TY - JOUR
T1 - Factors influencing European consumer uptake of personalised nutrition. Results of a qualitative analysis.
AU - Stewart-Knox, Barbara
AU - Kuznesof, Sharron
AU - Robinson, Jenny
AU - Rankin, Audrey
AU - Orr, Karen
AU - Duffy, Maresa
AU - Poinhos, Rui
AU - Vaz de Almeida, Maria Daniel
AU - Macready, Anna
AU - Gallagher, Caroline
AU - Berezowska, Aleksandra
AU - Fischer, Arnout R. H.
AU - Navas-Carretero, Santiago
AU - Riemer, Martina
AU - Traczyk, Iwona
AU - Gjelstad, Ingrid M. F.
AU - Mavrogianni, Christina
AU - Frewer, Lynn J.
PY - 2013/7/1
Y1 - 2013/7/1
N2 - The aim of this research was to explore consumer perceptions of personalised nutrition and to compare these across three different levels of "medicalization": lifestyle assessment (no blood sampling); phenotypic assessment (blood sampling); genomic assessment (blood and buccal sampling). The protocol was developed from two pilot focus groups conducted in the UK. Two focus groups (one comprising only "older" individuals between 30 and 60 years old, the other of adults 18-65 yrs of age) were run in the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Germany (N = 16). The analysis (guided using grounded theory) suggested that personalised nutrition was perceived in terms of benefit to health and fitness and that convenience was an important driver of uptake. Negative attitudes were associated with internet delivery but not with personalised nutrition per se. Barriers to uptake were linked to broader technological issues associated with data protection, trust in regulator and service providers. Services that required a fee were expected to be of better quality and more secure. An efficacious, transparent and trustworthy regulatory framework for personalised nutrition is required to alleviate consumer concern. In addition, developing trust in service providers is important if such services to be successful. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
AB - The aim of this research was to explore consumer perceptions of personalised nutrition and to compare these across three different levels of "medicalization": lifestyle assessment (no blood sampling); phenotypic assessment (blood sampling); genomic assessment (blood and buccal sampling). The protocol was developed from two pilot focus groups conducted in the UK. Two focus groups (one comprising only "older" individuals between 30 and 60 years old, the other of adults 18-65 yrs of age) were run in the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Germany (N = 16). The analysis (guided using grounded theory) suggested that personalised nutrition was perceived in terms of benefit to health and fitness and that convenience was an important driver of uptake. Negative attitudes were associated with internet delivery but not with personalised nutrition per se. Barriers to uptake were linked to broader technological issues associated with data protection, trust in regulator and service providers. Services that required a fee were expected to be of better quality and more secure. An efficacious, transparent and trustworthy regulatory framework for personalised nutrition is required to alleviate consumer concern. In addition, developing trust in service providers is important if such services to be successful. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
KW - Personalised nutrition
KW - Nutrigenomics
KW - Consumer
KW - Qualitative
KW - Barriers
KW - Acceptance
KW - Focus group
KW - Food4Me
KW - GENETIC RESEARCH
KW - FOOD
KW - ATTITUDES
KW - NUTRIGENOMICS
KW - ACCEPTANCE
KW - RISKS
KW - PERCEPTIONS
KW - BENEFITS
KW - HAZARDS
KW - FOCUS
U2 - 10.1016/j.appet.2013.03.001
DO - 10.1016/j.appet.2013.03.001
M3 - Article
SN - 0195-6663
VL - 66
SP - 67
EP - 74
JO - Appetite
JF - Appetite
ER -