4.5 Article

Knowledge, perceptions and preferences of elderly regarding protein-enriched functional food

Journal

APPETITE
Volume 80, Issue -, Pages 16-22

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.025

Keywords

Focus group; Protein; Functional food; Senior; Distrust; Personal relevance

Funding

  1. IPOP Customized Nutrition programme
  2. Wageningen UR
  3. Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture Innovation
  4. WASS graduate school
  5. Unilever Research and Development Vlaardingen

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Promoting protein consumption in the elderly population may contribute to improving the quality of their later years in life. Our study aimed to explore knowledge, perceptions and preferences of elderly consumers regarding protein-enriched food. We conducted three focus groups with independently living (ID) elderly (N = 24, M-age = 67 years) and three with elderly living in a residential home (RH) (N = 18, M-age = 83 years). Both the ID and RH elderly were predominantly sceptical about functional food in general. Confusion, distrust and a perceived lack of personal relevance were main perceived barriers to purchasing and consuming these products, although a majority of the participants did report occasionally consuming at least one type of functional food. For the ID elderly, medical advice was an important facilitator that could overcome barriers to purchasing and consuming protein-enriched food, indicating the importance of personal relevance for this group. For the RH elderly, in contrast, sensory appeal of protein-enriched foods was a facilitator. Carrier preferences were similar for the two groups; the elderly preferred protein-enriched foods based on healthy products that they consumed frequently. Future studies should explore ways to deal with the confusion and distrust regarding functional food within the heterogeneous population of elderly. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available