J L Locher1, C S Ritchie, D L Roth, B Sen, K S Vickers, L I Vailas. 1. Division of Gerontology, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Department of Health Care Organization and Policy, Center for Aging/Lister Hill Center for Health Policy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1530 3rd Ave S, Birmingham, AL 35294-2041, USA. jlocher@uab.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this paper is to identify: motivations and perceived barriers associated with food choices made by homebound older adults; whether motivations and perceived barriers vary according to social demographic characteristics; and whether motivations and perceived barriers are associated with dietary quality. DESIGN: This was an observational study using standard interview methods where participants were administered a questionnaire and completed three 24-hour dietary recalls. SETTING: Participants were interviewed in their homes. PARTICIPANTS: 185 homebound older adults were included. MEASUREMENT: Motivations were assessed using a modification of The Food Choice Questionnaire and perceived barriers were assessed using the Vailas Food Enjoyment Questionnaire. Participants answered questions regarding social demographic characteristics. Dietary quality measures of adequate intakes of calories, protein, vitamin D, and vitamin B12 were obtained from the three 24-hour dietary recalls. RESULTS: Mean age was 78.9; 80% were female; and 36% were African American. Key motivations in food choice included sensory appeal, convenience, and price. Key barriers included health, being on a special diet, and being unable to shop. These varied little by social demographics, except for age. Dietary quality varied according to different motivations and barriers. CONCLUSION: Food choices are based upon a complex interaction between the social and environmental context, the individual, and the food. Efforts to change eating behaviors, especially community-based interventions involving self-management approaches, must carefully take into account individuals' self-perceived motivations and barriers to food selection. Incorporating foods that are tasty, easy to prepare, inexpensive, and that involve caregivers are critical for successful interventions.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this paper is to identify: motivations and perceived barriers associated with food choices made by homebound older adults; whether motivations and perceived barriers vary according to social demographic characteristics; and whether motivations and perceived barriers are associated with dietary quality. DESIGN: This was an observational study using standard interview methods where participants were administered a questionnaire and completed three 24-hour dietary recalls. SETTING:Participants were interviewed in their homes. PARTICIPANTS: 185 homebound older adults were included. MEASUREMENT: Motivations were assessed using a modification of The Food Choice Questionnaire and perceived barriers were assessed using the Vailas Food Enjoyment Questionnaire. Participants answered questions regarding social demographic characteristics. Dietary quality measures of adequate intakes of calories, protein, vitamin D, and vitamin B12 were obtained from the three 24-hour dietary recalls. RESULTS: Mean age was 78.9; 80% were female; and 36% were African American. Key motivations in food choice included sensory appeal, convenience, and price. Key barriers included health, being on a special diet, and being unable to shop. These varied little by social demographics, except for age. Dietary quality varied according to different motivations and barriers. CONCLUSION: Food choices are based upon a complex interaction between the social and environmental context, the individual, and the food. Efforts to change eating behaviors, especially community-based interventions involving self-management approaches, must carefully take into account individuals' self-perceived motivations and barriers to food selection. Incorporating foods that are tasty, easy to prepare, inexpensive, and that involve caregivers are critical for successful interventions.
Authors: B E Millen; R A Silliman; J Cantey-Kiser; D L Copenhafer; C V Ewart; C S Ritchie; P A Quatromoni; J L Kirkland; S R Chipkin; N A Fearon; M E Lund; P I Garcia; P P Barry Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2001 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Joseph R Sharkey; Laurence G Branch; Namvar Zohoori; Carol Giuliani; Jan Busby-Whitehead; Pamela S Haines Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Julie L Locher; Christine S Ritchie; Caroline O Robinson; David L Roth; Delia Smith West; Kathryn L Burgio Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2008-04
Authors: Julie L Locher; Kristin S Vickers; David R Buys; Amy Ellis; Jeannine C Lawrence; Laura Elizabeth Newton; David L Roth; Christine S Ritchie; Connie W Bales Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2013-09-08 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Elena Volpi; Wayne W Campbell; Johanna T Dwyer; Mary Ann Johnson; Gordon L Jensen; John E Morley; Robert R Wolfe Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2012-11-26 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: David R Buys; Anthony D Campbell; Alice Godfryd; Kellie Flood; Elizabeth Kitchin; Meredith L Kilgore; Sally Allocca; Julie L Locher Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Dalia Ieva Luksiene; Migle Baceviciene; Abdonas Tamosiunas; Evelina Daugeliene; Daina Kranciukaite Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2010-08-12 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Y Kimura; T Wada; K Okumiya; Y Ishimoto; E Fukutomi; Y Kasahara; W Chen; R Sakamoto; M Fujisawa; K Otsuka; K Matsubayashi Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 4.075