CARDIOPROTECTIVE FOOD AND NUTRITION EDUCATION FOR OLDER ADULTS: EFFECT ON DIET QUALITY

Resumo

 In Brazil, chronic noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are responsible for most deaths, especially cardiovascular diseases, particularly among older adults. It is known that health education interventions present a moderate benefit in reducing cardiovascular risk. However, there is still a lack of evidence regarding the impacts of specific approaches aimed at primary cardiovascular prevention. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of a cardioprotective nutritional educational intervention on diet quality in older adults participating in a university extension project in a municipality in southwestern Minas Gerais, Brazil. This is an intervention, quasi-experimental study with a before-and-after design of the educational intervention, which consisted of three monthly meetings. The actions followed the proposal described in the material “Cardioprotective Nutrition: Guidance Manual for Primary Health Care Professionals.” To assess diet quality, the questionnaire “How is your diet?” was applied, consisting of 24 questions evaluating dietary patterns based on the principles of the Brazilian Food Guide (2014). Based on the obtained scores, participants were classified into groups: Above 41 points: Healthy; Between 31 and 41 points: Suboptimal; Up to 31 points: Inadequate. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 29.0 software, adopting p < 0.05 and 95% confidence interval. The sample consisted of 20 older adults (72 ± 5.73 years), with a predominance of females (n = 16; 80%), intermediate educational level (n = 8; 40%), income between 1 and 5 minimum wages (n = 14; 70%), widowed individuals (n = 9; 45%), most participants reported not consuming alcohol (n = 14; 70%), and engaging in physical activity 2 to 4 times per week (n = 8; 40%). Regarding the overall classification of the questionnaire “How is your diet?” before the intervention, 63.9% of participants were identified with a “healthy dietary pattern (> 41 points)” and 36.1% with a “suboptimal dietary pattern (≤ 41 points).” After the intervention, this distribution remained similar (65.0% and 35.0%, respectively). The only item with a statistically significant difference in the before-and-after analysis was “I usually buy food at open-air or street markets,” which showed an increase of 0.45 points (p = 0.033). It was concluded that diet quality was considered healthy throughout the cardioprotective educational intervention, with an impact on food purchasing at open-air markets.