodology was followed, comprising identification of outcomes of studies from an update of a Cochrane systematic review and previously collected qualitative data and an online Delphi consensus exercise involving three rounds. PARTICIPANTS: An international panel of 160 stakeholders comprising 120 healthcare experts and a public participant panel of 40 older people. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes identified from studies included in the Cochrane review and secondary analysis of previously collected qualitative data were scored on a 9-point Likert scale using the GRADE scoring system anchored at 1 (not important) and 9 (critical). Consensus criteria for the COS were defined as 70% or more of participants scoring the outcome as critical and 15% or fewer scoring the outcome as not important. RESULTS: Twenty-nine outcomes identified from the Cochrane review and existing qualitative data were included in the Delphi exercise. The final COS comprised 16 outcomes. The 7 highest-ranked outcomes were serious adverse drug reactions, medication appropriateness, falls, medication regimen complexity, quality of life, mortality, and medication side effects. CONCLUSION: A COS for interventions aiming to improve the appropriateness of polypharmacy for older people in primary care has been developed. Future work will focus on identifying appropriate tools to measure.

Capturing health and eating status through a nutritional perception screening questionnaire (NPSQ9) in a randomised internet-based personalised nutrition intervention: the Food4Me study.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines emphasize healthy eating to promote wellbeing and prevention of non-communicable diseases. The perceived healthiness of food is determined by many factors affecting food intake. A positive perception of healthy eating has been shown to be associated with greater diet quality. Internet-based methodologies allow contact with large populations. Our present study aims to design and evaluate a short nutritional perception questionnaire, to be used as a screening tool for assessing nutritional status, and to predict an optimal level of personalisation in nutritional advice delivered via the Internet. METHODS: Data from all participants who were screened and then enrolled into the Food4Me proof-of-principle study (n = 2369) were used to determine the optimal items for inclusion in a novel screening tool, the Nutritional Perception Screening Questionnaire-9 (NPSQ9). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed on anthropometric and biochemical data and on dietary indices acquired from participants who had completed the Food4Me dietary intervention (n = 1153). Baseline and intervention data were analysed using linear regression and linear mixed regression, respectively. RESULTS: A final model with 9 NPSQ items was validated against the dietary intervention data. NPSQ9 scores were inversely associated with BMI (ß = -0.181, p < 0.001) and waist circumference (Β = -0.155, p < 0.001), and positively associated with total carotenoids (ß = 0.198, p < 0.001), omega-3 fatty acid index (ß = 0.155, p < 0.001), Healthy Eating Index (HEI) (ß = 0.299, p < 0.001) and Mediterranean Diet Score (MDS) (ß = 0. 279, p < 0.001). Findings from the longitudinal intervention study showed a greater reduction in BMI and improved dietary indices among participants with lower NPSQ9 scores. CONCLUSIONS: Healthy eating perceptions and dietary habits captured by the NPSQ9 score, based on nine questionnaire items, were associated with reduced body weight and improved diet quality. Likewise, participants with a lower score achieved greater health improvements than those with higher scores, in response to personalised advice, suggesting that NPSQ9 may be used for early evaluation of nutritional status and to tailor nutritional advice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01530139 .

Providing Personalised Nutrition: Consumers' Trust and Preferences Regarding Sources of Information, Service Providers and Regulators, and Communication Channels.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Personalised nutrition has potential to revolutionise dietary health promotion if accepted by the general public. We studied trust and preferences regarding personalised nutrition services, how they influence intention to adopt these services, and cultural and social differences therein. METHODS: A total of 9,381 participants were quota-sampled to be representative of each of 9 EU countries (Germany, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK, and Norway) and surveyed by a questionnaire assessing their intention to adopt personalised nutrition, trust in service regulators and information sources, and preferences for service providers and information channels. RESULTS: Trust and preferences significantly predicted intention to adopt personalised nutrition. Higher trust in the local department of health care was associated with lower intention to adopt personalised nutrition. General practitioners were the most trusted of service regulators, except in Portugal, where consumer organisations and universities were most trusted. In all countries, family doctors were the most trusted information providers. Trust in the National Health Service as service regulator and information source showed high variability across countries. Despite its highest variability across countries, personal meeting was the preferred communication channel, except in Spain, where an automated internet service was preferred. General practitioners were the preferred service providers, except in Poland, where dietitians and nutritionists were preferred. The preference for dietitians and nutritionists as service providers highly varied across countries. CONCLUSION: These results may assist in informing local initiatives to encourage acceptance and adoption of country-specific tailored personalised nutrition services, therefore benefiting individual and public health.

Public perceptions of personalised nutrition through the lens of Social Cognitive Theory.

Social Cognitive Theory has been used to explain findings derived from focus group discussions ( N = 4) held in the United Kingdom with the aim of informing best practice in personalised nutrition. Positive expectancies included weight loss and negative expectancies surrounded on-line security. Monitoring and feedback were crucial to goal setting and progress. Coaching by the service provider, family and friends was deemed important for self-efficacy. Paying for personalised nutrition symbolised commitment to behaviour change. The social context of eating, however, was perceived a problem and should be considered when designing personalised diets. Social Cognitive Theory could provide an effective framework through which to deliver personalised nutrition.

Willingness to pay for personalised nutrition across Europe.

BACKGROUND: Personalised nutrition (PN) may promote public health. PN involves dietary advice based on individual characteristics of end users and can for example be based on lifestyle, blood and/or DNA profiling. Currently, PN is not refunded by most health insurance or health care plans. Improved public health is contingent on individual consumers being willing to pay for the service. METHODS: A survey with a representative sample from the general population was conducted in eight European countries (N = 8233). Participants reported their willingness to pay (WTP) for PN based on lifestyle information, lifestyle and blood information, and lifestyle and DNA information. WTP was elicited by contingent valuation with the price of a standard, non-PN advice used as reference. RESULTS: About 30% of participants reported being willing to pay more for PN than for non-PN advice. They were on average prepared to pay about 150% of the reference price of a standard, non-personalised advice, with some differences related to socio-demographic factors. CONCLUSION: There is a potential market for PN compared to non-PN advice, particularly among men on higher incomes. These findings raise questions to what extent personalized nutrition can be left to the market or should be incorporated into public health programs.

Promoting healthy dietary behaviour through personalised nutrition: technology push or technology pull?

The notion of educating the public through generic healthy eating messages has pervaded dietary health promotion efforts over the years and continues to do so through various media, despite little evidence for any enduring impact upon eating behaviour. There is growing evidence, however, that tailored interventions such as those that could be delivered online can be effective in bringing about healthy dietary behaviour change. The present paper brings together evidence from qualitative and quantitative studies that have considered the public perspective of genomics, nutrigenomics and personalised nutrition, including those conducted as part of the EU-funded Food4Me project. Such studies have consistently indicated that although the public hold positive views about nutrigenomics and personalised nutrition, they have reservations about the service providers' ability to ensure the secure handling of health data. Technological innovation has driven the concept of personalised nutrition forward and now a further technological leap is required to ensure the privacy of online service delivery systems and to protect data gathered in the process of designing personalised nutrition therapies.

Psychological determinants of consumer acceptance of personalised nutrition in 9 European countries.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a model of the psychological factors which predict people's intention to adopt personalised nutrition. Potential determinants of adoption included perceived risk and benefit, perceived self-efficacy, internal locus of control and health commitment. METHODS: A questionnaire, developed from exploratory study data and the existing theoretical literature, and including validated psychological scales was administered to N=9381 participants from 9 European countries (Germany, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK, and Norway). RESULTS: Structural equation modelling indicated that the greater participants' perceived benefits to be associated with personalised nutrition, the more positive their attitudes were towards personalised nutrition, and the greater their intention to adopt it. Higher levels of nutrition self-efficacy were related to more positive attitudes towards, and a greater expressed intention to adopt, personalised nutrition. Other constructs positively impacting attitudes towards personalised nutrition included more positive perceptions of the efficacy of regulatory control to protect consumers (e.g. in relation to personal data protection), higher self-reported internal health locus of control, and health commitment. Although higher perceived risk had a negative relationship with attitude and an inverse relationship with perceived benefit, its effects on attitude and intention to adopt personalised nutrition was less influential than perceived benefit. The model was stable across the different European countries, suggesting that psychological factors determining adoption of personalised nutrition have generic applicability across different European countries. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that transparent provision of information about potential benefits, and protection of consumers' personal data is important for adoption, delivery of public health benefits, and commercialisation of personalised nutrition.

Biomarker responses to folic acid intervention in healthy adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The task of revising dietary folate recommendations for optimal health is complicated by a lack of data quantifying the biomarker response that reliably reflects a given folate intake. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a dose-response meta-analysis in healthy adults to quantify the typical response of recognized folate biomarkers to a change in folic acid intake. DESIGN: Electronic and bibliographic searches identified 19 randomized controlled trials that supplemented with folic acid and measured folate biomarkers before and after the intervention in apparently healthy adults aged ≥18 y. For each biomarker response, the regression coefficient (ß) for individual studies and the overall pooled ß were calculated by using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Folate biomarkers (serum/plasma and red blood cell folate) increased in response to folic acid in a dose-response manner only up to an intake of 400 µg/d. Calculation of the overall pooled ß for studies in the range of 50 to 400 µg/d indicated that a doubling of folic acid intake resulted in an increase in serum/plasma folate by 63% (71% for microbiological assay; 61% for nonmicrobiological assay) and red blood cell folate by 31% (irrespective of whether microbiological or other assay was used). Studies that used the microbiological assay indicated lower heterogeneity compared with studies using nonmicrobiological assays for determining serum/plasma (I(2) = 13.5% compared with I(2) = 77.2%) and red blood cell (I(2) = 45.9% compared with I(2) = 70.2%) folate. CONCLUSIONS: Studies administering >400 µg folic acid/d show no dose-response relation and thus will not yield meaningful results for consideration when generating dietary folate recommendations. The calculated folate biomarker response to a given folic acid intake may be more robust with the use of a microbiological assay rather than alternative methods for blood folate measurement.

Factors influencing European consumer uptake of personalised nutrition. Results of a qualitative analysis.

The aim of this research was to explore consumer perceptions of personalised nutrition and to compare these across three different levels of "medicalization": lifestyle assessment (no blood sampling); phenotypic assessment (blood sampling); genomic assessment (blood and buccal sampling). The protocol was developed from two pilot focus groups conducted in the UK. Two focus groups (one comprising only "older" individuals between 30 and 60 years old, the other of adults 18-65 yrs of age) were run in the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Germany (N=16). The analysis (guided using grounded theory) suggested that personalised nutrition was perceived in terms of benefit to health and fitness and that convenience was an important driver of uptake. Negative attitudes were associated with internet delivery but not with personalised nutrition per se. Barriers to uptake were linked to broader technological issues associated with data protection, trust in regulator and service providers. Services that required a fee were expected to be of better quality and more secure. An efficacious, transparent and trustworthy regulatory framework for personalised nutrition is required to alleviate consumer concern. In addition, developing trust in service providers is important if such services to be successful.