Dietary changes following a lifestyle-based intervention for dementia risk reduction – results from the AgeWell.de study
2024

Diet Changes to Reduce Dementia Risk

Sample size: 819 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Zülke Andrea, Blotenberg Iris, Luppa Melanie, Löbner Margrit, Döhring Juliane, Williamson Martin, Kosilek Robert P., Michel Irina, Oey Anke, Brettschneider Christian, Gensichen Jochen, Czock David, Wiese Birgitt, König Hans-Helmut, Frese Thomas, Kaduszkiewicz Hanna, Hoffmann Wolfgang, Thyrian René, Riedel-Heller Steffi G.

Primary Institution: Institute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP), University of Leipzig

Hypothesis

Does a multidomain lifestyle intervention improve dietary habits in older adults at risk for dementia?

Conclusion

The intervention improved participants' diets, particularly increasing fruit and vegetable consumption.

Supporting Evidence

  • The intervention improved the healthy diet score significantly.
  • Participants in the intervention group increased their fruit and vegetable consumption.
  • Control group participants moved to initial stages of behavior change.
  • Older adults at increased risk for dementia can benefit from lifestyle interventions.
  • More tailored support may be needed to encourage diverse healthy eating.

Takeaway

This study shows that older adults can eat healthier by changing their lifestyle, especially by eating more fruits and vegetables.

Methodology

The study used secondary analyses of a cluster-randomized trial assessing dietary changes in older adults through a multidomain intervention.

Potential Biases

Self-reporting of food intake raises the risk of social desirability bias.

Limitations

The intervention's intensity varied among participants, and self-reported dietary data may introduce bias.

Participant Demographics

Participants were older adults (60-77 years) at increased risk for dementia, with a mean age of 69.0 years.

Statistical Information

P-Value

0.015

Confidence Interval

95% CI: 1.01, 1.11

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1007/s00394-024-03563-z

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication