Effects of Multivitamin-Mineral Supplementation on Psychological Wellbeing in Older Adults

Table of Contents

Overall Summary

Overview

This study examined the impact of multivitamin-mineral (MVM) supplementation on aspects of psychological well-being among adults over 70 years old. Using a rigorous randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, researchers explored whether daily intake of MVMs could enhance mood, reduce stress, and alleviate loneliness, distinct effects were observed between males and females. While the primary outcome of overall well-being did not show significant improvement, secondary outcomes indicated enhanced friendliness in females and reduced stress and loneliness in males, suggesting sex-specific benefits of MVMs.

Key Findings

Strengths

Areas for Improvement

Significant Elements

Figure

Description: Fig. 1. Participant flow chart showing the number of participants at each trial stage.

Relevance: Ensures transparency in participant attrition and retention, which is vital for understanding potential biases in the study.

Table

Description: Table 1. Breakdown of MVM ingredients for male and female formulations, including nutrient reference values.

Relevance: Provides essential information for reproducibility and understanding the potential bases for the observed effects in the trial.

Conclusion

The study provides notable insights into the potential sex-specific effects of MVM supplementation in older adults, with females showing increased friendliness and males experiencing reduced stress and loneliness. However, the lack of a significant impact on overall well-being highlights the complexity of nutritional supplementation's effects. Future research should explore the underlying mechanisms of these sex differences, consider longer supplementation periods, and assess practical implications for clinical practice. By addressing these areas, subsequent studies can better understand and potentially harness MVMs to support psychological health in older adults.

Section Analysis

Abstract

Overview

This study looked at whether taking a multivitamin-mineral (MVM) supplement could improve how older adults function in their daily lives. Imagine the body's cells as tiny factories needing specific ingredients (vitamins and minerals) to run smoothly. The study used a rigorous, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, meaning some participants got the real MVM and others got a dummy pill, all randomly assigned. The results showed some interesting differences between men and women: women felt friendlier after taking the MVM, while men experienced less stress and loneliness. However, there was no overall change in general well-being. This suggests that MVMs might have specific benefits for certain aspects of daily life, and that these benefits might differ between the sexes.

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

INTRODUCTION

Overview

Imagine our bodies as complex machines with tiny gears and levers (cells and processes) that need specific oils and fuels (vitamins and minerals) to run smoothly. This introduction explains that while these micronutrients are crucial for brain function, previous research on multivitamin-mineral (MVM) supplements in older adults has yielded mixed results, particularly regarding cognitive function. Moreover, these studies often rely on artificial lab tests that don't reflect real-world challenges. This study aims to address these limitations by investigating how a 12-week MVM supplementation affects "everyday functioning" in older adults, considering factors like mood, stress, and social interaction, and analyzing the results separately for men and women.

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

METHOD

Overview

This section describes exactly how the study was done, like a detailed recipe. It explains the study's randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design, meaning some participants got the real multivitamin while others got a dummy pill, and neither they nor the researchers knew who got what. The study included adults 70 and older, recruited online, who took the tablets daily for 12 weeks. Data was collected through online questionnaires assessing various aspects of wellbeing, and analyzed using IBM SPSS software. Think of it as a carefully controlled experiment to see if adding specific ingredients (vitamins and minerals) to the body's machinery improves its performance.

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

Non-Text Elements

Table 1. Breakdown of each ingredient included in the female and male formula,...
Full Caption

Table 1. Breakdown of each ingredient included in the female and male formula, () represents % of daily Nutrient Reference Value, where this is not included there are no recommended daily values.

First Reference in Text
The breakdown of each the treatments are shown in Table 1.
Description
  • Ingredient composition: Table 1 lists the ingredients present in the multivitamin supplement used in the study, providing separate breakdowns for the male and female formulations. For each ingredient, the table specifies the dosage provided in each tablet. Where applicable, the table also indicates the percentage of the daily Nutrient Reference Value (NRV) provided by that dosage. The NRV is the recommended daily intake of a nutrient, established by regulatory bodies to guide dietary intake and prevent deficiencies. The table notes that some ingredients do not have an established NRV.
  • Table structure: The table presents the information in a tabular format with three main columns: the ingredient name, the female dosage, and the male dosage. The percentages of NRV are presented in parentheses next to the corresponding dosages.
Scientific Validity
  • Transparency and reproducibility: Providing a detailed breakdown of the supplement's composition is essential for reproducibility and allows other researchers to evaluate the potential effects of individual ingredients or their combinations. This table fulfills this requirement by listing all ingredients and their dosages.
  • Nutrient Reference Values: The inclusion of NRV percentages provides context for the chosen dosages and allows for an assessment of the supplement's contribution to overall nutrient intake. However, the lack of NRVs for some ingredients limits this assessment for those specific components.
  • Rationale for formulation: The rationale for the specific formulation (including the choice of ingredients and their dosages) is not explicitly stated. Justifying the formulation based on scientific literature or established guidelines would strengthen the study's methodological rigor.
  • Sex-specific formulations: The different formulations for males and females suggest an awareness of potential sex-specific nutritional needs. However, the rationale for these differences is not explained. Providing a justification for the sex-specific formulations would enhance the scientific validity of the study.
Communication
  • Clarity and structure: The table is generally well-organized, presenting the ingredients, dosages, and Nutrient Reference Values in a clear format. The use of separate columns for male and female formulas facilitates comparison and highlights any sex-specific differences in formulation.
  • Justification of dosages: While the table specifies the ingredients and their amounts, it lacks information on the rationale for the chosen dosages. Providing a brief justification for the selected amounts, referencing relevant literature or established guidelines, would strengthen the scientific rigor of the study.
  • Use of abbreviations: The table uses abbreviations (e.g., ALA, IU, NE, RE) without providing their full forms. While these may be familiar to experts in nutrition, providing the full forms would enhance clarity and accessibility for a broader scientific audience.
  • Organization of ingredients: The presentation could be improved by grouping related ingredients (e.g., vitamins, minerals, other nutrients) together. This would make it easier to compare the composition of the multivitamin across categories and identify potential synergistic or antagonistic effects.
Table 2. Full description of each outcome measure.
First Reference in Text
Please see Table 2 for full descriptions of outcome measures.
Description
  • Overview of outcome measures: Table 2 provides descriptions of the various outcome measures used in the study. These measures assess different aspects of wellbeing, mood, memory, physical health, activity, social interaction, loneliness, and nutritional intake. For each measure, the table provides a brief description of what it assesses, often including example items or questions from the measure. It also explains how the measure is scored and interpreted, such as indicating whether higher scores represent better or worse outcomes.
  • Table structure: The table is organized into rows, with each row dedicated to a different outcome measure. The first column lists the name of the measure, often including the abbreviation or acronym used in the study. The second column provides the description and interpretation of the measure.
  • Standardized measures: The table includes established questionnaires and scales like the ONS4, PSS, PSRS, HADS, POMS, PRMQ, CHIPS, SF-20, PSQI, YPAS, FES-I, Convoy Method, Lubben Social Network Scale, De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale, and a Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ). These are standardized tools used in research to assess various psychological and physical health constructs.
Scientific Validity
  • Validity of measures: The use of established and validated questionnaires and scales enhances the study's methodological rigor and allows for comparison with previous research. The inclusion of references for each measure further strengthens this aspect.
  • Transparency and reproducibility: The comprehensive description of outcome measures is crucial for transparency and reproducibility. This table provides sufficient detail for other researchers to understand and potentially replicate the study's assessment methods.
  • Justification of measures: The rationale for selecting these specific outcome measures is not explicitly stated. Connecting the chosen measures to the study's research questions and hypotheses would strengthen the justification for the chosen assessment battery.
  • Analyzed metrics: While the table describes the scoring and interpretation of each measure, it lacks information on the specific metrics used for analysis (e.g., total scores, subscale scores, specific items). Clarifying the analyzed metrics would enhance the transparency of the statistical analysis.
Communication
  • Clarity and structure: The table is well-organized, using clear headings and a consistent format for describing each outcome measure. The inclusion of example items and scoring interpretations enhances understanding.
  • Conciseness and detail: The descriptions are generally concise and easy to understand. However, some descriptions could benefit from more detail, particularly regarding the subscales and their interpretations.
  • Categorization of measures: The table would benefit from a clearer categorization of outcome measures. Grouping related measures (e.g., mood, cognition, social interaction) would improve readability and help readers quickly grasp the scope of the assessment.

RESULTS

Overview

This section, the heart of the experiment, tells us what happened when we gave older folks our special vitamin mix. Imagine the body as a complex machine with lots of dials and gauges. We wanted to see if tweaking the fuel (vitamins and minerals) would move those needles. We found some interesting things: women in the vitamin group reported feeling friendlier, while men felt less stressed and lonely. However, the main happiness dial didn't budge much for either group. It's like adding premium fuel to a car - it might improve some aspects of performance, but not necessarily overall speed.

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

Non-Text Elements

Fig. 1. Final participation disposition throughout the trial, cumulating in the...
Full Caption

Fig. 1. Final participation disposition throughout the trial, cumulating in the 228 participants who completed the study N = number of participants.

First Reference in Text
Participant disposition is displayed in Fig. 1 and demographic data in Table 3.
Description
  • Participant flow: Figure 1 is a flowchart that visually represents the number of participants at each stage of a clinical trial. It starts with the initial screening phase, where 266 participants were deemed eligible and sent the treatment (either a multivitamin or a placebo). Then, it shows the number of participants who completed the first visit (Visit 1, N=246), indicating some attrition. It further details the number of participants who completed the second visit (Visit 2, N=228), representing the final sample included in the analysis. The figure also breaks down the final sample by treatment group (Multivitamin and Placebo). Finally, it lists the reasons for participant withdrawal between Visit 1 and Visit 2.
  • Visual elements: The flowchart uses boxes to represent each stage of the trial, with the number of participants (N) indicated within each box. Arrows connect the boxes to show the progression of participants through the study. The reasons for participant withdrawal are listed alongside the corresponding arrow.
Scientific Validity
  • Adherence to reporting standards: Presenting participant flow is crucial for transparency and understanding potential biases introduced by attrition. This figure adheres to CONSORT guidelines by clearly showing the number of participants at each stage.
  • Attrition bias: While the figure shows the overall attrition rate, it doesn't provide details on the characteristics of the participants who withdrew at each stage. This information is important for assessing potential attrition bias. It's recommended to include a supplementary table with demographic and baseline characteristics of participants who withdrew at different stages, compared to those who completed the study.
  • Adverse event reporting: The figure mentions 'diarrhea reported' as a reason for withdrawal. It is important to clarify whether this was considered an adverse event related to the intervention or an unrelated incident. This is important for assessing the safety profile of the intervention.
Communication
  • Clarity and organization: The figure clearly presents the flow of participants through the study. The use of distinct visual elements (boxes, arrows, and labels) makes it easy to follow the different stages and reasons for attrition. The diagram effectively communicates the final sample size and overall retention rate.
  • Completeness of information: The figure would benefit from a clearer explanation of the "No contact to arrange Visit 1" group. Were these individuals screened but not sent treatment? Providing more detail about this group would improve transparency and understanding of the recruitment process.
  • Data presentation: Consider adding the percentages of participants retained/lost at each stage to provide a more readily interpretable overview of attrition. This would enhance the figure's communicative power.
Table 3. Participant demographic information for the 228 subjects who completed...
Full Caption

Table 3. Participant demographic information for the 228 subjects who completed the study (124 females, 104 males).

First Reference in Text
Participant disposition is displayed in Fig. 1 and demographic data in Table 3.
Description
  • Demographic data: Table 3 presents demographic information for the 228 participants who completed the study, broken down by sex (124 females, 104 males). The demographics include age, body mass index (BMI), years of education, daily caffeine intake, daily alcohol intake, daily fruit intake, and daily vegetable intake. For each demographic variable, the table provides the mean and standard deviation (SD) for each treatment group (Multivitamin and Placebo) and the overall total. It also includes p-values, presumably representing the results of statistical tests comparing the treatment groups.
  • Table structure: The table is organized in rows, with each row representing a different demographic variable. Columns represent the treatment groups (Multivitamin, Placebo, and Total) and the p-value for the comparison between the groups.
Scientific Validity
  • Baseline comparability: Presenting baseline demographic information is essential for assessing the comparability of treatment groups and identifying potential confounding factors. This table fulfills this purpose by providing key demographic data.
  • Statistical analysis: The lack of clarity regarding the specific statistical tests used for between-group comparisons limits the interpretability of the p-values. Specifying the tests would enhance transparency and allow for a more rigorous assessment of the results.
  • Attrition bias: The table only presents data for participants who completed the study. It's important to also consider the demographics of participants who dropped out to assess potential attrition bias. Providing demographic information for all enrolled participants, including those who withdrew, would strengthen the analysis.
  • Dietary data collection: The table presents dietary information (fruit and vegetable intake). It is important to clarify how this information was collected (e.g., food frequency questionnaire, dietary recall) and the timeframe considered (e.g., past week, past month). This would enhance the transparency and interpretability of the dietary data.
Communication
  • Clarity and structure: The table is clearly structured, presenting the demographic data in a user-friendly format. The use of means and standard deviations provides a concise summary of the data, and the inclusion of p-values allows for quick assessment of between-group differences.
  • Statistical tests: While the table provides p-values for comparisons between treatment groups, it lacks clarity on the specific statistical tests used. Specifying the tests (e.g., t-tests, ANOVA) would enhance transparency and allow readers to fully interpret the results.
  • Caption accuracy: The caption mentions "participant disposition" but the table focuses solely on demographics. Clarify the caption to accurately reflect the table's content, or consider moving the demographic data to a separate table.
Table 4. Mean nutrient intake for each vitamin/mineral for the low and high...
Full Caption

Table 4. Mean nutrient intake for each vitamin/mineral for the low and high intake group, split by treatment and sex. RDA shows recommended daily allowance for each sex.

First Reference in Text
See Table 4 for nutrient values in the high and low diet quality groups.
Description
  • Nutrient intake data: Table 4 presents the mean nutrient intake for various vitamins and minerals, stratified by sex (male and female), treatment group (multivitamin and placebo), and dietary intake level (low and high). The table includes data for beta-carotene, copper, iron, folate, iodine, manganese, niacin, vitamin A, vitamin B2, selenium, vitamin B1, vitamin B12, vitamin B6, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, and zinc. For each nutrient, the table provides the mean intake for each combination of sex, treatment, and intake level. It also includes the recommended daily allowance (RDA) for each nutrient, broken down by sex.
  • Table structure: The table is organized in rows, with each row representing a different nutrient. Columns represent the different combinations of sex, treatment, and intake level, as well as the RDA.
  • Intake groups: The "low" and "high" intake groups likely represent participants with lower and higher habitual intakes of the specific nutrients, respectively, based on a dietary assessment tool (e.g., food frequency questionnaire).
Scientific Validity
  • Stratified analysis: Presenting nutrient intake data stratified by treatment, sex, and baseline intake level is important for understanding the impact of the intervention on nutritional status and exploring potential interactions between these factors. This table provides valuable information for this purpose.
  • Definition of intake groups: The lack of clear definitions for "high" and "low" intake groups limits the interpretability of the results. Defining these groups based on specific cutoff values or percentiles would enhance the scientific rigor of the analysis.
  • Statistical analysis: The table does not provide any information on the statistical analysis of these nutrient intake data. Were any statistical tests conducted to compare nutrient intake between groups? If so, the results of these tests (e.g., p-values, effect sizes) should be included. If not, the rationale for not performing statistical comparisons should be explained.
  • Dietary assessment method: The method used to assess dietary intake (presumably a food frequency questionnaire, as mentioned in Table 2) is not explicitly stated here. Repeating this information would enhance clarity and ensure that readers understand the source of the nutrient intake data.
Communication
  • Organization and grouping: While the table provides a large amount of data, its organization could be improved. Grouping related vitamins/minerals (e.g., B vitamins, fat-soluble vitamins) would enhance readability and facilitate comparisons within nutrient categories.
  • Units of measurement: The units for nutrient intake are not consistently presented. Some are in mg, some in µg, and some in IU. Standardizing the units would improve clarity and prevent misinterpretations.
  • Definition of intake groups: The table would benefit from a clearer explanation of how "high" and "low" intake groups were determined. Specifying the cutoff values or percentiles used for categorization would enhance transparency.
Fig. 2. Significant treatment effects.
First Reference in Text
Adjusted means and standard error for treatment effects on a POMS friendliness score in females, b PSRS Prolonged Stress Reactivity in males, c PSRS Overall Reactivity in males and d De Jong emotional loneliness score in males.
Description
  • Graphical representation of treatment effects: Figure 2 presents bar graphs illustrating the significant treatment effects observed in the study. The figure includes four separate graphs, each representing a different outcome measure: (a) POMS Friendliness score in females, (b) PSRS Prolonged Stress Reactivity in males, (c) PSRS Overall Reactivity in males, and (d) De Jong Emotional Loneliness score in males. Each graph displays the adjusted means for the multivitamin (MVM) and placebo groups, along with error bars representing the standard error of the mean.
  • Graph organization: The graphs are organized into a 2x2 grid, with each graph occupying a separate panel. The x-axis of each graph represents the treatment group (MVM or Placebo), and the y-axis represents the score for the respective outcome measure.
Scientific Validity
  • Adjusted means and standard errors: Presenting the adjusted means and standard errors is appropriate for illustrating the treatment effects and their variability. The use of adjusted means suggests that the analysis controlled for potential confounding variables, which strengthens the validity of the results.
  • Non-significant outcomes: The figure only presents the results for the outcome measures that showed statistically significant treatment effects. While this is common practice, it's important to also consider the results for non-significant outcomes to provide a complete picture of the intervention's effects. A supplementary figure or table could be included to present the results for all outcome measures, regardless of statistical significance.
  • Statistical tests: The specific statistical tests used to determine the significance of the treatment effects are not mentioned in the figure caption or the accompanying text. Clearly stating the statistical tests used (e.g., ANCOVA) would enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the analysis.
  • Justification of presented outcomes: The rationale for selecting these specific outcome measures for graphical representation is not explicitly stated. Briefly explaining why these outcomes were chosen for highlighting would strengthen the justification for the figure.
Communication
  • Clarity and visual representation: The figure effectively uses bar graphs to visually represent the significant treatment effects, making it easy to compare the means of the multivitamin and placebo groups. The inclusion of error bars (standard error) provides a clear indication of the variability within each group.
  • Axis labels: The labeling of the graphs could be improved. While the y-axes are labeled, the x-axes only indicate "MVM" and "Placebo." Adding more descriptive labels (e.g., "Multivitamin Group," "Placebo Group") would enhance clarity.
  • Significance indicators: The figure caption mentions "significant treatment effects," but the figure itself doesn't directly indicate the significance level (e.g., p-values). Adding asterisks or other visual cues to denote significance levels would improve the interpretation of the results.
  • Panel labels: The panels (a, b, c, d) are referenced in the text, but not clearly labeled within the figure itself. Adding panel labels directly onto the figure would improve readability and cross-referencing.
Table 5. a Unadjusted Mean (SD), F values and P values for all wellbeing, mood...
Full Caption

Table 5. a Unadjusted Mean (SD), F values and P values for all wellbeing, mood and memory outcomes, split by Sex and Treatment. b Unadjusted Mean (SD), F values and P Values for all physical health and activity outcomes, split by Sex and Treatment. c Unadjusted Mean (SD), F values and P Values for all social interaction and loneliness outcomes, split by Sex and Treatment.

First Reference in Text
For full data see Table 5a-c.
Description
  • Presentation of outcome data: Table 5 presents the unadjusted means, standard deviations (SD), F-values, and p-values for all outcome measures in the study. The data are stratified by sex (male and female) and treatment group (multivitamin and placebo). The table is divided into three parts: (a) wellbeing, mood, and memory outcomes; (b) physical health and activity outcomes; and (c) social interaction and loneliness outcomes. Each part of the table includes data for a variety of specific measures within the respective outcome category.
  • Table structure: The table is organized in rows, with each row representing a different outcome measure. Columns represent the treatment groups (multivitamin and placebo) within each sex, along with the corresponding F-value and p-value from the statistical analysis.
  • F-values and p-values: The F-values and p-values likely represent the results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), given that the authors mention using ANCOVA elsewhere in the paper. The F-value is a statistic used in ANOVA and ANCOVA to assess the differences between group means, while the p-value indicates the probability of observing the obtained results if there were no true difference between the groups.
Scientific Validity
  • Transparency and completeness of data: Presenting the full data for all outcomes, including non-significant results, enhances transparency and allows for a comprehensive assessment of the intervention's effects. This table adheres to best practices by providing this complete dataset.
  • Unadjusted vs. adjusted means: The use of unadjusted means raises questions about the potential influence of confounding variables. While the authors mention using ANCOVA, which controls for covariates, the table only presents unadjusted values. Including the adjusted means (used in Figure 2) would provide a more accurate representation of the treatment effects.
  • Statistical analysis methods: The lack of explicit mention of the specific statistical tests used for each outcome limits the interpretability of the results. Clearly stating the tests employed (e.g., ANOVA, ANCOVA) and any post-hoc analyses performed would enhance transparency and reproducibility.
  • Data presentation and interpretation: The sheer volume of data presented in this table makes it challenging to discern clear patterns or draw meaningful conclusions. Consider reorganizing the data into separate tables for each outcome category or using more concise methods of data presentation (e.g., effect sizes, confidence intervals) to facilitate interpretation.
Communication
  • Table organization and readability: Presenting the full data in a single table, albeit split into parts a, b, and c, is generally acceptable. However, given the extensive number of outcomes, the table becomes quite dense and difficult to navigate. Consider splitting it into separate tables for each outcome category (wellbeing, mood, memory, physical health, activity, social interaction, and loneliness) to improve readability.
  • Clarity of statistical methods: The table provides valuable information by presenting means, standard deviations, F-values, and p-values for all outcomes. However, it lacks clarity on the specific statistical tests used. Explicitly stating the tests employed (e.g., ANOVA, ANCOVA) would enhance transparency.
  • Labeling of outcome measures: The table would benefit from clearer labeling of the outcome measures. While the abbreviations are likely familiar to experts in the field, providing the full names of the questionnaires and scales (e.g., "Perceived Stress Scale" instead of "PSS") would improve accessibility for a broader audience.

DISCUSSION

Overview

This Discussion section, like a mechanic explaining the results of a tune-up, summarizes the key findings of the MVM supplementation study, highlighting the observed improvements in friendliness in women and reductions in stress reactivity and loneliness in men. It acknowledges the lack of effect on overall wellbeing, similar to a car's overall speed not changing despite engine improvements. The discussion explores potential explanations for these findings, like investigating different fuel types for optimal performance, considering factors such as nutrient bioavailability and the potential influence of baseline diet quality. It also connects the results to previous research, like comparing the car's performance to other similar models, and discusses the study's limitations, acknowledging potential missing parts that could affect the overall assessment. Finally, it suggests directions for future research, recommending further tests and adjustments to gain a more complete understanding of the MVM's effects, much like a mechanic suggesting further diagnostics to optimize the car's performance.

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

↑ Back to Top