4.5 Article

Individual and collective factors predicting change in diet quality over 3 years in a subset of older men and women from the NuAge cohort

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 55, 期 4, 页码 1671-1681

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00394-015-0986-y

关键词

Diet quality; Older adults; Cohort; Determinants; Predictors; Gender differences

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) [MOP-62,842]
  2. Quebec Network for Research on Aging
  3. Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante
  4. CIHR [MOP-89792]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose This study examined individual and collective factors as predictors of change in global diet quality (DQ). Methods Subjects were 373 older adults (57 % female) aged 68-82 years at recruitment (T1) into the NuAge Cohort Study, and followed for three years. Data were collected by questionnaires, physical performance tests and anthropometric measurements. Diet was assessed at T1 and T4 using three non-consecutive 24-h diet recalls (24HR) and DQ (Canadian Healthy Eating Index), and was computed on the means of the 24HR. DQ change over three years was determined as DQT4-DQT1. Baseline (T1) measures significantly correlated with DQ at T1 were entered into backward stepwise linear regression analyses along with selected theoretical constructs and controlled for baseline DQ to determine predictors of change in DQ over 3 years. Results Among men, education (p = .009) and sensations of hunger (p = .01) were positive predictors of DQ change over time, while DQ at T1 (p < .0001), cognition (p = .003) and social network (p = .019) were negative predictors (adjusted R-2 = 30.4 %). Finally, among women, diet knowledge (p =.044) was a positive predictor of DQ change, while DQ at T1 (p < .0001) and social network (p = .033) were negative predictors of DQ change over 3 years (adjusted R-2 = 24.1 %). Conclusions These results can inform dietary intervention programmes targeting gender-specific determinants of diet quality in older adults.

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

4.5
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