Food and Nutrition for Older Adults

FNOA: Aging Programs (2012)

• Assessment
  What is the accessibility and participation in the Older Americans Act Nutrition Service Program by older adults?

  • Conclusion

    Research reported the importance of addressing racial, ethnic and religious concerns in order to increase program accessibility and participation by minority older adults. In addition, studies reported that program participation decreases when meals do not meet the dietary recommendations for older adults and for those following therapeutic diets. Further research on accessibility and participation in the OAA Nutrition Service Program is needed.
    

  • Grade: II
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Evidence Summary: What is the accessibility and participation in Older Americans Act programs by older adults?
    • Detail
    • Quality Rating Summary
      For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
    • Worksheets
      • Choi NG, Smith J. Reaching out to racial/ethnic minority older persons for elderly nutrition programs.  J Nutr Elder 2004; 24 (1): 89-104.
      • Choi NG. Determinants of frail elders' lengths of stay in Meals on Wheels. The Gerontologist 1999; 39 (4): 397-404.
      • Moran MB, Reed E. Are congregate meals meeting clients' needs for "Heart Healthy" menus? J Nutr Elder 1993; 13 (2): 3-10.
      • Mower MT. Designing and implementing ethnic congregate nutrition programs for older Americans. J Nutr Elder 2008; 27 (3-4): 417-430.
      • Prothro JW and Rosenbloom CA. Description of a mixed ethnic, elderly population. III Special diets, food preferences and medicinal intakes. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1999; 54 (6): M329-M332.
      • Rosenzweig L. Kosher meal services in the community: Need, availability, and limitations. J Nutr Elder 2005; 24 (4): 73-82.
  • Search Plan and Results: FNOA: Accessibility and Participation in OAA Programs 2009
     
  What is the accessibility and participation in United States Department of Agriculture programs by older adults?

  • Conclusion

    Research reported racial and ethnic differences among older adults who participate in USDA programs. While some eligible subjects felt that they did not need food assistance, others did not know that they were eligible or how to apply for the program. However, subjects with vision or hearing difficulties, functional limitations or disabilities were more likely to participate in USDA programs. Further research on accessibility and participation in USDA programs is needed.
    

  • Grade: II
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Evidence Summary: What is the accessibility and participation in United States Department of Agriculture programs by older adults?
    • Detail
    • Quality Rating Summary
      For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
    • Worksheets
      • Algert SJ, Reibel M, Renvall MJ. Barriers to participation in the food stamp program among food pantry clients in Los Angeles. American Journal of Public Health. 2006; 96(5): 807-809.
      • Fey-Yensan N, English C, Pacheco HE, Belyea M, Schuler D. Elderly food stamp participants are different from eligible non-participants by level of nutrition risk but not nutrient intake. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2003; 103: 103-107.
      • Fuller-Thomson E, Redmond M. Falling through the social safety net: Food stamp use and non-use among older impoverished Americans. Gerontologist 2008; 48 (2): 235-244.
      • Kaiser L. Why do low-income women not use food stamps? Findings from the California Women's Health Survey. Public Health Nutr.  2008 Dec; 11 (12): 1,288-1,295.
      • Martin KS, Cook JT, Rogers BL, Joseph HM. Public vs. private food assistance: Barriers to participation differ by age and ethnicity. J Nutr Educ Behav 2003 Sep-Oct; 35 (5): 249-254.
      • Nam Y, Jung H. Welfare reform and older immigrants: Food stamp program participation and food insecurity. Gerontologist  2008: 48 (1): 42-50.
      • Rank MR, Hirschl TA. Likelihood of using food stamps during the adulthood years. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2005; 37 (3): 137-146.
  • Search Plan and Results: FNOA: Accessibility and Participation in USDA Programs 2009
     
• Monitoring and Evaluation
  What are the nutrition-related outcomes for older adults who participate in the Older Americans Act Nutrition Service Program?

  • Conclusion

    For older adults who participate in the Older Americans Act Nutrition Service Program, nutrition-related outcomes include improved food and nutrient intake, increased consumption of fruits and vegetables or improved nutritional status. Research also reported improved outcomes related to food security or socialization, improved outcomes related to multivitamin supplementation, improved knowledge in food safety and nutrition, and increased physical activity among older adults participating in the OAA Nutrition Service Program. Continuing research on nutrition-related outcomes related to participation in OAA Nutrition Service Program is needed.

     

  • Grade: II
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Evidence Summary: What are the nutrition-related outcomes for older adults who participate in Older Americans Act programs?
    • Detail
    • Quality Rating Summary
      For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
    • Worksheets
      • Bobroff LB, Turner RE, Weddle DO, Brake JH, Lieberman LS, Allen TB. Interactive learning for congregate nutrition site nutrition education: A pilot study. J Nutr Elderly. 2003; 23(1): 81-93.
      • Estabrooks PA, Fox EH, Doerksen SE, Bradshaw MH, King AC. Participatory research to promote physical activity at congregate-meal sites. J Aging Phys Act. 2005 Apr; 13 (2): 121-144.
      • Gollub EA, Weddle DO. Improvements in nutritional intake and quality of life among frail homebound older adults receiving home-delivered breakfast and lunch. J Am Diet Assoc. 2004 Aug; 104 (8): 1,227-1,235.
      • Johnson DB, Beaudoin S, Smith LT, Beresford SAA, LoGerfo JP. Increasing fruit and vegetable intake in homebound elders: The Seattle Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Pilot Program. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2004: 1(1): A03.
      • Johnson MA, Fischer JG, Park S. Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency in the Georgia Older Americans Nutrition Program. Journal of Nutrition for the Elderly 2008; 27 (1/2): 29-46.
      • Johnson MA, Hawthorne NA, Brackett WR, Fischer JG, Gunter EW, Allen RH, Stabler SP. Hyperhomocysteinemia and vitamin B-12 deficiency in elderly using Title IIIc nutrition services. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003; 77: 211-220.
      • Millen BE, Ohls JC, Ponza M, McCool AC. The elderly nutrition program: An effective national framework for preventive nutrition interventions. J Am Diet Assoc. 2002 Feb; 102(2): 234-240.
      • Pluckebaum JM, Chavez N. Nutritional status of Northwest Indiana Hispanics in a congregate meal program. J Nutr Elder. 1994; 13(3): 1-22.
      • Prothro JW, Rosenbloom CA. Description of a mixed ethnic, elderly population. I. Demography, nutrient/energy intakes, and income status. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1999 Jun; 54(6): M315-M324.
      • Sellers T, Andress E, Fischer JG, Johnson MA. Home food safety program for the Georgia Older Americans Act Nutrition Program. J Nutr Elder. 2006; 26(1-2): 103-122.
      • Shovic A, Geoghegan P. Assessment of meal portion, food temperature, and select nutrient content of the Hawaii Meals on Wheels program. J Am Diet Assoc. 1997; 97(5): 530-532.
      • Smith R, Mullins L, Mushel M, Roorda J, Colquitt R. An examination of demographic, socio-cultural, and health differences between congregate and home diners in a Senior Nutrition Program. Journal of Nutrition for the Elderly. 1994; 14(1): 1-21.
      • Wellman NS, Kamp B, Kirk-Sanchez NJ, Johnson PM. Eat better and move more: A community-based program designed to improve diets and increase physical activity among older Americans. Am J Pub Health. 2007; 97(4): 710-717.
  • Search Plan and Results: FNOA: Improved Outcomes from OAA Programs 2009
     
  What are the nutrition-related outcomes for older adults who participate in United States Department of Agriculture programs?

  • Conclusion

    For older adults who participate in United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs, nutrition-related outcomes include increased calcium intake, improved access to fresh produce, increased fruit and vegetable consumption, stimulated interest in healthy foods and improved quality of life. Further research on nutrition-related outcomes related to participation in USDA programs is needed.
    

  • Grade: III
    • Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
    • Grade II is Fair;
    • Grade III is Limited/Weak;
    • Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
    • Grade V is Not Assignable.
    • High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
    • Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
    • Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
    • Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
    • Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
  • Evidence Summary: What are the nutrition-related outcomes for older adults who participate in United States Department of Agriculture programs?
    • Detail
    • Quality Rating Summary
      For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
    • Worksheets
      • Johnson DB, Beaudoin S, Smith LT, Beresford SAA, LoGerfo JP. Increasing fruit and vegetable intake in homebound elders: The Seattle Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Pilot Program. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2004: 1(1): A03.
      • Kunkel ME, Luccia B, Moore AC. Evaluation of the South Carolina Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Education Program. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003; 103(7): 880-883.
      • Smith LT, Johnson DB, Beaudoin S, Monsen ER, LoGerfo JP.  Qualitative assessment of participant utilization and satisfaction with the Seattle Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Pilot Program. Prev Chronic Dis. 2004; 1(1): A06.
      • Wang MC, Dixon LB. Socioeconomic influences on bone health in postmenopausal women:  findings from NHANES III, 1988-1994. Osteoporosis Int. 2006; 17: 91-98.
  • Search Plan and Results: FNOA: Improved Outcomes from USDA Programs 2009