Yes / Objective: To develop a model of the psychological factors which predict people’s intention to adopt personalised nutrition. Potential determinants of adoption included perceived risk and benefit, perceived self-efficacy, internal locus of control and health commitment. Methods: A questionnaire, developed from exploratory study data and the existing theoretical literature, and including validated psychological scales was administered to N = 9381 participants from 9 European countries (Germany, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK, and Norway). Results: Structural equation modelling indicated that the greater participants’ perceived benefits to be associated with personalised nutrition, the more positive their attitudes were towards personalised nutrition, and the greater their intention to adopt it. Higher levels of nutrition self-efficacy were related to more positive attitudes towards, and a greater expressed intention to adopt, personalised nutrition. Other constructs positively impacting attitudes towards personalised nutrition included more positive perceptions of the efficacy of regulatory control to protect consumers (e.g. in relation to personal data protection), higher self-reported internal health locus of control, and health commitment. Although higher perceived risk had a negative relationship with attitude and an inverse relationship with perceived benefit, its effects on attitude and intention to adopt personalised nutrition was less influential than perceived benefit. The model was stable across the different European countries, suggesting that psychological factors determining adoption of personalised nutrition have generic applicability across different European countries. Conclusion: The results suggest that transparent provision of information about potential benefits, and protection of consumers’ personal data is important for adoption, delivery of public health benefits, and commercialisation of personalised nutrition. / This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement n u 265494 (http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html). Food4Me is the acronym of the project ‘‘Personalised nutrition: an integrated analysis of opportunities and challenges’’ (http://www.food4me.org/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

yes / Purpose - This research explores the perceptions and experiences of early adopters of the technology. Design/Method/Approach - Registered Dietitians (RD´s) (N=14) were recruited from the UK, Canada, South-Africa, Australia, Mexico and Israel. Six qualitative interviews and two focus groups were conducted online using a conference calling platform. Data were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Findings - Early adopters of Nutrigenomics (NGx) were experienced, self-efficacious RD’s who actively sought knowledge of NGx through communication with one another and the broader scientific community. They considered NGx an extension of current practice and believed RD’s had the skills to deliver it. Perceived barriers to widening the application of NGx were linked to skepticism among the wider dietetics community. Proliferation of unregulated websites offering tests and diets was considered ‘pseudoscience’ and detrimental to dietetics fully embracing NGx. The lack of a sustainable public health model for the delivery of NGx was also perceived to hinder progress. Results are discussed with reference to ‘diffusion of innovation theory’. Originality/Value - The views of RD’s who practice NGx have not been previously studied. These data highlight requirements for future dietetic training provision and more inclusive service delivery models. Regulation of NGx services and formal recognition by professional bodies is needed to address the research/practice translation gap.

Yes / Personalised diets based on people’s existing food choices, and/or phenotypic, and/or genetic information hold potential to improve public dietary-related health. The aim of this analysis, therefore, has been to examine the degree to which factors which determine uptake of personalised nutrition vary between EU countries to better target policies to encourage uptake, and optimise the health benefits of personalised nutrition technology. A questionnaire developed from previous qualitative research was used to survey nationally representative samples from 9 EU countries (N = 9381). Perceived barriers to the uptake of personalised nutrition comprised three factors (data protection; the eating context; and, societal acceptance). Trust in sources of information comprised four factors (commerce and media; practitioners; government; family and, friends). Benefits comprised a single factor. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was employed to compare differences in responses between the United Kingdom; Ireland; Portugal; Poland; Norway; the Netherlands; Germany; and, Spain. The results indicated that respondents in Greece, Poland, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, rated the benefits of personalised nutrition highest, suggesting a particular readiness in these countries to adopt personalised nutrition interventions. Greek participants were more likely to perceive the social context of eating as a barrier to adoption of personalised nutrition, implying a need for support in negotiating social situations while on a prescribed diet. Those in Spain, Germany, Portugal and Poland scored highest on perceived barriers related to data protection. Government was more trusted than commerce to deliver and provide information on personalised nutrition overall. This was particularly the case in Ireland, Portugal and Greece, indicating an imperative to build trust, particularly in the ability of commercial service providers to deliver personalised dietary regimes effectively in these countries. These findings, obtained from a nationally representative sample of EU citizens, imply that a parallel, integrated, public-private delivery system would capture the needs of most potential consumers. / Food4me is the acronym of the EU FP7 Project ‘‘Personalised nutrition: an integrated analysis of opportunities and challenges” (Contract No. KBBE.2010.2.3-02, ProjectNo.265494), http:// www.food4me.org/.

Yes / Personalized nutrition has the potential to improve health, prevent disease and reduce healthcare expenditure. Whilst research hints at positive consumer attitudes towards personalized nutrition that draws upon lifestyle, phenotypic and genotypic data, little is known about the degree to which registered dietitians (RD) are engaged in the delivery of such services. This review sought to determine possible factors associated with the integration of the emerging science of Nutritional Genomics (NGx) into the clinical practice setting by practicing registered dietitians. Scope Search of online databases (Pubmed; National Library of Medicine; Cochrane Library; Ovid Medline) was conducted on material published from January 2000 to December 2014. Studies that sampled practicing dietitians and investigated integration or application of NGx and genetics knowledge into practice were eligible. Articles were assessed according to the American Dietetic Association Quality Criteria Checklist. Key findings Application of nutritional genomics in practice has been limited. Reluctance to integrate NGx into practice is associated with low awareness of NGx, a lack of confidence in the science surrounding NGx and skepticism toward Direct to consumer (DTC) products. Successful application to practice was associated with knowledge about NGx, having confidence in the science, a positive attitude toward NGx, access to DTC products, a supportive working environment, working in the clinical setting rather than the public health domain and being in private rather than public practice. Conclusions There is a need to provide RGs with a supportive working environment that provides ongoing training in NGx and which is integrated with clinical practice.

Yes / Background: Commercial technology-enabled personalised nutrition is undergoing 19 rapid growth, yet uptake in dietetics practice remains low. This survey sought the opinions 20 of dietetics practitioners on personalised nutrition and related technologies to understand 21 facilitators and barriers to its application in practice. 22 Method: A cross-section of Registered Dietitians were recruited in the US, UK, 23 Australia, Canada, Israel, Mexico, Portugal, Spain and South Africa. The questionnaire 24 sought views on risk of genetic technology, ethics of genetic testing, usefulness of new 25 personalised nutrition technologies, entrepreneurism and the perceived importance of 26 new technologies to dietetics. Validated scales were included to assess personality (Big 27 5) and self-efficacy (NGSEI). The survey was available in English, Spanish and 28 Portuguese. Regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with 29 integration of nutrigenetic testing into practice, and to identify factors associated with the 30 perceived importance of bio, information and mobile technologies to dietetic practice. 31 Results: A total of 323 responses (response rate 19.7%) were analysed. Dietetic 32 practitioners who had integrated personalised nutrition technology into practice perceived 33 technologies to be less risky (P=0.02), biotechnology to be more important (P<0.01), and 34 professional skills to be less important (P=0.04) than those who had not. They were also 35 more likely to see themselves as entrepreneurs (P<0.01) and to perceive lower risks to be 36 associated with technology (P<0.01). Practitioners of nutrigenetics were lower on 37 neuroticism (P<0.01) and higher on self-efficacy (P<0.01), extraversion (P<0.01) and 38 agreeableness (P<0.01). Higher perceived importance of biotechnology to dietetic 39 practice was associated with higher perceived usefulness of omics tests (P<0.01). 40 Perceived importance of information technology was associated with perceived 41 importance of biotechnology (P<0.01). Mobile technologies were perceived as important 42 by dietitians with the highest level of education (P=0.02). 43 Conclusions: For dietitians to practice technology-enabled personalised nutrition, 44 training will be required to enhance self-efficacy, address risk perceived to be associated 45 with new technologies and to instil an entrepreneurial mindset.

Yes / There has been an increase in development of technologies that can deliver personalised dietary advice. Devising healthy, sustainable dietary plans will mean taking consideration of extrinsic factors such as individual social circumstances. The aim of this study was to identify societal groups more or less receptive to and likely to engage with digitally delivered personalised nutrition initiatives. Sample and Methods: Volunteers were recruited via a social research agency from within the UK. The resultant sample (N=1061) was 49% female, aged 18-65 years. Results: MANOVA (Tukey HSD applied) indicated that females and younger people (aged 18-29 years) had more favourable attitudes and were more likely to intend to adopt personalised nutrition. There were no differences in attitude toward or intention to adopt personalised nutrition between different education levels, income brackets or occupational groups. Conclusion: These results imply that females and younger people may be most likely to adopt personalised nutrition in the future. Initiatives to promote personalised nutrition should target males and older people.

Background: Tech-enabled personalised nutrition is an emerging area that has promise to improve health outcomes, widen access to nutrition expertise and reduce healthcare expenditure, yet uptake by registered dietitians remains low. This research programme aimed to identify levers and barriers that contribute to adoption of personalised nutrition in order to guide practice and policy for registered dietitians, educators and consumers. Methods: A mixed methods study with a sequential exploratory design was adopted to determine what the barriers to adoption of technologies are, and secondly, what needs to be in place to make tech-enabled personalised nutrition a reality. The research programme was conducted online using qualitative (focus groups and interviews) and quantitative measures (survey and secondary analysis). Thematic analysis, statistical and secondary analyses of data were performed respectively. Results: Using diffusion of innovation and entrepreneurial theories, findings indicate that barriers to integration of personalised nutrition technologies include intrinsic and extrinsic factors which relate to a low self-efficacy, high perception of risk, low perceived importance and usefulness of technologies to dietetic practice as well as a lack of an entrepreneurial mindset and regulatory environment. Conclusion: Uptake of tech-enabled personalised nutrition by registered dietitians will require a multi-stakeholder approach. Educational, professional, regulatory and health policies will need to be in place and strategies that open discussion between Registered Dietitians (RD’s) at all levels are needed.

Yes / Personalised nutrition (PN) has the potential to reduce disease risk and optimise health and performance. Although previous research has shown good acceptance of the concept of PN in the UK, preferences regarding the delivery of a PN service (e.g. online v. face-to-face) are not fully understood. It is anticipated that the presence of a free at point of delivery healthcare system, the National Health Service (NHS), in the UK may have an impact on end-user preferences for deliverances. To determine this, supplementary analysis of qualitative data obtained from focus group discussions on PN service delivery, collected as part of the Food4Me project in the UK and Ireland, was undertaken. Irish data provided comparative analysis of a healthcare system that is not provided free of charge at the point of delivery to the entire population. Analyses were conducted using the ‘framework approach’ described by Rabiee (Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proc Nutr Soc 63, 655-660). There was a preference for services to be led by the government and delivered face-to-face, which was perceived to increase trust and transparency, and add value. Both countries associated paying for nutritional advice with increased commitment and motivation to follow guidelines. Contrary to Ireland, however, and despite the perceived benefit of paying, UK discussants still expected PN services to be delivered free of charge by the NHS. Consideration of this unique challenge of free healthcare that is embedded in the NHS culture will be crucial when introducing PN to the UK.

Yes / In order to determine the efficacy of behavior change techniques (BCT) applied in dietary and physical activity intervention studies, it is first necessary to record and describe techniques which have been used during such interventions. Published frameworks used in dietary and smoking cessation interventions undergo continuous development and most are not adapted for online delivery. The Food4Me study (N=1607) provided the opportunity to use existing frameworks to describe standardized online techniques employed in a large-scale internet-based intervention to change dietary behaviour and physical activity.

Yes / Social Cognitive Theory has been used to explain findings derived from focus group discussions (N = 4) held in the United Kingdom with the aim of informing best practice in personalised nutrition. Positive expectancies included weight loss and negative expectancies surrounded on-line security. Monitoring and feedback were crucial to goal setting and progress. Coaching by the service provider, family and friends was deemed important for self-efficacy. Paying for personalised nutrition symbolised commitment to behaviour change. The social context of eating, however, was perceived a problem and should be considered when designing personalised diets. Social Cognitive Theory could provide an effective framework through which to deliver personalised nutrition. / This work was supported by the European Commission under the Food, Agriculture, Fisheries and Biotechnology Theme of the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (265494).