4.7 Article

A qualitative study of older adults' and healthcare professionals' perspectives on the potential of functional food products to support healthy ageing

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNCTIONAL FOODS
卷 107, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jff.2023.105689

关键词

Older adults; Healthcare professionals; Food products; Nutrition; Gut microbiota; Mediterranean diet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functional food products can supplement a balanced diet for older adults by providing extra protein and fiber, supporting healthy aging and promoting favorable gut microbiota profiles. However, the texture, portion size, packaging, and ease of preparation need to be taken into consideration, without stigmatizing branding/presentation, while cost and availability are important factors. Sugar is perceived as the enemy while plant-based proteins are welcomed.
Providing Mediterranean Diet (MD) nutrients in a minimally-processed functional food product may support healthy ageing, mediating favourable gut microbiota profiles when MD adherence is challenging. We thematically analysed stakeholders' perspectives of functional food products targeting healthy ageing, through semistructured individual and group interviews in Ireland, with 47 older-adults (recruited through social, retirement and disease-support groups); and 26 HCPs across a range of disciplines. Functional food products could provide a boost of hard-to-reach nutrients, supplementary fibre and/or protein, but there is caution with silver bullet products. Changing dentition (texture), appetite (portion size), dexterity (packaging; preparation ease) must be reflected, without stigmatising branding/presentation, while cost and availability were considered important. It was perceived that sugar is the enemy, while plant-based proteins were welcomed. In summary, novel food products could supplement, but not replace, a balanced diet for older adults, providing additional protein and fibre in a convenient, sustainable, carefully branded product.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据