Sources and preferences for nutrition information among older adults: A scoping review

Jane McClinchy; Angela Dickinson; Emily Barnes; Tai Ibitoye; John Jackson; Amander Wellings

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0341015

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 28, 2025
13 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Anh Nguyen, Editor Dear Dr. McClinchy, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 27 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Dr Anh Nguyen Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. During your revisions, please note that a simple title correction is required: Amend the title to remove ' Title: ' . Please ensure this is updated in the manuscript file and the online submission information. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “This work was supported by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Food for added life years: Putting research into action (Food4Years) grant. [Award Reference RCP1007006, Funder Reference BB/W018349/1]. All authors contributed to the study design and agreed on the final article. TI and EB extracted the data, and JJ reviewed the data and confirmed study inclusion for the first search. JM and AD undertook the updated search. JM undertook the analysis and constructed the final article with AD. The research team is grateful for the support of the public advisory group in the monitoring of the study and Dr Rosalind Fallaize is acknowledged for their support in the design of the search process.” We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “Initials: JM, AD, Grant number: Award Reference RCP1007006, Funder Reference BB/W018349/1 Full name of each funder: Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Food for added life years: Putting research into action (Food4Years) grant. URL: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=BB%2FW018349%2F1 The funders did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found. 5. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for submitting this interesting review. To improve clarity and methodological transparency, please consider the following points: • Please clarify and justify the definition of “older people” and the chosen age threshold, noting variations across international frameworks (e.g., UN, WHO, OECD). This should be addressed in the Introduction. • In lines 53–56, please briefly define “anorexia of ageing” for reader clarity, rephrase to avoid implying a direct causal link, and consider including psychological factors (e.g., depression, social isolation) for a more balanced explanation. • The use of different screening tools (Rayyan vs Excel) and reviewer teams across the two search phases raises potential concerns about consistency and inter-rater reliability; further clarification is recommended. • The paragraph in lines 478–493 reads as a list and lacks synthesis. Please integrate findings from prior studies and your review results more cohesively to improve flow and clarity. • In the Acknowledgements section, please remove information about funding or competing interests. These should be reported separately in accordance with the Submission Guidelines. Thank you for your careful attention to these points. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Sources of nutrition information used and preferred by older people: A scoping review Peer Review Report Title The title can be rephrased, as the most suitable title for an academic journal should be based on clarity, scholarly tone, and alignment with scoping review conventions. My suggestion is: “Sources and Preferences for Nutrition Information Among Older Adults: A Scoping Review” This version is precise, avoids redundancy, and clearly signals the population, topic, and methodology. It uses “older adults,” which is preferred in academic and public health literature over “older people,” and it balances specificity with broad relevance for indexing and citation. Abstract The abstract clearly identifies the public health relevance of nutrition information for older adults, especially in the context of malnutrition risk. It outlines the scoping review methodology, including databases searched and inclusion criteria. The findings are succinctly presented, with attention to both source types and influencing factors. However, my suggestions are as follows: 1. Redundancy: Lines 14–16 repeat the aim unnecessarily. Consider condensing this into one clear sentence. 2. Clarity of Findings: The phrasing “8 studies showed…” and “6 studies showed…” is vague. Were these mutually exclusive? Did some studies report multiple sources? 3. Terminology: “Embodied knowledge” is mentioned without definition—this may confuse readers unfamiliar with the term. 4. Impact and Implications: The conclusion could more clearly articulate how future research or interventions might build on these findings. Also, I suggested revising the Abstract. See the Suggested Revision of the Abstract below and you can add other information that are not included. Revised Abstract - A nutritionally adequate diet is essential for older adults to support healthy ageing and reduce the risk of malnutrition. With over a million older people in the UK affected or at risk, understanding where they source nutrition information is critical for designing effective public health interventions. This scoping review mapped existing studies on the sources and preferences for nutrition information among older adults. A comprehensive search of PUBMED, Scopus, and CINAHL (March 2023; updated February 2025) yielded 8936 records, of which 15 studies reporting on 14 research projects met inclusion criteria. Common sources included magazines, television, dietitians, general practitioners, family and friends, and personal experience (“embodied knowledge”), with educational level, gender, and trust influencing uptake and use. Further research is needed to assess the impact of these information sources and identify strategies to support older adults in making informed food choices that promote healthy ageing. Introduction 1. Clarify the conceptual framework guiding the review—what theoretical lens informs the exploration of information sources? 2. Strengthen the rationale by linking the topic to broader public health goals such as SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). 3. Specify whether the review focuses on older adults in community settings, care homes, or both. 4. Consider integrating recent UK policy or demographic data to reinforce the urgency of addressing malnutrition in ageing populations. Methods 1. Condense repetitive phrasing in some of the sub-sections and restate the aim and could be merged for clarity. 2. Provide more detail on inclusion/exclusion criteria—were qualitative studies included, and how was “preference” operationalized? 3. Clarify whether the review followed a formal framework (e.g., Arksey & O’Malley or PRISMA-ScR). Draw the PRISMA flow diagram again to reflect the Arksey & O’Malley PRISMA diagram. 4. Indicate whether any quality appraisal of included studies was conducted, even if not required for scoping reviews. Results Presentation 1. Reorganize findings to distinguish between frequency of use and preference for sources—these are conceptually distinct. 2. Quantify overlaps—did some studies report multiple sources, and how were these counted? 3. Define “embodied knowledge” for clarity, as it may be unfamiliar to readers outside qualitative health research. 4. Consider presenting findings in a table or figure to improve accessibility and comparative insight. Discussion 1. Deepen the analysis of how trust, gender, and education shape engagement with nutrition information. 2. Reflect on digital literacy and access—are older adults using online sources, and what barriers exist? 3. Compare findings with international literature to situate the UK context within broader ageing and nutrition trends. 4. Explore how cultural norms or generational attitudes may influence source preference and credibility. Strengths and Limitations 1. Highlight the breadth of databases searched and the update in 2025 as strengths. 2. Acknowledge the limited number of included studies relative to the initial search yield. 3. Note potential publication bias—were grey literature or non-English studies excluded? 4. Discuss limitations in generalizability, especially if most studies focused on specific subgroups or regions. Implications of Findings 1. Suggest how findings could inform tailored nutrition education strategies for older adults. 2. Recommend integrating trusted sources (e.g., GPs, family) into public health messaging campaigns. 3. Highlight the need for co-designed interventions that reflect older adults’ lived experiences and preferences. 4. Encourage future research to explore the effectiveness of different information sources in changing dietary behaviour. Conclusion/Recommendations 1. Reframe the conclusion to emphasize actionable insights for practitioners and policymakers. 2. Specify which stakeholders (e.g., NHS, local councils, charities) could implement the recommendations. 3. Suggest developing age-friendly nutrition communication tools that accommodate sensory, cognitive, and literacy needs. 4. Reinforce the importance of ongoing evaluation to assess the impact of information sources on dietary outcomes. Proofreading and Editing 1. Eliminate redundancy in aim statements and streamline sentence flow. 2. Correct minor grammatical inconsistencies (e.g., “nutrition5 status” should be “nutrition status”). 3. Ensure consistent terminology—use “older adults” or “older people” uniformly. 4. Improve transitions between sentences to enhance narrative cohesion. References/In-Citations 1. Ensure all cited studies are current and relevant to the UK context or comparable ageing populations. 2. Include foundational scoping review methodology references (e.g., Levac et al., PRISMA-ScR). 3. Cite key public health reports on malnutrition in older adults (e.g., Age UK, NHS Digital). 4. Verify that all in-text citations match the reference list and follow the journal’s formatting style. Reviewer #2: This is a well conducted scoping review and mionor revisions are recommended. Abstract Line 15- a word is missing? Introduction Make the first paragraph more general so it applies globally. Line 48- ‘often lower’ Line 48/49 Note some nutrient requirements do change, for example vitamin D and calcium – reference needed for this statement Line 54 Age-related anorexia is decreased appetite Line 58- malnutrition is not normally defined this way- see Cederholm 2017 and more recent papers on GLIM; low bmi and weight loss are used when there are not more complete indicators of malnutrition in epidemiologic surveys e.g. Wolters 2019 The importance of understanding poor nutrition is important; you could cite the Malnutrition Awareness Tool that has been recently developed and validated in the Netherlands as an example of moving towards understanding older adults perceptions of malnutrition- suggest incorporating in the paragraph between lines 74 and 83 Line 103- clarify the them in this line to ‘food labels’ Line 185- describe the research team and public advisory group earlier in the methods- who were these people? What was their respective roles? Clarify if extraction was done in duplicate or checked by a second author Table 1- clarify the population- literature was included beyond UK, fix in first left column Results Table 2- Maccharle- spell out short forms in most right column Table 2- Turner-final column ‘devices’ vs. devises’ Line 232 ‘other’ North America as Canada is in NA Line 255-58- this statement belongs in the Discussion Lines 297-300 review these sentences for overuse of ‘for example’ and incorrect punctuation Line 343 ‘cross sectional’ Line 351 missing a % Line 397- spelling of labels Line 495 awkward sentence and missing final bracket on reference Line 509 awkward sentence; the role of the advisory group was not clear in the methods ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: Yes: Monica Ewomazino Akokuwebe, PhD Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Peer Review_Sources of nutrition information.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341015.r001
Revision 1
4 Dec 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewers, Thank you for your thorough and in-depth comments on our paper. We are grateful for the opportunity to make improvements. Please see below our response and or where you can find the amendments suggested: Editor Comments: , • Please clarify and justify the definition of “older people” and the chosen age threshold, noting variations across international frameworks (e.g., UN, WHO, OECD). This should be addressed in the Introduction. , We have revised to older adults inline with most of the included studies. We have justified the age range in the introduction lines 144-149 • In lines 53–56, please briefly define “anorexia of ageing” for reader clarity, rephrase to avoid implying a direct causal link, and consider including psychological factors (e.g., depression, social isolation) for a more balanced explanation. , We have revised and simplified. (lines 45-46) • The use of different screening tools (Rayyan vs Excel) and reviewer teams across the two search phases raises potential concerns about consistency and inter-rater reliability; further clarification is recommended. , Revised see page 8 lines 206-213 • The paragraph in lines 478–493 reads as a list and lacks synthesis. Please integrate findings from prior studies and your review results more cohesively to improve flow and clarity. , Revised-lines 559-575 • In the Acknowledgements section, please remove information about funding or competing interests. These should be reported separately in accordance with the Submission Guidelines. , Removed Reviewer 1 , Title The title can be rephrased, as the most suitable title for an academic journal should be based on clarity, scholarly tone, and alignment with scoping review conventions. My suggestion is: “Sources and Preferences for Nutrition Information Among Older Adults: A Scoping Review” This version is precise, avoids redundancy, and clearly signals the population, topic, and methodology. It uses “older adults,” which is preferred in academic and public health literature over “older people,” and it balances specificity with broad relevance for indexing and citation. , We have amended according to your suggestion Abstract The abstract clearly identifies the public health relevance of nutrition information for older adults, especially in the context of malnutrition risk. It outlines the scoping review methodology, including databases searched and inclusion criteria. The findings are succinctly presented, with attention to both source types and influencing factors. However, my suggestions are as follows: , We have amended according to your suggestion 1. Redundancy: Lines 14–16 repeat the aim unnecessarily. Consider condensing this into one clear sentence. , Revised according to your suggestion lines 2. Clarity of Findings: The phrasing “8 studies showed…” and “6 studies showed…” is vague. Were these mutually exclusive? Did some studies report multiple sources? , Revised according to your suggestion 3. Terminology: “Embodied knowledge” is mentioned without definition—this may confuse readers unfamiliar with the term. , We have added in a definition in the abstract line 13 4. Impact and Implications: The conclusion could more clearly articulate how future research or interventions might build on these findings. , We have revised Also, I suggested revising the Abstract. See the Suggested Revision of the Abstract below and you can add other information that are not included. Revised Abstract - A nutritionally adequate diet is essential for older adults to support healthy ageing and reduce the risk of malnutrition. With over a million older people in the UK affected or at risk, understanding where they source nutrition information is critical for designing effective public health interventions. This scoping review mapped existing studies on the sources and preferences for nutrition information among older adults. A comprehensive search of PUBMED, Scopus, and CINAHL (March 2023; updated February 2025) yielded 8936 records, of which 15 studies reporting on 14 research projects met inclusion criteria. Common sources included magazines, television, dietitians, general practitioners, family and friends, and personal experience (“embodied knowledge”), with educational level, gender, and trust influencing uptake and use. Further research is needed to assess the impact of these information sources and identify strategies to support older adults in making informed food choices that promote healthy ageing. , Thank you, we have made incorporated your suggestions into a revision of the abstract. Introduction 1. Clarify the conceptual framework guiding the review—what theoretical lens informs the exploration of information sources? , We have explicitly referred to health information practice line 84 under the heading ‘Nutrition education resources used by older people’ and the use of the conceptual framework of health information practice in the aim. Line 148 2. Strengthen the rationale by linking the topic to broader public health goals such as SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). , We have added a sentence referring to malnutrition being a global concern. Line 59 3. Specify whether the review focuses on older adults in community settings, care homes, or both. , We have included the term free living in the aim, line 152, referred to the exclusion of studies that focus on those living in long term care facilities alone and reviewed the settings referred to in the studies to ensure that it is clear that the participants were free living although they may have been recruited whilst attending a hospital (see table 3 page 15). 4. Consider integrating recent UK policy or demographic data to reinforce the urgency of addressing malnutrition in ageing populations. , We have added references to UK policy and demographic data 16,19-21 Methods Condense repetitive phrasing in some of the sub-sections and restate the aim and could be merged for clarity , We have removed repetitive phrasing, restated the aim line 159-161 and combined sections Provide more detail on inclusion criteria-were qualitative studies included, and how was ‘preference’ operationalized? , We have referred to the need for eligible papers to refer to primary research in the text under the heading ‘criteria for inclusion’. Qualitative studies were included as indicated in table 2. Food preferences was one of the potential outcomes for eligible studies. See table 2 Clarify whether the review followed a formal framework (e.g. Arksey & O’Malley or PRISMA-ScR). Draw the PRISMA diagram again to reflect the Arksey & O’Malley PRISMA diagram. , We have revised the text to explain our use of a combination of Arksey and O’Malley and Levac methodologies. Lines 157-169. We have revised the PRISMA template to reflect that we used databases as our sources and and included table 1 to lay out the search process line 152 Indicate whether any quality appraisal of included studies was conducted, even if not required for scoping reviews , We did undertake a quality assessment. We have added a sentence indicating this. Lines 1171-173. The quality assessment is supplied in supporting information. Results Presentation Reorganize findings to distinguish between frequency of use and preferences for sources-these are conceptually distinct , We have emphasised the difference in the concepts by revising the title to this section and revising the wording. Line 262-266 Quantify overlaps-did some studies report multiple sources and how were these counted? , This has been emphasised in the paragraph Sources relied on and preferred. Only 4 studies explored one source of information. Lines 263-266 Define ‘embodied knowledge’ for clarity, as it may be unfamiliar to readers outside qualitative health research , We have strengthened the explanation of embodied knowledge in the introduction. Lines 83-85 Consider presenting findings in a table or figure to improve accessibility and comparative insight , We have included an additional Table 6: Subthemes by study. Line 270 Discussion Deepen the analysis of how trust, gender, and education shape engagement with nutrition information. , We have enhanced these aspects trust lines 633-649, gender lines 597-613, education 615-631 Reflect on digital literacy and access-are older adults using online sources, and what barriers exist? , This has been revised as requested by the editor lines 559-575 Compare findings with international literature to situate the UK context within broader ageing and nutrition trends. , We have cited and referred to international literature references 68-91 Explore how cultural norms or generational attitudes may influence source preference and credibility , See lines 608-613 Strength and Limitations Highlight the breadth of databases searched and the update in 2025 as strengths , Line 666 Acknowledge the limited number of included studies relative to the initial search yield , Line 669 Note potential publication bias-were grey literature or non-English studies excluded? , Lines 674-678 Discuss limitations in generalizability, especially if most studies focused on specific subgroups or regions , Lines 678-681 Implications of Findings Suggest how findings could inform tailored nutrition education strategies for older adults. , Lines 702-709 Recommend integrating trusted sources (e.g., GPs, family) into public health messaging campaigns , Lines 704-705 Highlight the need for co-designed interventions that reflect older adults’ lived experiences and preferences , Lines 706-707 Encourage future research to explore the effectiveness of difference information sources in changing dietary behaviour. , Line 694 Conclusion/Recommendations Reframe the conclusion to emphasize actionable insights for practitioners and policymakers , We have reframed this focussing on involving older people and in the development and evaluation of online tools-line 719 Specify which stakeholders (e.g., NHS, local councils, charities) could implement the recommendations , We have specified national, local councils and charities Suggest developing age-friendly nutrition communication tools that accommodate sensory, cognitive, and literacy needs. , We have included this line 721 Reinforce the importance of ongoing evaluation to assess the impact of information sources on dietary outcomes. , We have included this line 694 Proofreading and editing , Eliminate redundancy in aim statements and streamline sentence flow , We have reduced this section and simplified the aim lines 152-154 Correct minor grammatical inconsistencies (e.g., ‘nutrition5 status’ should be ‘nutrition status’) , We have corrected this error Ensure consistent terminology-use ‘older adults’ or ‘older people’ uniformly. , We have revised to older adults apart from where a specific study uses the word in their aim or title Improve transitions between sentences to enhance narrative cohesion , We have rewritten to ensure transitions References/In-Citations , Ensure all cited studies are current and relevant to the UK context or comparable ageing populations , These have been checked Include foundational scoping review methodology references (e.g. Levac et al., PRISMA-SCR). , References 42 and 43 Cite key public health reports on malnutrition in older adults ( e.g. Age UK, NHS Digital). , References 16 and 19 Verify that all in-text citations match the reference list and follow the journal’s formatting style , We have checked the references Reviewer 2. This is a well conducted scoping review and minor revisions are recommended , Abstract Line 15-a word is missing? , We have revised the abstract Introduction Make the first paragraph more general so it applies globally , Line 29 Line 48- ‘often lower’ , Revised Line 48/49 Note some nutrition requirements do change for example vitamin D and calcium-reference needed for this statement , We have used SACN which is the latest guidance on nutrition requirements for the UK reference 5 p29 Line 54 Age-related anorexia is decreased appetite , We have revised this line 39 Line 58 –malnutrition is not normally defined this was-see Cederholm 2017 and more recent papers on GLIM; low bmi and weight loss are used when there are not more complete indicators of malnutrition in epidemiological surveys e.g. Wolters 2019 , We have revised this and replaced the Cederholm reference with the reference referring to the two-stage approach. Lines 43-46 The importance of understanding poor nutrition is important; you could cite the Malnutrition Awareness Tool that has been recently developed in the Netherlands as an example of moving towards understanding older adults perceptions of malnutrition-suggest incorporating in the paragraph between lines 74 and 83 , We have incorporated this- line 67-69 ref 22 Line 103-clarify the them in this line to ‘food labels’ , Food labels, we have revised this Line 185-describe the research team and public advisory group earlier in the methods-who were these people? What was their respective roles? , We have described this in the introduction lines 137-149 Clarify if extraction was done in duplicate or checked by a second author , Extraction was undertaken by each assessor confirmed with each other and checked by the lead author line -224 Table 1-clarify the population-literature was included beyond the UK, fix in the first left column , Revised: This was expanded to international as few studies involved older people who lived in the UK. Results , Table 2-Maccharle-spell out short forms in the most right column , Revised Table 2-Turner-final column ‘devices’ vs. ‘devises' , Revised Line 232 ‘other’ North America as Canada is in NA , Revised North America to United States of America line 232 Line 255-58-This statement belongs in the discussion , We have moved this to strengths and weaknesses Lines 297-300 review these sentences for overuse of ‘for example’ and incorrect punctuation , We have revised this -line 373 Line 343 ‘cross sectional’ , We have corrected this -line 411 Line 351 missing a % , We have corrected this -lines 291-293 Line 397-spelling of labels , We have corrected this line 446 Line 495 awkward sentence; the role of advisory group was not clear in the methods , We have clarified -lines 137-149 Use PACE for figure upload-see revision email for how to do this , We have undertaken this , , https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341015.r002
30 Dec 2025 Decision Letter - Anh Nguyen, Editor Sources and preferences for nutrition information among older adults: A scoping review. PONE-D-25-20562R1 Dear Dr. McClinchy, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Dr Anh Nguyen Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341015.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Anh Nguyen, Editor PONE-D-25-20562R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. McClinchy, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Anh Nguyen Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341015.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .