Abstract
The aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore differences regarding the reasons, appropriate use, and perceived results relating to dietary supplement (DS) use between DS users who have used fish oils (FO) among other DS (DS + FO) and DS users who have used DS other than FO (DS − FO). Using a stratified random sampling technique, throughout 2018–2019, data was collected via in-person questionnaires. Having used any DS at least once, one was deemed a DS user, defined as “DS + FO” or “DS − FO” if FO were present or absent among the reported DS, respectively. The final sample consisted of 15,608 DS users. Independence between DS use status and categorical outcome variables was determined via Pearson’s chi-square test. Regarding DS users, 48.3 and 32.1% were medically supervised before and during DS use, respectively, with more DS + FO self-assessing themselves during, e.g., blood tests (21.6 vs. 17.1%). More DS + FO used DS systematically for > 1 month (42.9 vs. 30.8%) and selected more reasons for DS use (≥ 3; 47.6 vs. 25.4%). Most DS users experienced no negative outcomes from DS use (73.0%), but at least one positive outcome (95.8%), with DS + FO selecting a higher number of the latter (≥ 2; 55.7 vs. 38.0%). More DS + FO believed that a balanced diet (without DS) could not ensure their desired results (25.5 vs. 20.1%) but displayed a higher prevalence of recommended dietary allowance adherence (82.1 vs. 78.5%) and knowledge of the dangers of DS overuse (53.6 vs. 48.4%). Our study reveals significant differences between DS + FO and DS − FO with regard to their consumer stance and behavior towards DS.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Fish oil (FO) consumption carries a noteworthy historical heritage long before they were considered a dietary supplement (DS) [1]. For example, cod-liver oil has been used to treat non-specifically a variety of diseases since 1700, it was given to children in northern Europe and England for centuries, and at the end of the eighteenth century the rheumatism healing effects of cod-liver oil were first mentioned [1].
Regarding their definition, FO are derived from the tissues of oily fish and contain essential omega-3 fatty acids (Ω-3), i.e., eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) [2], although some FO such as cod-liver oil, are also a source of vitamins A and D [3]. Unlike omega-6 fatty acids (Ω-6), Ω-3 are considered essential because humans lack the necessary enzymes required to synthesize them [4], and their intake must therefore be ensured through diet and/or DS. In addition, Ω-3 fatty acids, i.e., EPA and DHA, compared to Ω-6, i.e., arachidonic acid, can lead to less inflammatory products [5].
Interestingly, it has been shown that the ratio of Ω-6 to Ω-3 fatty acids in the diet of humans has changed significantly through the years. Namely, the ratio of Ω-6/Ω-3 was 0.79 in the Paleolithic period [6], 1.00–2.00 in Greece prior to 1960 [7], 4:1 in Japan during 1975 to 1994 [8], an average of 7.0 in Britain during 1986–1987 [9], and 16.74 in the USA of 1998 [6].
Subsequently, concern has been raised due to associations between an increased ratio and chronic diseases, while simultaneously pointing to the benefits of FO consumption [10].
FO, or Ω-3 to be more precise, can be found both as a DS and as a medically prescribed product, yet they are not interchangeable. A key difference between these two lies in that for the latter (i), their manufacturers are required to prove their safety and efficacy before releasing it in the market and (ii) they hold the ability to treat or mitigate a disease [11]–[13]. Meanwhile, several health claims for EPA and DHA have been authorized by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to accompany DS that contain them in certain concentrations, e.g., maintenance of normal blood pressure, heart function, and triglyceride levels [14]. On the other hand, Ω-3, as an active medical ingredient, are approved to treat hypertriglyceridemia [15].
Indeed, even nowadays, FO use is particularly pronounced in countries like England [16]–[18] and Norway [17]; meanwhile a tenfold increase in their use from 1.3 to 12.0% was observed in the USA, from 1999 to 2012 [19]. While history of FO accounted for about 6.5% of our DS users, we detected significant differences between DS users who had used FO (among other DS) at least once in their lifetime (DS + FO) and those who had used DS other than FO (DS − FO) regarding their stance towards DS, with DS + FO having more favorable attitudes towards them [20].
The literature suggests that consumers seem to use FO for a variety of reasons including both specific, such as heart health [21], and non-specified ones, such as general health [22, 23]. Meanwhile, studies in which FO use was considered when dividing their participants have come across significant results regarding the relationship between FO use and the presence of certain diseases, e.g., arthritis [18, 23].
Building on our previous study [20], and due to the scarcity of relevant research data in Greece, we sought to further our understanding of the behavioral differences between DS + FO and DS − FO by setting a number of aims, namely, (i) What are the reasons and duration regarding DS use and its perceived positive and negative outcomes by DS + FO? (ii) What beliefs are held by DS + FO with regards to the efficacy of DS as opposed to a balanced diet? (iii) How many DS + FO are going through medical examinations or are supervised before and after using DS, respectively? (iv) How many DS + FO report adherence towards the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) and are subjectively cognizant of the dangers of DS overuse?
Material and methods
Study design
Details of the methodology of this study (e.g., approval of the research protocol) are presented in our previously published work [24]. However, key points are reported below. Our sample was collected in 2018–2019 and was representative of the general Greek population in terms of sex. According to the 2011 census, the Greek population consisted of 51.0% women and 49.0% men. Accordingly, the collected sample consisted of 53.0% women and 47.0% men.
The initial sample size was 31,824 Greek citizens. Incomplete questionnaires were discarded, leaving 28,491 respondents. Those who had used a DS at least once in their lifetime were defined as DS users (15,608; 54.8%), while those who had never used a DS (12,494; 43.9%) were not included in the analysis. The remaining 389 (1.4%) respondents who could not recall whether they had used a DS or not were also not included in the analysis, resulting in a final sample size of 15,608. Among DS users, if FO were among their reported DS, they were defined as DS + FO (1001; 6.4%); otherwise, they were defined as DS − FO (14,607; 93.6%).
The assumed definition of DS was as follows: “foodstuffs the purpose of which is to supplement the normal diet and which are concentrated sources of nutrients or other substances with a nutritional or physio-logical effect, alone or in combination, marketed in dose form, namely forms such as capsules, pastilles, tablets, pills and other similar forms, sachets of powder, ampoules of liquids, drop dispensing bottles, and other similar forms of liquids and powders de-signed to be taken in measured small unit quantities” (Directive 2002/46/EC, European Parliament and Council, 2002) [25].
Statistical analysis
For all of the categorical variables, frequencies were presented overall and according to DS use. Pearson’s chi-square test was used to detect the existence (or non-existence) of statistically significant dependence between the categorical variables [26]. The analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics v26.0. The significance level was set at α = 0.05.
Results
The total analyzed sample consisted of 15,608 respondents. There were totally 1001 (6.4%) DS + FO and 14,607 (93.6%) DS − FO.
Reasons for DS use
According to Table 1, the top 6 reasons for DS use, regardless of viewpoint, i.e., overall or separately for DS + FO and DS − FO, are the same. Namely, in a descending order, they were the improvement of physical condition (39.7%; 49.9 vs 39.0%), nutrient deficiency/ies (35.9%; 48.1 vs 35.0%), pathological conditions (24.8%; 33.2 vs 24.3%), prevention of health problems (22.0%; 29.8 vs 21.5%), increase in muscle mass (16.0%; 24.1 vs 15.4%), and increase in sports performance (15.6%; 24.1 vs 15.0%). Also, every one of the reasons (without considering the subcategories of “other reasons”) was selected by a significantly higher percentage of DS + FO, compared to DS − FO, except for “pregnancy/birth,” “anemias,” “allergies and flues,” “autoimmune disorders,” and “other reasons,” where significant differences were absent (p > 0.05).
Additionally, almost half of DS + FO (47.6%) selected 3 or more reasons for DS use compared to 25.4% of DS − FO (Supplementary table 1), that is, if the subcategories of “pathological conditions” and “other reasons” are not taken into account. Hence, around one third of DS + FO (34.0%) selected 2 or more pathological conditions as opposed to 20.8% of DS − FO (Supplementary table 2).
Medical assessment and knowledge/opinions regarding DS use
According to Table 2, significant dependence (p < 0.05) was detected between the DS + FO and DS − FO subgroups and the answers given on the above outcome variables, except for the one exploring whether DS users underwent medical or hematological examinations before DS use (p > 0.419).
While 48.3% go through medical examinations before using DS, 50.6% remain medically unsupervised during DS use. Despite the lack of a statistically significant difference between the percentages of DS + FO and DS − FO that are medically examined before DS use, significant differences were detected when the examined dependent variable was medical supervision during DS use (p < 0.001), i.e., significantly more DS + FO were having examinations on their own initiative (21.6 vs 17.1%) rather than being supervised by a doctor (30.1 vs 32.1%).
Overall, the great majority of DS users (78.8%) take the RDA of the DS active ingredients into consideration, although significant dependence between the DS use status and the answers to this question was detected (p = 0.018). Specifically, RDA consideration was more prevalent among DS + FO (82.1 vs 78.5%), unlike the ignorance of it (6.9 vs 9.1%).
Even though 80.4% of DS users reported knowledge of the dangers and/or side-effects of DS overuse, 48.8% of DS users reported that confidently. Also, 19.7% of DS users declared not knowing the dangers and/or side effects of DS overuse. However, subjective knowledge of such dangers was reported with confidence significantly (p < 0.001) more frequently among DS + FO (53.6 vs 48.4%) who also displayed less frequently ignorance (15.1 vs 20.0%).
Despite having taken or currently taking DS, 70.0% of DS users believe confidently or with some doubt (33.4 and 36.6%, respectively) that a balanced diet without DS can ensure the desired results, while 9.6% reported not knowing whether that statement was true or not. Nonetheless, disagreement was significantly (p < 0.001) more prevalent among DS + FO (25.5 vs 20.1%).
Duration of DS use
Based on Fig. 1, there was a statistically significant dependence between the DS use categories and the duration of DS use (p < 0.05). Overall, most respondents reported using DS for 1 month (35.8%), yet, while most DS − FO reported 1 month as well (35.8%), most DS + FO reported higher periods of time, i.e., DS use systematically for more than 1 month (42.9 vs 30.8%). More details can be found at Supplementary table 5.
Positive and negative outcomes from DS use
According to Table 3, the top 6 positive outcomes from DS use, overall and for both, DS + FO and DS − FO alike, were health (44.7%; 55.5 vs 44.0%) and fitness (41.5%; 52.6 vs 40.7%) improvements, along with restoration of nutrient deficiencies (23.6%; 27.0 vs 23.3%), increase in muscle mass (15.4%; 23.0 vs 14.8%), weight loss (14.2%; 17.1 vs 14.0%), and weight gain (6.6%; 12.1 vs 6.2%). However, there was a significant dependence between the DS use status and the majority of the reported positive outcomes (p < 0.05). Namely, every positive outcome was selected by a higher percentage of DS + FO, compared to DS − FO, except for the “other positive outcomes” where significance was absent (1.8 vs 1.6%; p > 0.05).
Regarding negative outcomes from DS use, the majority of DS users overall reported having experienced no negative outcomes, without a significant difference between DS + FO and DS − FO (73.0%; 72.9 vs 73.1%, p = 0.876). Unlike the reported positive outcomes, for the majority of the reported negative outcomes, no significant dependence (p > 0.05) was found between them and the DS use categories, i.e., except for pressure disorders which was selected by more DS + FO (3.7%; 5.9 vs 3.5%, p < 0.001). Yet, the top 3 negative outcomes for both groups were tachycardia (8.5%; 9.2 vs 8.4%), diarrhea (5.4%; 5.7 vs 5.4%), and headache (5.3%; 5.1 vs 5.3%). Lastly, 55.7% of DS + FO vs 38.0% of DS − FO selected 2 or more positive outcomes (Supplementary table 3), while only 6.2% of DS + FO vs 3.7% of DS − FO selected 2 or more negative outcomes (Supplementary table 4).
Discussion
Prevalence, reasons, and outcomes from DS use
According to our 2018–2019 data, DS + FO and DS − FO consisted 6.5 vs 93.5% of the overall DS users, or 3.5 vs 51.3% of our overall sample, respectively.
Almost every reason for DS use was selected by a higher percentage of DS + FO compared to DS − FO, yet the top reasons for DS use for both groups were the same, i.e., improvement of physical condition, nutrient deficiencies, and treatment of pathological conditions. The latter includes noteworthy examples such as arthritis and cardiovascular disease (CVD). In fact, DS + FO were more likely to report a higher number of reasons for DS use, which may be correlated with the fact that they use or have used a higher number of DS [20]. Although the majority of DS + FO and DS − FO did not notice any side effects (\(\cong\) 73.0%), DS + FO had perceived a higher number of positive outcomes from DS use. Also, disagreement towards the statement “a balanced diet without DS would be adequate to ensure the desired results” was significantly higher among DS + FO compared to DS − FO.
In fact, such disagreement was confidently reported by about 20% DS users. A possible explanation for the respondents’ rationale might be that certain groups may face dietary limitations or conditions where nutrient intake from food alone would be difficult, hence, leading to nutrient deficiencies. Indeed, dietary limitations can come in different forms. For example, special dietary requirements may take place in certain conditions such as pregnancy and lactation (e.g., increased need for folic acid) [27]. Another case would be having dietary restrictions, such as in vegan/vegetarian diets that exclude animal products, leading to an increased risk for vitamin B12 deficiency [28]. Additionally, athletes or physically active consumers might seek to optimize their performance and recovery [29]. Lastly, since dietary needs dynamically change throughout life, individuals in certain life stages such as infancy, adolescence, and aging, have unique nutritional requirements [27] which might be difficult to achieve through diet alone. For example, it is less probable for seniors, compared to younger individuals, to get dietary vitamin D from their diet or to get sunlight exposure [27].
Studies exploring the reasons for FO use, specifically, have found general health or well-being to be a very commonly cited reason [22, 23] followed by cognitive performance [22] or joint health [23]. General well-being was the top reason, even in a clinical setting with cardiac patients where cardiovascular health came in second place [30]. Indeed, studies by Parmenter et al. have shown that most adult participants (regardless of whether they were FO users or not) believed that a specific FO omega-3 product would support their overall health and well-being, followed by cognitive improvement [31], yet, among the perceived benefits, regarding children, parents most commonly reported growth/development, which was then followed by cognitive improvement [32]. Unlike the previous studies, a US study showed heart health or the lowering of cholesterol to be the most common reasons for taking FO or omega-3 DS [21].
Interestingly, in a UK study, while few respondents reported having experienced any negative effects from DS use, a considerable number took them without knowing whether they were experiencing any positive outcomes [16]; similar doubt was also observed in a Dutch study [33]. In addition, Blendon et al. pointed out that more than 65.0% of their DS users would continue taking DS even if they were shown to be ineffective by the Food and Drug Administration or a government agency [34].
FO use has been severally associated with the presence of pathological conditions. For example, FO use has been shown to be more likely among individuals suffering from arthritis [18, 23] and musculoskeletal [31, 35] or cognitive conditions [31], but less likely among those reporting CVDs [18, 23], yet a UK study found that hypertension and high cholesterol were more prevalent among FO users compared to FO non-users [36].
Medical supervision and knowledge regarding proper DS use
DS + FO were more likely to display professional-independent behaviors. While approximately the same percentages of DS + FO and DS − FO undergo medical and/or hematological examinations before using DS (\(\cong\) 50.0%), DS + FO are more likely to self-monitor themselves (21.6 vs 17.1%) by having examinations (e.g., blood tests), rather than being supervised by a doctor (30.1 vs 32.1%). Unfortunately, around 50.0% of DS users remain medically unsupervised.
We previously found that DS + FO, compared to DS − FO, were informed or were recommended DS by more sources, with doctors and pharmacists being the main ones [20]. However, while almost every source was selected by a higher percentage of DS + FO, “the internet” seemed to be significantly more prevalent among DS + FO, especially as a source of information (41.3 vs 28.9%) as it closely contented with doctors (47.8 vs 46.6%) and pharmacists (49.1 vs 41.6%) [20]. Given the abundance of information on the internet, and its close ties with DS + FO, this might explain the more prevalent independent behavior.
Elsewhere, we have discussed the interplay between DS consumers (with and without differentiating between DS + FO and DS − FO) and their sources of information/recommendation in accordance with the literature [20]. Subsequently, one could see the need for a deeper involvement of healthcare professionals and the noticeable impact of other sources such as friends and family. Below, we provide some instances, showing the lack of communication of information regarding DS use between consumers and healthcare professionals.
In a sample of cardiac patients, the majority (86.0%) consumed FO in the absence of a recommendation by healthcare professionals [30], yet another study, on a general population, found that frequent visits to general practitioners and alternative therapists was more probable for FO users [23]. A New Zealand study found that about 40.0% of DS users and 50.0% of those who use both, DS and medications, did not inform their general practitioner about their DS use, with the top reasons being “it never came up” and “I was never asked” [22]. Additionally, a Serbian study, found that around 90.0% of their respondents viewed the provision of information regarding herbal DS use, or relevant remedies, to healthcare professionals as unimportant, with 50.0% consuming DS based on advice by non-healthcare professional sources [37].
We previously showed that higher percentages of DS + FO, compared to DS − FO, had used DS and were knowledgeable regarding DS label comprehension [20]. This is reinforced by our current findings that mark DS + FO as more confident and knowledgeable regarding DS use. Specifically, a higher percentage of DS + FO reports knowing and adhering to the RDA of the consumed DS active substances (82.1 vs 78.5%) while also declaring that they surely, or with some doubt, know the dangers of DS overuse (84.9 vs 80.0%). Lastly, DS + FO, compared with DS − FO, report DS usage for higher periods of time, i.e., systematically more than 1 month (42.9 vs 31.6%).
Hilleman, Teply, and Packard concluded that the intake of omega-3 fatty acids by most of their FO-consuming cardiac patients was rather relatively low [30]. Additionally, Backes et al., who analyzed a sample of patients using prescribed FO in a lipid-specialty clinic, found that, regarding the total daily dose of EPA and DHA, only 28.9% could confidently recall it, 33.0% could provide an estimate, and 38.2% had no knowledge of it; unfortunately, overall, the actually consumed dose was less than 50.0% compared with the prescribed one [38]. Again, Hill et al. found that most of their respondents, regardless of whether they were suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, were consuming FO at a suboptimal level relating to its symptomatic relief [23]. Without taking into account the influence of diet, Mengelberg et al. underlined that approximately 26.0% of their New Zealander respondents consumed a dose that met EPA and DHA recommendations, unlike most of the remaining respondents who consumed less than the recommended quantity (2.7% did not know the RDA and 11.0% did not give an answer) [22].
Now, in general, a UK study found that even though most consumers were adhering to the dosing recommendations, it was deemed unimportant to not strictly follow these recommendations [16], e.g., certain respondents would sometimes consume a higher amount of vitamin C due to having a cold [16]. Leung and Lum, regarding the “upper limit dosage,” pointed out that, in Hong Kong, among parents who gave their kindergarten aged children DS, 64.0% of parents reported knowing it, 26.0% acknowledged its existence but could not specify it, and 10.0% did not know if there was any limit [39].
Regarding usage patterns, Mengelberg et al. found that 53.4% had taken FO for more than 12 months, while another 53.4% reported taking them every day [22]. Among Norwegian women who used cod-liver oil DS, around 35.0% were daily, whole-year users [40]. Similarly, in the UK, around 2 out of 3 DS users had consumed DS for at least a year [16]. Even though (i) many, if not most, of our respondents reported systematic use for more than 1 month and (ii) the reported duration was not directed to a specific DS, our durations are significantly lower than those of the aforementioned studies (i.e., only around 10.0% had used DS for at least a year according to Supplemental table 5).
Conclusions
Before using DS, only 1 in 2 DS users go through medical/hematological examinations, and during DS use, only 1 out of 3 were medically supervised. Yet a significantly higher percentage of DS + FO, compared to DS − FO, self-assesses themselves during DS use (e.g., via blood tests). Also, DS + FO were more likely to report a longer duration, a higher number of reasons, and more perceived benefits regarding DS use, while also thinking of their goals as unachievable with the help of a balanced diet without DS. However, a higher percentage of DS + FO was subjectively cognizant of the active ingredients’ RDA and the dangers of overuse.
Data availability
All relevant data are presented in the paper and supporting information files.
References
Hernigou P, Auregan JC, Dubory A. Vitamin D: part II; cod liver oil, ultraviolet radiation, and eradication of rickets. Int Orthop. 2019;43(3):735–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04288-z.
Definition of fish oil - NCI Drug Dictionary - NCI. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-drug/def/fish-oil. Accessed 18 Apr 2023.
Cod liver oil: MedlinePlus supplements. https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/natural/1040.html. Accessed 18 Apr 2023.
Krupa K, Fritz K, Parmar M.“Omega-3 fatty acids,” in StatPearls, Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing, 2023. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK564314/. Accessed 18 April 2023.
Calder PC. Omega-3 fatty acids and inflammatory processes. Nutrients. 2010;2(3):355–74. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu2030355.
Eaton SB, Eaton SB, Sinclair AJ, Cordain L, Mann NJ. Dietary intake of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids during the paleolithic. World Rev Nutr Diet. 1998;83:12–23. https://doi.org/10.1159/000059672.
Simopoulos AP. The return of w3 fatty acids into the food supply. 1: land-based animal food products and their health effects. World Rev Nutr Diet . 1998;(83:)1–11.
Sugano M, Hirahara F. Polyunsaturated fatty acids in the food chain in Japan. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;71(1 Suppl):189S-S196. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/71.1.189S.
Sanders TA. Polyunsaturated fatty acids in the food chain in Europe. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;71(1 Suppl):176S-S178. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/71.1.176s.
Simopoulos AP. The importance of the omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio in cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2008;233(6):674–88. https://doi.org/10.3181/0711-MR-311.
C for DE and Research. Drug quality sampling and testing programs. FDA; 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/science-and-research-drugs/drug-quality-sampling-and-testing-programs. Accessed 19 Apr 2023.
C for FS and A Nutrition. Questions and answers on dietary supplements. FDA; 2022. https://www.fda.gov/food/information-consumers-using-dietary-supplements/questions-and-answers-dietary-supplements. Accessed 19 Apr 2023.
National Organization for Medicines – Laws/bulletins for other products. 2009. https://www.eof.gr/web/guest/lawother?p_p_id=62_INSTANCE_n9UN&p_p_state=maximized&_62_INSTANCE_n9UN_struts_action=%2Fjournal_articles%2Fview&_62_INSTANCE_n9UN_groupId=12225&_62_INSTANCE_n9UN_articleId=18165&_62_INSTANCE_n9UN_version=1.0. Accessed 24 Mar 2023.
European Commission, EU register of health claims (n.d.). https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/labelling-and-nutrition/nutrition-and-health-claims/eu-register-health-claims_en. Accessed 19 Apr 2023.
EMA. Omega-3 acid ethyl esters - containing medicinal products for oral in use secondary prevention after myocardial infarction. European Medicines Agency. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/referrals/omega-3-acid-ethyl-esters-containing-medicinal-products-oral-use-secondary-prevention-after. Accessed 19 Apr 2023.
Food supplements consumer research. Food Standards Agency. https://www.food.gov.uk/research/behaviour-and-perception/food-supplements-consumer-research. Accessed 12 Mar 2023.
Skeie G, et al. Use of dietary supplements in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition calibration study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009;63(Suppl 4):S226–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2009.83.
Lentjes MAH, Welch AA, Mulligan AA, Luben RN, Wareham NJ, Khaw K-T. Cod liver oil supplement consumption and health: cross-sectional results from the EPIC-Norfolk cohort study. Nutrients. 2014;6(10):4320–37. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu6104320.
Kantor ED, Rehm CD, Du M, White E, Giovannucci EL. Trends in dietary supplement use among US adults from 1999–2012. JAMA. 2016;316(14):1464–74. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.14403.
Soukiasian P-D, et al. Fish oil users of Greece: predictors, knowledge and habits regarding dietary supplement use. AIMS Public Health. 2023;10(4):896–917. https://doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2023058.
Bailey RL, Gahche JJ, Miller PE, Thomas PR, Dwyer JT. Why US adults use dietary supplements. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(5):355–61. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2299.
Mengelberg A, Leathem J, Podd J. Fish oil supplement use in New Zealand: a cross-sectional survey. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2018;33:118–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2018.09.005.
Hill C, Gill TK, Appleton S, Cleland LG, Taylor AW, Adams RJ. The use of fish oil in the community: results of a population-based study. Rheumatology. 2009;48(4):441–2. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ken498.
Soukiasian P-D, Kyrana Z, Gerothanasi K, Kiranas E, Kokokiris LE. Prevalence, determinants, and consumer stance towards dietary supplements according to sex in a large Greek sample: a cross-sectional study. Nutrients. 2022;14(23):5131. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14235131.
Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (Text with EEA relevance), vol. 183. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2002/46/oj/eng. Accessed 21 Sep 2022.
Agresti A.Categorical data analysis, 3rd ed. in Wiley series in probability and statistics, no. 792. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2013;75–80
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee to review dietary reference intakes for vitamin D and calcium, Dietary reference intakes for calcium and vitamin D. in The National Academies Collection: reports funded by National Institutes of Health. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US). 2011. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56070/. Accessed 28 Nov 2023.
Pawlak R, Lester SE, Babatunde T. The prevalence of cobalamin deficiency among vegetarians assessed by serum vitamin B12: a review of literature. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2014;68(5):541–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2014.46.
Kerksick CM, et al. ISSN exercise & sports nutrition review update: research & recommendations. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2018;15(1):38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12970-018-0242-y.
Hilleman DE, Teply R, Packard KA. Knowledge, perceptions, and patterns of fish oil use in cardiac patients. J Pharm Pract. 2020;33(5):580–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0897190018824485.
Parmenter BH, Bumrungpert A, Thouas GA. Socio-demographic factors, beliefs and health perceptions associated with use of a commercially available Ω-3 fatty acid supplement: a cross-sectional study in Asian countries. PharmaNutrition. 2021;15:100237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phanu.2020.100237.
Parmenter BH, Bumrungpert A, Thouas GA. Sociodemographic factors and parental views associated with use of an omega-3 supplement for their children. PharmaNutrition. 2022;20:100289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phanu.2022.100289.
Pajor EM, Oenema A, Eggers SM, de Vries H. Exploring beliefs about dietary supplement use: focus group discussions with Dutch adults. Public Health Nutr. 2017;20(15):2694–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980017001707.
Blendon RJ, DesRoches CM, Benson JM, Brodie M, Altman DE. Americans’ views on the use and regulation of dietary supplements. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(6):805–10. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.161.6.805.
Harrison RA, Holt D, Pattison DJ, Elton PJ. Are those in need taking dietary supplements? A survey of 21 923 adults. Br J Nutr. 2004;91(4). https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN20031076.
Liu M, et al. Habitual fish oil supplementation and incident chronic kidney disease in the UK Biobank. Nutrients. 2022;15(1):22. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15010022.
Samojlik I, Mijatović V, Gavarić N, Krstin S, Božin B. Consumers’ attitude towards the use and safety of herbal medicines and herbal dietary supplements in Serbia. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35(5):835–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-013-9819-3.
Backes JM, Melton BL, Ruisinger JF, Burkhardt CD, Moriarty PM. Comparing patients’ prescribed, self-reported, and actual intake of supplemental eicosapentaenoic acid + docosahexaenoic acid. J Clin Lipidol. 2019;13(1):170–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacl.2018.11.005.
Leung SY, Lum CM. Use of nutritional health supplements and associated factors among parents with children at kindergartens in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J. 2011;17(5):365–71.
Brustad M, Braaten T, Lund E. Predictors for cod-liver oil supplement use–the Norwegian women and cancer study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004;58(1):128–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601759.
Funding
Open access funding provided by HEAL-Link Greece. This research was funded by the Committee for Research–IHU (former Alexander Technological Educational Institute (TEI) of Thessaloniki), grant number 91/5–5-2015-ELKE-20589.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization, E.K. and K.G.; methodology—formal analysis, P.-D.S., Z.K., and L.E.K.; investigation-data curation, K.G. and E.K.; writing—original draft, P.-D.S.; writing—review and editing, P.-D.S.; Z.K., and L.E.K.; visualization, L.E.K.; supervision, E.K. and L.E.K.; project administration—funding acquisition, K.G. and E.K. All authors read and approved the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
This study was approved by the Committee for Research–IHU (former ELKE -Alexander TEI of Thessaloniki), no. 91/5–5-2015 and no. 186/3–4-2018.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Soukiasian, PD., Kyrana, Z., Gerothanasi, K. et al. Fish oil users of Greece: reasons, appropriate use and perceived results regarding dietary supplement use. Nutrire 49, 2 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41110-023-00244-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41110-023-00244-5