Increasing total protein intake and a spread protein intake distribution are potential strategies to attenuate sarcopenia related loss of physical function and quality of life. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate whether protein intake and protein intake distribution are associated with muscle strength, physical function and quality of life in community-dwelling elderly people with a wide range of physical activity. Dietary and physical activity data were obtained from two studies (N = 140, age 81 ± 6, 64% male), with the following outcome measures: physical functioning (Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), comprising balance, gait speed and chair rise tests), handgrip strength and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). Protein intake distribution was calculated for each participant as a coefficient of variance (CV = SD of grams of protein intake per main meal divided by the average total amount of proteins (grams) of the main meals). Based on the CV, participants were divided into tertiles and classified as spread, intermediate or pulse. The average total protein intake was 1.08 ± 0.29 g/kg/day. Total protein intake was not associated with outcome measures using multivariate regression analyses. Individuals with a spread protein diet during the main meals (CV < 0.43) had higher gait speed compared to those with an intermediate diet (CV 0.43–0.62) (β = −0.42, p = 0.035), whereas a spread and pulse protein diet were not associated with SPPB total score, chair rise, grip strength and Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY). The interaction of higher physical activity and higher total protein intake was significantly associated with higher quality of life (β = 0.71, p = 0.049). While this interaction was not associated with SPPB or grip strength, the association with quality of life emphasizes the need for a higher total protein intake together with an active lifestyle in the elderly.

Combining increased dietary protein intake and resistance exercise training for elderly people is a promising strategy to prevent or counteract the loss of muscle mass and decrease the risk of disabilities. Using findings from controlled interventions in a real-life setting requires adaptations to the intervention and working procedures of healthcare professionals (HCPs). The aim of this study is to adapt an efficacious intervention for elderly people to a real-life setting (phase one) and test the feasibility and potential impact of this prototype intervention in practice in a pilot study (phase two). The Intervention Mapping approach was used to guide the adaptation in phase one. Qualitative data were collected from the original researchers, target group, and HCPs, and information was used to decide whether and how specified intervention elements needed to be adapted. In phase two, a one-group pre-test post-test pilot study was conducted (n = 25 community-dwelling elderly), to elicit further improvements to the prototype intervention. The evaluation included participant questionnaires and measurements at baseline (T0) and follow-up (T1), registration forms, interviews, and focus group discussions (T1). Qualitative data for both phases were analysed using an inductive approach. Outcome measures included physical functioning, strength, body composition, and dietary intake. Change in outcomes was assessed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. The most important adaptations to the original intervention were the design of HCP training and extending the original protein supplementation with a broader nutrition programme aimed at increasing protein intake, facilitated by a dietician. Although the prototype intervention was appreciated by participants and professionals, and perceived applicable for implementation, the pilot study process evaluation resulted in further adaptations, mostly concerning recruitment, training session guidance, and the nutrition programme. Pilot study outcome measures showed significant improvements in muscle strength and functioning, but no change in lean body mass. The combined nutrition and exercise intervention was successfully adapted to the real-life setting and seems to have included the most important effective intervention elements. After adaptation of the intervention using insights from the pilot study, a larger, controlled trial should be conducted to assess cost-effectiveness. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov NL51834.081.14 (April 22, 2015).

Objective: To investigate (i) how the SLIMMER intervention was delivered and received in Dutch primary health care and (ii) how this could explain intervention effectiveness.Design: A randomised controlled trial was conducted and subjects were randomly allocated to the intervention (10-month combined dietary and physical activity intervention) or the control group. A process evaluation including quantitative and qualitative methods was conducted. Data on process indicators (recruitment, reach, dose received, acceptability, implementation integrity and applicability) were collected via semi-structured interviews with health-care professionals (n 45) and intervention participant questionnaires (n 155).Setting: SLIMMER was implemented in Dutch primary health care in twenty-five general practices, eleven dietitians, nine physiotherapist practices and fifteen sports clubs.Subjects: Subjects at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes were included.Results: It was possible to recruit the intended high-risk population (response rate 54 %) and the SLIMMER intervention was very well received by both participants and health-care professionals (mean acceptability rating of 82 and 80, respectively). The intervention programme was to a large extent implemented as planned and was applicable in Dutch primary health care. Higher dose received and participant acceptability were related to improved health outcomes and dietary behaviour, but not to physical activity behaviour.Conclusions: The present study showed that it is feasible to implement a diabetes prevention intervention in Dutch primary health care. Higher dose received and participant acceptability were associated with improved health outcomes and dietary behaviour. Using an extensive process evaluation plan to gain insight into how an intervention is delivered and received is a valuable way of identifying intervention components that contribute to implementation integrity and effective prevention of type 2 diabetes in primary health care.

Exercise and nutrition are important for older adults to maintain or to regain their muscle mass, function, strength, and ultimately quality of life. The effectiveness of combined resistance exercise and diet interventions is commonly evaluated in controlled clinical studies, but evidence from real-life settings is lacking. This article describes the effectiveness, process, and economic evaluation design of a combined nutrition and exercise intervention for community-dwelling older adults in a Dutch real-life setting. The ProMuscle in Practice study is a randomised controlled multicentre intervention study, conducted in five municipalities in the Netherlands. Two hundred community-dwelling older adults (≥65 years) who are frail or pre-frail based on Fried frailty criteria or who experience strength loss are randomised over an intervention and control group by municipality. In the first 12-week intensive support intervention, participants in the intervention group perform resistance exercise training guided by a physiotherapist twice a week and increase protein intake by consuming protein-rich products under the supervision of a dietitian. Afterwards, they continue with a 12-week moderate support intervention. The control group receives only regular care during the two 12-week periods. Effect outcomes are measured at all locations at baseline, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, 36 weeks and only at three locations at 52 weeks. The primary outcome is physical functioning (Short Physical Performance Battery). Secondary outcomes include leg muscle strength, lean body mass, activities of daily living, social participation, food intake, and quality of life. Qualitative and quantitative implementation process data are collected during the intervention. Healthcare use and intervention costs are registered for the economic evaluation. Evaluating the effects, implementation, and costs of this combined intervention provides valuable insight into the feasibility of this intervention for community-dwelling older adults and into the intervention’s ability to improve or to maintain physical functioning and quality of life. Netherlands Trial Register ( NTR6038 ) since 30 August 2016.