A Cross-Sectional Feasibility Study of Nutrient Intake Patterns in People With Parkinson’s Compared to Government Nutrition Guidelines

Abstract

Background: Diet could have implications for disease progression and management in people with Parkinson’s disease (PwP). However, the knowledge of diet intake patterns in PwP is limited.

Objectives: We set out to assess the feasibility of collecting diet data in PwP to determine food and nutrient intake, in order to compare to national nutrition guidelines and thus understand the habits in this population.

Methods: In this cross-sectional feasibility study, PwP were approached through local support groups throughout the Thames Valley and were asked to complete a Food Frequency Questionnaire. Eligibility criteria included a self-reported neurologist confirmed diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease. Completeness of questionnaires was reported and 80% was considered appropriate for each measure including demographic information.

Results: Response rate was 61% and missing data rate for the 121 returned questionnaires was 74%; however, of the 90 used for analysis there was 100% completion of the questionnaires. Compared to the UK government guidelines, protein was significantly higher for both males and females and fluid intake was lower for both genders (p < 0.001). There were several other differences in nutrient intake compared to guidelines.

Conclusion: We observed high levels of engagement from PwP and found that assessing food and nutrient patterns in PwP was feasible. Importantly, the diet was generally healthy overall, yet there were specific nutrients that may affect medication metabolism in PwP that were found to be high. Therefore further research into this emerging and important area is warranted.

Keywords:

• Protein
• diet
• Parkinson’s disease

Acknowledgements

We thank the participants for taking part in this study. We would also like to thank the support group leaders, who allowed us to attend the support group meeting to collect our data.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Funding

S. Coe is funded by Oxford Brookes University. H. Dawes is funded by the Elizabeth Casson Trust and Higher Education Thames Valley and the Biomedical Research Centers.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the writing, data analysis, project design, and data collection.