PP352 - PERSONALIZED NUTRITION PRODUCTS IN A HOSPITAL SETTING: A TEN-DAYS PROOF-OF-CONCEPT STUDY IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS AND STAFF

PP352

PERSONALIZED NUTRITION PRODUCTS IN A HOSPITAL SETTING: A TEN-DAYS PROOF-OF-CONCEPT STUDY IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS AND STAFF

M. Melchers^1,2, S. van der Haar³, F. Hoevenaars⁴, S. Wopereis⁴, S. van Beek^1,2, M. Ummels³, K. van Bokhoven², M. Hoppenbrouwers⁵, A. Rijfers⁵, M. Menkveld⁶, M. Noort³, A. van Zanten^1,2, I. Kouw^1,2,*

¹Division of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, ²Department of Intensive Care Medicine & Research, Gelderse Vallei Hospital, Ede, ³Wageningen Food & Biobased Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, ⁴Department of Microbiology & Systems Biology, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Leiden, ⁵Department of New Manufacturing Technologies, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Eindhoven, ⁶Dutch Nutrition & Healthcare Alliance, Ede, Netherlands

Rationale: Personalized nutrition has the potential to improve nutritional intake and clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients by adapting to individual dietary needs and preferences. Despite its promise, no personalized nutrition product (PNP) for hospitalized patients is currently available. This study assessed the acceptability of a three dimensional (3D)-printed PNP among hospitalized patients and hospital staff.

Methods: A prospective, ten-days, proof-of-concept study was conducted among in-hospital adult patients (≥18y). Study patients received a freshly 3D-printed PNP, customized to match individual taste preferences and health profiles. Patients could reorder the product daily if they remained hospitalized >24h after consumption. Consumption was assessed by weighing the PNP before and after consumption. Acceptability, sensory feedback, and overall experience were evaluated using questionnaires (Likert scale). Hospital staff evaluated sensory feedback and acceptability. Differences in consumption rates and sensory evaluations were evaluated by testing within-group differences. Correlations between consumption rates, liking and patient characteristics were assessed.

Results: Eighty-seven patients received 137 PNPs during the study period. The average overall liking score was 5.7 (±2.1) on a 1 – 9 scale, and median consumption rate was 51% [Interquartile Range 19 – 100]. Consumption rates positively correlated with overall liking (R² = 0.50, p < 0.001). Patients’ willingness to reorder was 3.5 (±2.3) on a 1–7 scale, and reorder rate 63%. The perceived value of a PNP service in a hospital setting (scale 1 – 7) was scored 5.3 (±1.7) by patients and 4.5 (±1.1) by staff.

Conclusion: PNPs were evaluated as moderately positive in terms of acceptability and value by both patients and staff. However, further optimization of the product is needed before evaluating clinical efficacy.

Disclosure of Interest: M. Melchers: None declared, S. van der Haar: None declared, F. Hoevenaars: None declared, S. Wopereis: None declared, S. van Beek: None declared, M. Ummels: None declared, K. van Bokhoven: None declared, M. Hoppenbrouwers: None declared, A. Rijfers: None declared, M. Menkveld: None declared, M. Noort: None declared, A. van Zanten Grant / Research Support from: ARHvZ reported receiving honoraria for advisory board meetings, lectures, research, and travel expenses from Danone-Nutricia, Rousselot, AOP Pharma, PAION, Baxter, GE Healthcare, Nestlé and Abbot, Consultant for: ARHvZ reported receiving honoraria for advisory board meetings, lectures, research, and travel expenses from Danone-Nutricia, Rousselot, AOP Pharma, PAION, Baxter, GE Healthcare, Nestlé and Abbot, Speakers Bureau of: ARHvZ reported receiving honoraria for advisory board meetings, lectures, research, and travel expenses from Danone-Nutricia, Rousselot, AOP Pharma, PAION, Baxter, GE Healthcare, Nestlé and Abbot, Paid Instructor at: ARHvZ reported receiving honoraria for advisory board meetings, lectures, research, and travel expenses from Danone-Nutricia, Rousselot, AOP Pharma, PAION, Baxter, GE Healthcare, Nestlé and Abbot, Other: ARHvZ reported receiving honoraria for advisory board meetings, lectures, research, and travel expenses from Danone-Nutricia, Rousselot, AOP Pharma, PAION, Baxter, GE Healthcare, Nestlé and Abbot, I. Kouw Grant / Research Support from: This study was funded by a public-private partnership financed by Topsector Lifesciences & health and Topsector High Tech Systems & materials, the Netherlands [grant numbers 1000340397 and 21074] and co funded by Ministry of Defence, GEA, Tate & Lyle, General Mills, Nissin, Solipharma and Hospital Gelderse Vallei