Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Food choice among homebound older adults: Motivations and perceived barriers

  • Published:
JNHA - The Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly 1988;15:351–377.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hovell MF, Wahlgren DR, Gehrman C. The behavioral ecological model: Integrating public health and behavioral science. In: DiClemente RJ, Crosby R, Kegler M, eds. New and Emerging Theories in Health Promotion Practice & Research. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Inc.; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rimer B, Glanz K. Theory at a Glance: A Guide for Health Promotion Practice, 2nd Ed. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. 2005; http://cancer.gov/aboutnci/oc/theory-at-aglance/print

  4. Locher JL, Sharkey JS. An ecological model for understanding eating behavior in older adults. In CW Bales & CS Ritchie (Eds.). Handbook of Clinical Nutrition and Aging, 2nd Ed. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2009 expected.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Locher JL, Ritchie CS, Robinson CO, Roth DL, West DS, Burgio KL. A multidimensional approach to understanding under-eating in homebound older adults: The importance of social factors. The Gerontologist, 2008;48:223–234.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Millen BE, Silliman RA, Cantey-Kiser J, Copenhafer DL, Ewart CV, Ritchie CS, et al. Nutritional risk in an urban homebound older population: The nutrition and healthy aging project. Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging, 2001;5:269–277.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Millen Posner BE, Smigelski CG, McLaren Krachenfels MS. Dietary characteristics and nutrient intake in an urban homebound population. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1987;8:452–456.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Payette H, Gray-Donald K, Cyr R, Boutier V. Predictors of dietary intake in a functionally dependent elderly population in the community. American Journal of Public Health, 1985;85(5):677–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sharkey JR, Branch L, Zohoori N, Giuliani C, Busby-Whitehead J, Haines PS. Inadequate nutrient intakes among homebound elderly and their correlation with individual characteristics and health-related factors. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2002;76:1535–1545.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sharkey JR. Risk and presence of food insufficiency are associated with low nutrient intakes and multimorbidity among homebound older women who receive homedelivered meals. The Journal of Nutrition, 2003;3485–3491.

  11. Martin CT, Kayser-Jones J, Stotts NA, Froelicher SE. Community-living elders’ views on normal and low weight. Journal of Nutrition Health and Aging. 2008;12(1):45–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy. Washington, DC: MedPac. Medicare Health Support, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. March 2006. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/CCIP/. Accessed 09. 26.06.

    Google Scholar 

  13. National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United States, 2006 with Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans. 2006. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

  14. Wellman NS, Kamp BF. Federal food and nutrition assistance programs for older people. Generations, 2004;28:78–83.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Drewnowski A, Shultz JM. Impact of aging on eating behaviors, food choices, nutrition, and health status. Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging, 2001;5(2):75–79.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Payette H, Shatenstein B. Determinants of healthy eating in community-dwelling elderly people. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 2005;96 S3:S27–S31.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Falk LW, Bisogni CA, Sobal J. Food choice processes of older adults: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Nutrition Education, 1996;28(5):257–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bisogni CA, Connors M, Devine CM, Sobal J. Who we are and how we eat: a qualitative study of identities in food choice. J Nutrition Education and Behavior, 2002;34(3):128–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fischler C. Fischler, Food, self and identity, Social Science Information, 1988;27:275–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lupton D. Food, the Body, and the Self. London: Sage. 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Steptoe A, Pollard TM, Wardle J. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the Food Choice Questionnaire. Appetite, 1995;25:267–284.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. de Almeida MD, Graca P, Afonso C, Kearney JM, Gibney, MJ. Healthy eating in European elderly: concepts, barriers, and benefits. Journal of Nutrition, Health, and Aging, 2001;5(4):217–219.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hughes GM Bennett KM Hetherington MM. Old and alone: Barriers to healthy eating in older men living on their own. Appetite, 2004;43(3):269–276.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schakel SF, Sievert YA, Buzzard IM. Sources of data for developing and maintaining a nutrient database. J. Am Diet Assoc, 1988;88:1268–1271.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Witschi JC. Short-term recall and recording methods. In Willett W, ed. Nutritional Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990:663–671.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vailas L, Nitzke SA, Becker M, Gast J. Risk indicators for malnutrition are associated inversely with quality of life for participants in meal programs for older adults. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1998;98 (5):548–553.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bickel G, Nord M, Price C, Hamilton W, Cook J. Measuring Food Security in the United States: Guide to Measuring Household Food Security, Rev. 2000. United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation.

  28. Anderson SA. Core indicators of nutritional state for difficult-to-sample populations. Journal of Nutrition, 1990;120:1557–1600.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dietary guidelines for Americans 2005. (2005). US Department of Health and Human Services and United States Department of Agriculture. http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/. Accessed 09/10/07.

  30. Dietary Reference Intake for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients). 2005. National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10490.html. Accessed 07.20.06.

  31. American Dietetic Association. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Liberalization of diet prescription improves quality of life for older adults in longterm care. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005;105:1955–1965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Schultz R, Heckhausen J, Locher JL. Adult development, control, and adaptive functioning. Journal of Social Issues, 1991;47:177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sahyoun NR, Pratt CA, Anderson A. Evaluation of nutrition education interventions for older adults: A proposed framework. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2004;104:58–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. American Dietetic Association. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Nutrition across the spectrum of aging. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005;105:616–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Division of Gerontology, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), Birmingham, USA

    Julie L. Locher & C. S. Ritchie

  2. Center for Aging, UAB, Birmingham, USA

    Julie L. Locher, C. S. Ritchie & D. L. Roth

  3. Department of Healthcare Organization and Policy, UAB, Birmingham, USA

    Julie L. Locher & B. Sen

  4. Lister Hill Center for Health Policy, UAB, Birmingham, USA

    Julie L. Locher & B. Sen

  5. Department of Sociology, UAB, Birmingham, USA

    Julie L. Locher

  6. Birmingham-Atlanta VA Gerontology Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Birmingham, USA

    C. S. Ritchie

  7. Department of Biostatistics, UAB, Birmingham, USA

    D. L. Roth

  8. Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Birmingham, USA

    K. S. Vickers

  9. The Hospital Cooperative, Pocatello, ID, USA

    L. I. Vailas

  10. 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, CH19 218N, 1530 3rd Ave S, Birmingham, AL, 35294-2041, USA

    Julie L. Locher

Authors
  1. Julie L. Locher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. S. Ritchie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. L. Roth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. Sen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K. S. Vickers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. L. I. Vailas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie L. Locher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Locher, J.L., Ritchie, C.S., Roth, D.L. et al. Food choice among homebound older adults: Motivations and perceived barriers. J Nutr Health Aging 13, 659–664 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-009-0194-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-009-0194-7

Key words

Search

Navigation