4.5 Article

Dietary patterns in French home-living older adults: Results from the PRAUSE study

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIATRICS
卷 70, 期 -, 页码 180-185

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.archger.2017.01.015

关键词

Older adults; Dietary patterns; Health and psychological factors; Cluster analysis

资金

  1. Regional Council of Poitou-Charentes
  2. European Funds for Regional Development (FEDER)
  3. Poitou-Charentes Health Regional Agency
  4. Poitou-Charentes Regional Department for Youth, Sports and Social Cohesion
  5. Calyxis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present study was to provide descriptive dietary patterns of home-living older adults, and to examine their association with sociodemographic and 'diet-related' variables, and health and psychological factors. Dietary patterns were analyzed using separately cluster analysis for men (N = 151, M-age = 72.72, SD = 8.80, range = 56-97) and women (N = 251, M-age = 76.74, SD = 9.95, range = 55-97) in 402 older adults aged 55 years and over. Cluster analyses showed four distinct dietary profiles for each gender. In older men, the four distinct dietary clusters were associated with any differences in sociodemographic and diet-related variables, cognitive function, and health and psychological factors. Likewise, in older women, the four distinct dietary clusters were associated with any differences in sociodemographic and 'diet-related' variables'. However in older women, results showed that the cluster 1 high fish-fruit-vegetable was associated with a better cognitive function, a better self-rated health and no depressive symptoms, whereas cluster 3 moderate ready meals was associated with cognitive decline, slight depression, and poor perceived health. Results emphasize the interest to take into consideration health and psychological factors associated with dietary patterns to better target the vulnerability of individuals and enable an effective prevention. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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