Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorStewart-Knox, Barbara*
dc.contributor.authorMarkovina, Jerko*
dc.contributor.authorRankin, A.*
dc.contributor.authorBunting, B.P.*
dc.contributor.authorKuznesof, S.*
dc.contributor.authorFischer, A.R.H.*
dc.contributor.authorvan der Lans, I.A.*
dc.contributor.authorPoinhos, R.*
dc.contributor.authorde Almeida, M.D.V.*
dc.contributor.authorPanzone, L.*
dc.contributor.authorGibney, M.J.*
dc.contributor.authorFrewer, L.J.*
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-05T11:03:36Z
dc.date.available2016-09-05T11:03:36Z
dc.date.issued2016-08
dc.identifier.citationStewart-Knox BJ, Markovina J, Rankin A et al. (2016) Making personalised nutrition the easy choice: creating policies to break down the barriers and reap the benefits. Food Policy. 63: 134-144.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10454/8904
dc.descriptionYesen_US
dc.description.abstractPersonalised diets based on people’s existing food choices, and/or phenotypic, and/or genetic information hold potential to improve public dietary-related health. The aim of this analysis, therefore, has been to examine the degree to which factors which determine uptake of personalised nutrition vary between EU countries to better target policies to encourage uptake, and optimise the health benefits of personalised nutrition technology. A questionnaire developed from previous qualitative research was used to survey nationally representative samples from 9 EU countries (N = 9381). Perceived barriers to the uptake of personalised nutrition comprised three factors (data protection; the eating context; and, societal acceptance). Trust in sources of information comprised four factors (commerce and media; practitioners; government; family and, friends). Benefits comprised a single factor. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was employed to compare differences in responses between the United Kingdom; Ireland; Portugal; Poland; Norway; the Netherlands; Germany; and, Spain. The results indicated that respondents in Greece, Poland, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, rated the benefits of personalised nutrition highest, suggesting a particular readiness in these countries to adopt personalised nutrition interventions. Greek participants were more likely to perceive the social context of eating as a barrier to adoption of personalised nutrition, implying a need for support in negotiating social situations while on a prescribed diet. Those in Spain, Germany, Portugal and Poland scored highest on perceived barriers related to data protection. Government was more trusted than commerce to deliver and provide information on personalised nutrition overall. This was particularly the case in Ireland, Portugal and Greece, indicating an imperative to build trust, particularly in the ability of commercial service providers to deliver personalised dietary regimes effectively in these countries. These findings, obtained from a nationally representative sample of EU citizens, imply that a parallel, integrated, public-private delivery system would capture the needs of most potential consumers.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipFood4me is the acronym of the EU FP7 Project ‘‘Personalised nutrition: an integrated analysis of opportunities and challenges” (Contract No. KBBE.2010.2.3-02, ProjectNo.265494), http:// www.food4me.org/.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.isreferencedbyhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.08.001en_US
dc.rights© 2016 Elsevier. Reproduced in accordance with the publisher's selfarchiving policy. This manuscript version is made available under the the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_US
dc.subjectSurvey; Personalised nutrition; Nutrigenomics; Attitudes; Europe; Food4meen_US
dc.titleMaking personalised nutrition the easy choice: creating policies to break down the barriers and reap the benefitsen_US
dc.status.refereedYesen_US
dc.date.Accepted2016-08-04
dc.date.application2016-08-16
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.type.versionfinal draft paperen_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-07-25T13:31:50Z


Item file(s)

Thumbnail
Name:
Stewart-Knox_Food_Policy.pdf
Size:
1.051Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record