Older adults' acceptability of and preferences for food-based protein fortification in the UK, France and Norway.

Research suggests that as we age, protein intake, recognised as vital for combating negative health outcomes, consistently falls below recommendations in older adults. Decreased food intake, combined with age-related eating complications is a major determinant of this protein undernutrition. If nutritional interventions are to be effective and sustainable, they must enable eating pleasure, cater for personal preferences and be adaptable to different eating patterns. As such, we aimed to identify successful strategies for at-home protein-fortification to empower older adults to take a personalised approach to their nutrition, without requiring a large behavioural change. To explore healthy older adults' (age 70+) acceptability and preferences for at-home protein fortification, European project Fortiphy led discussions with older adults (n = 37) and caregivers of older adults (n = 15) to develop high-protein recipes, which were then utilised in a home-use trial with healthy older adults (n = 158). Each fortified recipe was paired with a questionnaire to rate the ease of preparation and liking, and an end-of-study questionnaire was provided to capture overall opinions and preferences. The uniqueness of this study is that the protein fortified recipes were prepared and tested by older adults themselves, in their own homes. Findings showed that older adults were unaware of the importance of protein in ageing and did not have a desire to fortify their foods at present. Yet, they were positive regarding the concept and highlighted the importance of taste, familiar ingredients, and preferred preparation methods. Cultural preferences across countries were identified as having the most influence on the liking of fortified meals. This study also indicated a need for increased awareness of protein requirements to influence the motivation to use fortification.

Impact of food-based fortification on nutritional outcomes and acceptability in older adults: systematic literature review.

Background: "Do it yourself" (DIY) food-based fortification involves adding fortificants into everyday foods. It is a flexible solution that allows older people with reduced appetite to meet their nutritional needs. Objectives: The aims of the systematic review are (a) to describe DIY fortified recipes, (b) to evaluate their acceptability, and (c) to evaluate whether they are effective levers to improve nutritional outcomes in older people. Methods: A systematic search of 3 databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, last searched on January 2022) was undertaken. Main eligibility criteria include older adults aged ≥60 years living at home, in an institution or in hospital. Studies carried out for a specific medical condition or targeting only micronutrient fortification were excluded. After reviewing all titles/abstracts then full-text papers, key data were extracted and synthesized narratively. The quality of included studies was assessed using Kmet et al. Results: Of 21,493 papers extracted, 44 original studies were included (3,384 participants), with 31 reporting nutritional outcomes, 3 reporting acceptability outcomes and 10 reporting both nutritional and acceptability outcomes. The review highlighted a wide variety of DIY fortified recipes, with additional energy ranging from 23 to 850 kcal/d (M = 403; SE = 62) and/or protein ranging from 4 to 40 g/d (M = 19; SE = 2). Compared to a standard diet, DIY fortification seems to be a valuable strategy for increasing energy and protein intake in older people. However, no strong evidence was observed on the nutritional status. Implication for future: Further acceptability studies are crucial to ensure that DIY fortified foods are palatable and thus have a significant impact on the nutritional status. In addition, it would be useful for studies to better describe DIY recipes. This information would result in a better understanding of the factors that maximize the impact of DIY fortification on nutritional outcomes. Study registration: PROSPERO no. CRD42021244689.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021244689.