1.
Characteristics of European adults who dropped out from the Food4Me Internet-based personalised nutrition intervention.
Livingstone, KM, Celis-Morales, C, Macready, AL, Fallaize, R, Forster, H, Woolhead, C, O'Donovan, CB, Marsaux, CF, Navas-Carretero, S, San-Cristobal, R, et al
Public health nutrition. 2017;(1):53-63
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To characterise participants who dropped out of the Food4Me Proof-of-Principle study. DESIGN The Food4Me study was an Internet-based, 6-month, four-arm, randomised controlled trial. The control group received generalised dietary and lifestyle recommendations, whereas participants randomised to three different levels of personalised nutrition (PN) received advice based on dietary, phenotypic and/or genotypic data, respectively (with either more or less frequent feedback). SETTING Seven recruitment sites: UK, Ireland, The Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Poland and Greece. SUBJECTS Adults aged 18-79 years (n 1607). RESULTS A total of 337 (21 %) participants dropped out during the intervention. At baseline, dropouts had higher BMI (0·5 kg/m2; P<0·001). Attrition did not differ significantly between individuals receiving generalised dietary guidelines (Control) and those randomised to PN. Participants were more likely to drop out (OR; 95 % CI) if they received more frequent feedback (1·81; 1·36, 2·41; P<0·001), were female (1·38; 1·06, 1·78; P=0·015), less than 45 years old (2·57; 1·95, 3·39; P<0·001) and obese (2·25; 1·47, 3·43; P<0·001). Attrition was more likely in participants who reported an interest in losing weight (1·53; 1·19, 1·97; P<0·001) or skipping meals (1·75; 1·16, 2·65; P=0·008), and less likely if participants claimed to eat healthily frequently (0·62; 0·45, 0·86; P=0·003). CONCLUSIONS Attrition did not differ between participants receiving generalised or PN advice but more frequent feedback was related to attrition for those randomised to PN interventions. Better strategies are required to minimise dropouts among younger and obese individuals participating in PN interventions and more frequent feedback may be an unnecessary burden.
2.
Profile of European adults interested in internet-based personalised nutrition: the Food4Me study.
Livingstone, KM, Celis-Morales, C, Navas-Carretero, S, San-Cristobal, R, O'Donovan, CB, Forster, H, Woolhead, C, Marsaux, CFM, Macready, AL, Fallaize, R, et al
European journal of nutrition. 2016;(2):759-769
Abstract
PURPOSE Personalised interventions may have greater potential for reducing the global burden of non-communicable diseases and for promoting better health and well-being across the lifespan than the conventional "one size fits all" approach. However, the characteristics of individuals interested in personalised nutrition (PN) are unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to describe the characteristics of European adults interested in taking part in an internet-based PN study. METHODS Individuals from seven European countries (UK, Ireland, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Greece and Poland) were invited to participate in the study via the Food4Me website ( http://www.food4me.org ). Two screening questionnaires were used to collect data on socio-demographic, anthropometric and health-related characteristics as well as dietary intakes. RESULTS A total of 5662 individuals expressed an interest in the study (mean age 40 ± 12.7; range 15-87 years). Of these, 65 % were female and 97 % were Caucasian. Overall, 13 % were smokers and 47 % reported the presence of a clinically diagnosed disease. Furthermore, 47 % were overweight or obese and 35 % were sedentary during leisure time. Assessment of dietary intakes showed that 54 % of individuals reported consuming at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day, 46 % consumed more than 3 servings of wholegrains and 37 % limited their salt intake to <5.75 g per day. CONCLUSIONS Our data indicate that individuals volunteering to participate in an internet-based PN study are broadly representative of the European adult population, most of whom had adequate nutrient intakes but could benefit from improved dietary choices and greater physical activity. Future use of internet-based PN approaches is thus relevant to a wide target audience.
3.
Effect of an Internet-based, personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes associated with the Mediterranean diet: the Food4Me Study.
Livingstone, KM, Celis-Morales, C, Navas-Carretero, S, San-Cristobal, R, Macready, AL, Fallaize, R, Forster, H, Woolhead, C, O'Donovan, CB, Marsaux, CF, et al
The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2016;(2):288-97
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Little is known about the efficacy of personalized nutrition (PN) interventions for improving consumption of a Mediterranean diet (MedDiet). OBJECTIVE The objective was to evaluate the effect of a PN intervention on dietary changes associated with the MedDiet. DESIGN Participants (n = 1607) were recruited into a 6-mo, Internet-based, PN randomized controlled trial (Food4Me) designed to evaluate the effect of PN on dietary change. Participants were randomly assigned to receive conventional dietary advice [control; level 0 (L0)] or PN advice on the basis of current diet [level 1 (L1)], diet and phenotype [level 2 (L2)], or diet, phenotype, and genotype [level 3 (L3)]. Dietary intakes from food-frequency questionnaires at baseline and at 6 mo were converted to a MedDiet score. Linear regression compared participant characteristics between high (>5) and low (≤5) MedDiet scores. Differences in MedDiet scores between treatment arms at month 6 were evaluated by using contrast analyses. RESULTS At baseline, high MedDiet scorers had a 0.5 lower body mass index (in kg/m(2); P = 0.007) and a 0.03 higher physical activity level (P = 0.003) than did low scorers. MedDiet scores at month 6 were greater in individuals randomly assigned to receive PN (L1, L2, and L3) than in controls (PN compared with controls: 5.20 ± 0.05 and 5.48 ± 0.07, respectively; P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in MedDiet scores at month 6 between PN advice on the basis of L1 compared with L2 and L3. However, differences in MedDiet scores at month 6 were greater in L3 than in L2 (L3 compared with L2: 5.63 ± 0.10 and 5.38 ± 0.10, respectively; P = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS Higher MedDiet scores at baseline were associated with healthier lifestyles and lower adiposity. After the intervention, MedDiet scores were greater in individuals randomly assigned to receive PN than in controls, with the addition of DNA-based dietary advice resulting in the largest differences in MedDiet scores. Although differences were significant, their clinical relevance is modest. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01530139.