Skip to main content
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2020 Mar 16;33(3):295–298. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12746

Personalised nutrition technologies: a new paradigm for dietetic practice and training in a digital transformation era

M Abrahams 1,2,, N V Matusheski 3
PMCID: PMC7317901  PMID: 32173947

Personalised nutrition in patient‐centred care

It has recently been estimated that one in five early deaths worldwide is associated with poor dietary habits (1) . Addressing this societal challenge through dietetics practice will require substantial human resource investment. However, according to the World Health Organization, there is currently a substantial shortage of healthcare workers, which is expected to increase over the coming decades (2) . Because of this, it is important to develop an understanding of the potential ways that new technologies and digital tools can help to increase the impact of dietetics. This will create value not only for the individual patient, but also as a scalable approach to helping individuals develop improved dietary habits and transition to a service that is based on prevention and self‐care.

Patient‐centred care is a cornerstone of modern dietetics practice (3) . A key tenant underlying this approach is the individualisation of guidance based on the patient’s specific needs and, in a broad sense, treating the patient and not the disease (4) . In parallel, personalisation has recently developed as a trend in the consumer nutrition and wellness area (5) . Numerous apps, programs, platforms and plans are now aimed at delivering a personalised experience for the user based on profiling of an individual’s demographics, genotype, nutritional intake and status, anthropometrics, lifestyle behaviours, and/or preferences 6 , 7 . Several definitions have been put forth for personalised nutrition, including those that deal primarily with genetic differences, and others that include much broader concepts, including phenotypic, psychosocial and behavioural aspects of individualisation 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 . In this editorial, we employ a recently proposed definition of personalised nutrition to describe approaches that ‘use individual‐specific information, founded on evidence‐based science, to promote dietary behaviour change that may result in measurable health benefit’ (12) . By leveraging a holistic definition, we can consider how different aspects of personalisation can be of greatest benefit and can be most effectively leveraged for the individual patient, which can be appreciated by all dietitians.

The scientific evidence for personalised nutrition is growing. Substantiation continues to emerge that personalised nutrition can provide added value beyond conventional approaches. In the clinical setting, there has been increased recognition of the importance of implementing nutritional screening and intervention (13) . For example, individualised nutrition assessments and provision of tailored nutritional support in patients at nutritional risk have been shown to significantly improve clinical outcomes, including patient survival (14) . In a broader wellness context, several important gene–diet interactions were found to influence the response to dietary weight‐loss interventions in the landmark DIOGENES trial (15) .

More holistic approaches, leveraging personalised information based on both genotypic and phenotypic variation, have also been promising (16) . A recent study in older Dutch adults found that the provision of personalised advice, based on dietary intake, genetic and physiological information, resulted in increased resiliency and motivation, and decreased body fat percentage and hip circumference (17) . In the future, we expect to see even more research investment in Personalised ‘algorithm‐based’ approaches. For example, clinical trials are currently underway aiming to validate a microbiome‐based personalisation approach for blood sugar management 18 , 19 . Likewise, an ongoing collaboration between Stanford University and Massachusetts General Hospital recently published a pilot study (PREDICT) and is now conducting a large observational study (PREDICT2) to measure individual metabolic responses to foods, with the aim of developing a commercial platform (20) . In the Nutrigenomics, Overweight/Obesity and Weight Management Trial (NOW Trial), the effects of a lifestyle intervention employing personalised genetic testing and behavioural advice will be compared with the same intervention with population‐based advice (21) . However, for many commercial platforms, their benefit has yet to be established in randomised controlled trials. Challenges still exist in terms of replicability of results, diversity of population groups included (22) , as well as scientific validation and accuracy of products currently available (23) . It has become clear however, that behaviour change is the common denominator underpinning successful personalised nutrition approaches for which dietitians are well versed, trained and experienced.

A practical personalised nutrition framework

Considering the high level of consumer interest in personalised nutrition, it is not surprising that many commercial personalised nutrition programs have arisen. However, each approach varies regarding the information that it collects about an individual, and which recommendations arise. Because of this, it is important to develop a framework for assessing whether a given personalised nutrition platform can offer real benefits, or whether some alternative should be recommended. An interdisciplinary expert group (12) recently developed a set of 10 ‘guiding principles’ for personalised nutrition that can support such an assessment (Box 1). These principles can be of equal value for those developing and for those using or implementing a technology‐enabled personalised nutrition program. Using such a framework can help determine whether a personalised nutrition approach is credible and would be expected to deliver results for an individual.

Box 1. Guiding principles for personalised nutrition.

  1. Define potential users and beneficiaries

  2. Use validated diagnostic methods and measures

  3. Maintain data quality and relevance

  4. Derive data‐driven recommendations from validated models and algorithms

  5. Design personalised nutrition studies around validated individual health or function needs and outcomes

  6. Provide rigorous scientific evidence for an effect on health or function

  7. Deliver user‐friendly tools

  8. For healthy individuals, align with population‐based recommendations

  9. Communicate transparently about potential effects

  10. Protect individual data privacy and act responsibly

Despite a rapid rise in availability, the integration of digital tools into daily dietetic practice remains low amongst dietitians. In a survey of dietitians in Canada, Australia and the UK, 63% of respondents reported using a mobile health app in their practice, primarily for informational and patient self‐monitoring purposes (24) , yet very few are used for behaviour change 25 , 26 . Another study in Australia demonstrated poor eHealth readiness in terms of advocacy, although there was an improvement with respect to attitudinal, aptitude and access to eHealth readiness (27) . A recent multi‐national survey showed that dietitians who had adopted personalised nutrition innovations demonstrated higher levels of self‐efficacy, lower perceptions of risk and higher usefulness, and also assigned a higher importance of technology to dietetic practice, compared to those who had not (28) . Interestingly, dietitians who had integrated personalised nutrition technologies perceived themselves to be entrepreneurs, bringing another dimension to how we may need to address digital transformation and organisational change in a modern data‐driven healthcare service (29) . As a result of these advances in both science and technology, it is important for the practising dietitian to increase their awareness, knowledge, digital literacy (in terms of artificial intelligence and genomics) (30) , professional skills and comfort level with respect to the digital solutions that power these personalised recommendations through big data analytics, machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI).

The growing role and need for the next generation of dietitians

Although the guiding principles are an excellent reference point for those aiming to develop personalised nutrition solutions, the growing role for the next generation of dietitians is clear. Digital solutions will not replace dietitians because of the crucial value that we bring in terms of personal relationship building and behaviour change (31) . However, dietitians who do not adopt or sufficiently understand new technologies may run the risk of being replaced. As a profession, we need to address this new reality at all levels of personalisation. Dietitians can play an important role in new initiatives and product development to ensure that digital products are scientifically valid, inclusive, equitable, accessible, explainable and representative.

The opportunities for dietitians as we move into the fourth industrial revolution are limitless and include those outlined in Box 2.

Box 2. Opportunities for dietitians in the fourth industrial revolution.

  1. Acquiring new skills in bias validation, algorithm development, data management and analytics, as well as workflow, and unlocking new business models.

  2. Identifying new career opportunities that can uniquely combine the best of humanity, society, sustainability and technology to impact health outcomes for all

  3. Creating a new value proposition for dietitians as we leverage our nutrition domain expertise with digital literacy and a focus on prevention

  4. Learning a new language in terms of digital technologies and regulation that transcends borders as technology increases our reach

Strategic considerations for digital transformation in dietetic practice

In a modern healthcare system, which is transitioning to one that is participatory and personalised, we need to ensure that we are equipped with the right skills, knowledge and mindsets for this shift. These skills include inclusive leadership, developing an entrepreneurial mindset 28 , 32 , data management and digital literacy (30) . At present, the area of tech‐enabled personalised nutrition receives little attention in the dietetic curriculum (33) . To our knowledge, with the exception of genomics, new technologies such as AI, machine learning and neural networks are not currently covered in the dietetic curriculum. This is concerning, considering that the recent survey cited above demonstrated that most Registered Dietitians (RDs) did not consider technology to play an important role in dietetic practice (28) . However, we know that students are interested (33) , which highlights that there is indeed a gap between consumer demand and current dietetic awareness.

Conclusions

The time is right for dietitians to take the lead in the digital transformation of healthcare services, with nutrition and lifestyle playing a vital role in the prevention of noncommunicable diseases. New personalised nutrition technologies that are based on science, and are inclusive and accessible, provide new ways of delivering care and reaching key groups to support them in lasting behaviour change. Dietitians have a unique opportunity to be a guiding voice, a reality check and a key resource for the creation and delivery of new solutions and healthcare models. To become the reference professionals for a data‐driven future that is already here, we need to address where we are as a profession in terms of our inclusive leadership, and ensure that our digital and entrepreneurial literacy skills are truly at the forefront of change.

Abrahams M.& Matusheski N.V. (2020) Personalised nutrition technologies: a new paradigm for dietetic practice and training in a digital transformation era. J Hum Nutr Diet. 33, 295–298 10.1111/jhn.12746

References

  • 1. Afshin A, Sur PJ, Fay KA et al (2019) Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 393, 1958–1972. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Global Health Workforce Alliance and World Health Organization . A universal truth: no health without a workforce. Available at: https://www.who.int/workforcealliance/knowledge/resources/hrhreport2013/en/ (accessed October 2019).
  • 3. Sladdin I, Ball L, Bull C et al (2017) Patient‐centred care to improve dietetic practice: an integrative review. J Hum Nutr Diet 30, 453–470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Harding E, Wait S & Scrutton J. The state of play in person‐centred care: a pragmatic review of how person‐centred care is defined, applied and measured, featuring selected key contributors and case studies across the field. Available at: http://www.healthpolicypartnership.com/person‐centred‐care (accessed October 2019).
  • 5. Collins J, Ryan L & Truby H (2014) A systematic review of the factors associated with interest in predictive genetic testing for obesity, type II diabetes and heart disease. J Hum Nutr Diet 27, 479–488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Kanter M & Desrosiers A (2019) Personalized wellness past and future: will the science and technology coevolve? Nutr Today 54, 174–181. [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Martin CK, Nicklas T, Gunturk B et al (2014) Measuring food intake with digital photography. J Hum Nutr Diet 27, 72–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Betts JA & Gonzalez JT (2016) Personalised nutrition: what makes you so special? Nutr Bull 41, 353–359. [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Ferguson LR, Caterina RD, Görman U et al (2016) Guide and position of the international society of nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics on personalised nutrition: part 1 ‐ fields of precision nutrition. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 9, 12–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Ordovas JM, Ferguson LR, Tai ES et al (2018) Personalised nutrition and health. Br Med J 361, bmj.k2173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Gibney MJ & Walsh MC (2013) The future direction of personalised nutrition: my diet, my phenotype, my genes. Proc Nutr Soc 72, 219–225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Adams SH, Anthony JC, Carvajal R et al (2019) Perspective: guiding principles for the implementation of personalized nutrition approaches that benefit health and function. Adv Nutr 11, 25–34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Merker M, Gomes F, Stanga Z et al. (2019) Evidence‐based nutrition for the malnourished, hospitalised patient: one bite at a time. Swiss Med Wkly 149, w20112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Schuetz P, Fehr R, Baechli V et al (2019) Individualised nutritional support in medical inpatients at nutritional risk: a randomised clinical trial. Lancet 393, 2312–2321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Larsen LH, Ängquist L, Vimaleswaran KS et al (2012) Analyses of single nucleotide polymorphisms in selected nutrient‐sensitive genes in weight‐regain prevention: the DIOGENES study. Am J Clin Nutr 95, 1254–1260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Celis‐Morales C, Livingstone KM, Marsaux CF et al (2017) Effect of personalized nutrition on health‐related behaviour change: evidence from the Food4Me European randomized controlled trial. Int J Epidemiol 46, 578–588. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Doets EL, de Hoogh IM, Holthuysen N et al (2019) Beneficial effect of personalized lifestyle advice compared to generic advice on wellbeing among Dutch seniors – an explorative study. Physiol Behav 210, 112642. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Mendes‐Soares H, Raveh‐Sadka T, Azulay S et al (2019) Assessment of a personalized approach to predicting postprandial glycemic responses to food among individuals without diabetes. JAMA Netw Open 2, e188102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Personalized nutrition for diabetes type 2. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03662217 (accessed October 2019).
  • 20. Spector T, Berry S, Valdes A et al (2019) Integrating metagenomic information into personalized nutrition tools: the PREDICT I study (P20–005‐19). Curr Dev Nutr 3, 1763. [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Horne J, Gilliland J, O'Connor C et al (2019) Study protocol of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial incorporated into the Group Lifestyle BalanceTM program: the nutrigenomics, overweight/obesity and weight management trial (the NOW trial). BMC Public Health 19, 310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Morales J, Welter D, Bowler EH et al (2018) A standardized framework for representation of ancestry data in genomics studies, with application to the NHGRI‐EBI GWAS Catalog. Genome Biol 19, 21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Chen J, Cade JE & Allman‐Farinelli M (2015) The most popular smartphone apps for weight loss: a quality assessment. JMIR mHealth uHealth 3, e104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Chen J, Lieffers J, Bauman A et al (2017) The use of smartphone health apps and other mobile health (mHealth) technologies in dietetic practice: a three country study. J Hum Nutr Diet 30, 439–452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Conroy DE, Yang C‐H & Maher JP (2014) Behavior change techniques in top‐ranked mobile apps for physical activity. Am J Prev Med 46, 649–652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Hoppe CD, Cade JE & Carter M (2017) An evaluation of diabetes targeted apps for Android smartphone in relation to behaviour change techniques. J Hum Nutr Diet 30, 326–338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Maunder K, Walton K, Williams P et al (2018) eHealth readiness of dietitians. J Hum Nutr Diet 31, 573–583. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Abrahams M, Frewer LJ, Bryant E et al (2019) Personalised nutrition technologies and innovations: a cross‐national survey of registered dietitians. Public Health Genomics 22, 119–131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Zhao J, Freeman B & Li M (2016) Can mobile phone apps influence people’s health behavior change? An evidence review. J Med Internet Res 18, e287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Topol E. The Topol review: preparing the healthcare workforce to deliver the digital future. Available at: https://topol.hee.nhs.uk/ (accessed October 2019).
  • 31. O'Donovan CB, Walsh MC, Nugent AP et al (2015) Use of metabotyping for the delivery of personalised nutrition. Mol Nutr Food Res 59, 377–385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Abrahams M, Frewer LJ, Bryant E et al (2018) Perceptions and experiences of early‐adopting registered dietitians in integrating nutrigenomics into practice. Br Food J 20, 763–776. [Google Scholar]
  • 33. VanBuren C, Imrhan V, Vijayagopal P et al (2018) “Omics” education in dietetic curricula: a comparison between two institutions in the USA and Mexico. Lifestyle Genom 11, 136–146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES