See the published version of this preprint at Pilot and Feasibility Studies.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research
Leigh-Ann McCrum
Queen's University Belfast Centre for Public Health
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9647-0960
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
Older adults suffering partial tooth loss may need additional intervention strategies other than oral rehabilitation alone to improve their nutritional status. This study aimed to design and develop a habit-based tailored dietary intervention and to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, in conjunction with oral rehabilitation, amongst partially dentate older adults.
Methods
The design and development of the dietary intervention (Phase 1) consisted of analysis of the target population’s dietary intake and qualitative research through focus groups with community-dwelling older adults (aged 65 years and over). Feasibility of the intervention was then tested among older adults receiving oral rehabilitation in a small non-randomised single arm study (Phase 2). The primary feasibility outcome was the usability and acceptability of the intervention which was measured using evaluation questionnaires and by conducting post-intervention semi-structured interviews. Secondary outcomes consisted of feasibility of screening procedures; recruitment strategies; and retention/ attrition rates as well as the participant’s compliance to the intervention assessed through self-monitoring tracking sheets.
Results
Twenty-one older adults (mean [SD] age 72.1 [10.4].) took part in one of four focus group discussions (Phase 1). Twelve themes related to barriers (e.g oral health, appetite) and facilitators (e.g nutritional knowledge, retirement) of healthy eating guided intervention development, as did a further five themes when asked for direct intervention feedback. Nine older adult participants (mean [SD] age 72.5[9.7]) were recruited into the feasibility study (Phase 2) where eight themes were identified from feedback interview discussions. Primary outcome measures identified intervention feasibility as participants considered the intervention acceptable and useable as both the evaluation questionnaire and qualitative interview results were overwhelmingly positive. As a secondary outcome measure, strong intervention compliance was also achieved. Screening procedures were accepted but additional recruitment strategies (e.g incorporation of home study visits or recruitment via posters advertisement) may benefit future study enrolment and retention.
Conclusion
Phase 1 and Phase 2 findings have allowed for an iterative, user-driven intervention to be developed and refined for a randomised control study to evaluate the intervention’s effectiveness.
Trial registration: ISRCTN66118345
Keywords
Older adults, oral rehabilitation, dietary intervention, habit-formation, Medical Research Council, feasibility
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Pilot and Feasibility Studies.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 29 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 20 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 19 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 19 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 19 Jun, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 19 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 15 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 12 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 12 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 12 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 10 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 09 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 09 Jun, 2020
Version 1
Posted 15 May, 2020
No comments provided
Review #1 received
Received 06 Jun, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 06 Jun, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 03 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 01 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 21 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 11 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 10 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 10 May, 2020
First submitted
On 08 May, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at Pilot and Feasibility Studies.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research
Leigh-Ann McCrum
Queen's University Belfast Centre for Public Health
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9647-0960
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Pilot and Feasibility Studies.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 29 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 20 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 19 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 19 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 19 Jun, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 19 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 15 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 12 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 12 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 12 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 10 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 09 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 09 Jun, 2020
Version 1
Posted 15 May, 2020
No comments provided
Review #1 received
Received 06 Jun, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 06 Jun, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 03 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 01 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 21 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 11 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 10 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 10 May, 2020
First submitted
On 08 May, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Pilot and Feasibility Studies.
Background
Older adults suffering partial tooth loss may need additional intervention strategies other than oral rehabilitation alone to improve their nutritional status. This study aimed to design and develop a habit-based tailored dietary intervention and to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, in conjunction with oral rehabilitation, amongst partially dentate older adults.
Methods
The design and development of the dietary intervention (Phase 1) consisted of analysis of the target population’s dietary intake and qualitative research through focus groups with community-dwelling older adults (aged 65 years and over). Feasibility of the intervention was then tested among older adults receiving oral rehabilitation in a small non-randomised single arm study (Phase 2). The primary feasibility outcome was the usability and acceptability of the intervention which was measured using evaluation questionnaires and by conducting post-intervention semi-structured interviews. Secondary outcomes consisted of feasibility of screening procedures; recruitment strategies; and retention/ attrition rates as well as the participant’s compliance to the intervention assessed through self-monitoring tracking sheets.
Results
Twenty-one older adults (mean [SD] age 72.1 [10.4].) took part in one of four focus group discussions (Phase 1). Twelve themes related to barriers (e.g oral health, appetite) and facilitators (e.g nutritional knowledge, retirement) of healthy eating guided intervention development, as did a further five themes when asked for direct intervention feedback. Nine older adult participants (mean [SD] age 72.5[9.7]) were recruited into the feasibility study (Phase 2) where eight themes were identified from feedback interview discussions. Primary outcome measures identified intervention feasibility as participants considered the intervention acceptable and useable as both the evaluation questionnaire and qualitative interview results were overwhelmingly positive. As a secondary outcome measure, strong intervention compliance was also achieved. Screening procedures were accepted but additional recruitment strategies (e.g incorporation of home study visits or recruitment via posters advertisement) may benefit future study enrolment and retention.
Conclusion
Phase 1 and Phase 2 findings have allowed for an iterative, user-driven intervention to be developed and refined for a randomised control study to evaluate the intervention’s effectiveness.
Trial registration: ISRCTN66118345
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...