4.7 Article

Development and Validation of Nutrition Literacy Questionnaire for the Chinese Elderly

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu14051005

Keywords

the elderly; nutrition literacy; nutrition literacy questionnaire; multimorbidity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study developed and validated the Nutrition Literacy Questionnaire for the Chinese Elderly (NLQ-E), revealing a generally low level of nutrition literacy among the elderly participants. Additionally, a correlation was found between nutrition literacy scores and multimorbidity.
(1) Background: Improving nutrition literacy is crucial for maintaining a healthier state of the elderly to achieve healthy ageing. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a Nutrition Literacy Questionnaire for the Chinese Elderly (NLQ-E). (2) Methods: an NLQ-E was developed according to the core components of nutrition literacy for the elderly. Internal consistency, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to validate the reliability and validity of the NLQ-E. A cross-sectional study of 1490 elderly people was used to analyze the application of the NLQ-E. (3) Results: The NLQ-E was constructed with 3 domains (knowledge and understanding, healthy lifestyle and dietary behavior and skill), with a total of 25 questions. The overall NLQ-E had acceptable reliability and validity (Cronbach's alpha = 0.678, chi(2)/DF = 4.750, RMSEA = 0.045, PCFI = 0.776 and PNFI = 0.759). The average nutrition literacy score of the subjects in this cross-sectional study was 65.95 (65.95 +/- 10.93). The OR between the nutrition literacy score and multimorbidity was 0.965 (95% CI: 0.954, 0.976); (4) Conclusions: We developed and validated the NLQ-E and found that the nutrition literacy level of the Chinese elderly was generally low. This study is of great value to improve the nutrition literacy of the elderly and effectively prevent nutrition-related chronic diseases and multimorbidity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available