# Multi-actor co-creation of innovative protein-rich appetisers for older adults: From the kitchen to real-life consumer tasting

Sarah Domingie, Anne Saint-Eve, Lucia Espinosa-Brisset, Agnès Giboreau, Audrey Cosson

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Sarah Domingie, Anne Saint-Eve, Lucia Espinosa-Brisset, Agnès Giboreau, Audrey Cosson. Multi-actor co-creation of innovative protein-rich appetisers for older adults: From the kitchen to real-life consumer tasting. Food Quality and Preference, 2025, 134, pp.105660. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105660. hal-05303156

HAL Id: hal-05303156

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05303156v1

Submitted on 8 Oct 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

# Multi-actor co-creation of innovative protein-rich appetisers for older adults: From the kitchen to real-life consumer tasting

Sarah Domingie<sup>a,b</sup>, Anne Saint-Eve<sup>a,*</sup>, Lucia Espinosa-Brisset<sup>a</sup>, Agnès Giboreau<sup>b</sup>, Audrey Cosson<sup>b</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

**Keywords:**

Participative research

Creativity assessment

Food product development

Multi-criteria assessment

Real-life consumer study

## ABSTRACT

Co-creation has gained attention for its potential to develop new food products that align with consumer expectations and acceptance. However, culinary co-creation, particularly involving key food system stakeholders, remains underexplored. This study examines stakeholder group composition in culinary co-creation to develop innovative food tailored for community-living older adults (55–75 years). Co-creation workshops aimed to develop an initial prototype appetiser into a final food product. Two group compositions were tested: one consisting solely of older adult consumers (C) and another compromising a mix of older adults, culinary, and health experts (C + E). Six workshops were conducted, involving 27 participants, featuring tastings and culinary creation sessions with a chef. The study explored cognitive creativity differences through a thematic analysis of idea generation. Satisfaction and participation levels, measured using Likert scales, indicated similar participant creativity levels between the two group compositions. Independent expert judges evaluated the co-created foods on novelty, workability, and adequacy, using a multi-criteria evaluation tool. This approach led to the selection of three developed appetisers, for a consumer study involving 236 older adults, evaluated in an experimental restaurant setting. The initial prototype's liking score (6.2 ± 1.5) was significantly lower than the appetisers developed by the consumers group (6.8 ± 1.5) and the mixed group (7.0 ± 1.5) (ANOVA, *p* < 0.001). This study introduces a novel multi-stakeholder protocol for co-creation in a culinary context, showcasing potential in developing tailored foods for older adults and providing valuable insights for future research and practical implementation within the food industry.

## 1. Introduction

Co-creation is a process of collective creativity (Sanders & Stappers, 2008) that is increasingly employed in various domains, including during new product development (NPD). Such participatory approaches utilise diverse stakeholders, including consumers, leveraging their knowledge and creativity during creation phases. Tailoring products to consumer needs and preferences ensures greater appropriateness and acceptance, especially important for novel or innovative food products (El Nemar et al., 2022).

Examples of co-creation are present in scientific literature for various food products co-created with different population groups, including children, adolescents (Kokkorou et al., 2025), young and middle-aged adults. Co-creation may centre on health objectives (Barone et al., 2021; Bevelander et al., 2019; Velázquez et al., 2022), reducing waste

(Jenkins et al., 2023), or developing novel, sustainable foods (Banović et al., 2016; Grasso et al., 2022). For the senior population, health is often the focus, for instance the co-creation of protein-fortified recipes by community dwelling older adults over 70 (Smith et al., 2022) and the development of a heart-healthy lasagne for older adults (over 70) (Volpe et al., 2021). However, most studies focus on food ideation, with few involving actual food prototyping (Hoyer et al., 2010).

Despite the importance of targeting needs and specificities of ‘younger’ older adults, from 50 onwards, (Teggart et al., 2022), there are few food co-creation studies for this population. Considering that the number of older adults is projected to double between 2015 and 2050 (United Nations, 2020), it is critical to focus on community-dwelling older adults, who are in a transitionary ageing phase. This population may begin to experience physiological (including sensorial) modifications, including decreased masticatory ability, as well as, reduced

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR SayFood, 91120, Palaiseau, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Institut Lyfe Research Centre, 1A Chemin de Calabert, Ecully 69130, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: anne.saint-eve@agroparistech.fr (A. Saint-Eve).</footnote>
olfactory and gustatory sensitivity (Doets & Kremer, 2016; Field & Duizer, 2016). This in turn can impact food pleasure and adequate macro- and micro-nutrient intake, which are essential in maintaining health status and limiting risk to age-related diseases such as osteoporosis, sarcopenia, and malnutrition (Chew et al., 2022; de Almeida et al., 2001; Leij-Halfwerk et al., 2019).

Food co-creation often uses in-person or on-line focus groups (Barone et al., 2021) or a questionnaire approach (Grasso et al., 2022). Few approaches are reported explicitly integrating chefs with target consumers (Dean et al., 2022). Including chefs promotes the integration of culinary expertise, with their knowledge of ingredient association, creativity, and practical knowledge. This maximises potential for food pleasure which is key in liking and acceptance, especially of unusual or novel ingredients. However, whilst multiple actors can leverage diverse knowledge, group interactions may hinder or heighten creativity (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). Typically, studies may compare co-creation between consumers of different countries (Banović et al., 2016; Barone et al., 2021; Grasso et al., 2022), or different types of consumers (Domenici et al., 2025), but typically not comparing different group compositions.

With the rise of food co-creation, it is timely to reflect on frameworks for measuring the process and effectiveness of outcomes (Ohnishi et al., 2024). Creativity (and co-creation) is a complex, multifaceted process, with many definitions and proposed frameworks for its research (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). The social psychology of creativity, such as intrinsic motivation, personality traits, collaboration in group dynamics, and environment can impact performance. Additionally, cognitive processes, such as divergent thinking, ('out-of-the-box') idea generation, and cognitive flexibility can lead to more creative thinking (Amabile, 1983; Said Metwaly et al., 2017). It is outside the scope of this article to explore all factors influencing creativity but briefly considering existing measures of creativity can guide food co-creation indicators. Here we present measures that can be made across the 4 P's framework of creativity, focusing on the Person, Process, Press, and Product (Rhodes, 1961) and their pertinence for being used to investigate co-creation workshop composition (Öztürk, 2024).

**Process:** Several divergent thinking tests, such as the Torrence Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), are commonly used to measure cognitive processes. These tests often focus on scoring ideas to measure the quantity and quality of participant responses to a given challenge or problem (Said Metwaly et al., 2017). However, these tests are time-consuming and generally more focused on quantitative than qualitative analysis (Silvia et al., 2009). When comparing different group compositions, we hypothesise that focusing on the nature and themes of the different ideas will give practical insights into the cognitive creativity of food development ideation.

The **Press** approach involves the interaction between the participant and the environment, which can indirectly encourage or discourage creativity (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). Tools such as KEYS (Amabile et al., 1996) or the Siegel Scale of Support of Innovation (SSSI) (Siegel & Kaemmerer, 1978) measure psychosocial indicators capturing group cohesiveness, participation, satisfaction, or the clear organization of activities (Said Metwaly et al., 2017). Co-creation with children and chefs (Cook Like a Boss project) used process evaluation surveys highlighting the quality, completeness, and satisfaction of participants (Dean et al., 2022; Saunders et al., 2005). Given that the environment, including other co-creators, can impact social creativity, it is pertinent to measure participant perception of satisfaction, creativity, and involvement in the context of this study.

**Product:** The final output of co-creation workshops can be measured using the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT). This method involves domain-specific experts evaluating creativity through a Likert scale, as developed by Amabile (1982). While this evaluation is typically applied to ideation context, the criteria can also be adapted to assess tangible products resulting from cooking workshops. For instance, the criteria used by chefs (experts in the domain) to judge the adequacy,

workability, novelty, and clarity of rice-based product ideas (Castanho et al., 2023) can be similarly applied to real foods. This study will use similar criteria to investigate pertinence of co-created foods for older adult consumers.

**Person:** Self-assessment tests measure personality traits which may identify creative attributes such as “attraction to complexity, high energy, behavioural flexibility, intuition, emotional variability, self-esteem, risk taking, perseverance, independence, introversion, social poise and tolerance to ambiguity” (Said Metwaly et al., 2017). Such tests may be useful in understanding the intrinsic creativity level of participants involved in the co-creation process. However given this study's objective to investigate different group compositions and the time constraints involved with food preparation, individual creativity measures were not measured.

In this context, this study explores the following questions:

* What indicators can be used to assess co-creation among different group compositions?

* How does co-creation differ between consumer-only and consumer-expert workshops, and what impact does involving experts have on workshop dynamics and recipe characteristics?

* Are co-created products appreciated by older adults in realistic contexts?

To answer these, we compared food co-creation workshops with a chef across two different groups: a) older adults only, and b) older adults with dietary and culinary experts. Co-creation is an opportunity to involve consumers in developing novel foods, which is especially relevant as older adults may exhibit strongly anchored consumer habits or food neophobia (Soucier et al., 2019). Therefore, this study focused on a vegetarian appetiser containing innovative ingredients (flour and textured vegetable proteins from green lentils) to explore co-creation within a food transition context.

We explored 1) cognitive creativity via qualitative analysis of idea generation, 2) social creativity via participant workshop assessments, and 3) product pertinence using multi-criteria evaluation by independent judges. With no a priori hypotheses, a further phase evaluates consumer liking, crucial for acceptance and adoption, especially in older adults (Spence & Youssef, 2021). This research advances co-creation approaches for developing tailored foods for specific populations.

## 2. Materials and methods

The experimental approach illustrated in Fig. 1 depicts the consecutive study phases. The initial phases (0. Multi-actor co-ideation and 1. Initial prototype development) formed part of another study and not discussed in this manuscript. Co-ideation refers to the collaborative generation of ideas to define product concepts. Co-creation goes further, involving iterative development and testing of prototypes with active participant engagement, such as real-time tasting and recipe adjustments. In this study, co-creation workshops focused on hands-on optimisation of food products with older adults and experts.

### 2.1. Culinary co-creation workshops

#### 2.1.1. Participants

Using flyers and social media, 24 older adults (55-75 years) were recruited for the workshops, aided by a semi-directive telephone interview (see supplementary table 1). Inclusion criteria specified being creative in the kitchen and cooking without a recipe, per Amabile's model of creativity requiring a certain expertise and motivation (Amabile, 1998). Those with allergies, dietary restrictions, taste/smell loss, distaste for included ingredients, or pathologies impacting diet were excluded. To avoid cross-over with experts, participants with experience in the nutrition or culinary sectors were excluded. Project objectives were explained to participants, that the workshops focused on creating appetising foods for older adults using novel ingredients
## 0. Multi-actor co-ideation

Older adults (55-75), food and nutrition
scientists, agricultural students, chefs (n=31)

## 1. Initial prototype development

Chef creation of vegetarian appetiser
based on co-ideation workshops

## 2. Generation of co-created appetisers

Modification of prototype with different
workshops compositions (n=27)

## 3. Evaluation of appetisers

Multi-criteria evaluation (novelty, feasibility, nutrition,
sustainability, visual) by domain-specific judges (n=14)

## 4. Consumer appreciation of selected appetisers

Liking of different appetisers in a restaurant
setting (n=236)

## 5. Conclusions

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Summary of multi-phase study progression: 0) Multi-actor co-ideation leading to 1) chef development of a vegetarian appetiser. (These steps, 0 and 1, are not discussed in this article). 2) This initial prototype was used in six culinary workshops, resulting in six co-created appetisers. Two workshop compositions were explored: only older adult consumers (C) or older adult consumers with experts: a culinary student and registered dietician (C + E). 3) Co-created and initial prototype appetisers were subject to multi-criteria evaluation. Resulting scores were used as a metric to choose appetisers for final phase. 4) Three different appetisers (initial prototype, C version, C + E version) were served as a starter in a realistic consumption setting. Stars indicate where co-creation indicators were used to explore differences between workshop composition.</figcaption></figure>

(textured vegetable protein), without mentioning the two group com-
positions, or any specific nutritional or sustainability targets. Partici-
pants were assigned to one of six workshops based on availability. Three
participants couldn't attend, resulting in a final convenience sample of
21 older adult consumers (see Table 1).

In parallel, three independent registered dieticians (all female, mean age 28 ± 2 years) working in the Lyon region were recruited, who received 80€ in gift cards after completing the workshop. Recruitment age was limited to less than 40 years to reduce overlap with older adults. Three culinary school students (two female – Master level, one male 3rd year Bachelor level, mean age 21 ± 1) at a French culinary school were recruited based on availability and motivation for the project.

A total of six workshops were organised: three with consumers-only (C) and three with consumer-expert mix of a registered dietitian and a culinary student (C + E). Number of participants in the different groups was as follows:

<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

Judges (n = 14) included in the evaluation of five different criteria for assessing the co-created appetisers.

<table><thead><tr><th>Judge</th><th>Feasibility</th><th>Originality</th><th>Nutrition</th><th>Sustainability</th><th>Visual appeal</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>J1</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>J2</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>J3</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>J4</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>J5</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>J6</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>J7</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>J8</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>J9</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>J10</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>J11</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>J12</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>J13</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>J14</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>7</td></tr></tbody></table>

* C-1: five older adults,

* C-2: five older adults;

* C-3: four older adults;

* C + E-1: one older adult (two further recruited older adult participants were unable to attend due to unforeseen circumstances), one dietitian and one culinary student;

* C + E-2: three older adults, one dietitian and one culinary student;

* C + E-3: three older adults, one dietitian and one culinary student.

No participants (older adult or expert) participated in more than one workshop. All participants gave signed informed consent and received a small box of chocolates at the end of the workshop. For all workshops, there was a moderator (project team member) and a research and innovation chef, who were the same for all six sessions.

### 2.1.2. Food products

Previous to the present study, a preliminary phase of co-ideation was carried out (phase 0 in Fig. 1), where older adults (55–75 years), agricultural students, nutritional scientists and chefs followed Knowledge-Conception-Proposal (KCP®) (Hatchuel & Weil, 2003) workshops integrating sensory stimuli to brainstorm ideas for a healthy, sustainable appetiser (Cosson et al., 2024, manuscript under review). The results of these previous ideation workshops were analysed by experts through a multi-criteria evaluation grid and summarised into a specification, highlighting key formats, ingredients and sensory expectations of a vegetarian appetiser, leading to the chef-led development of a prototype appetiser (phase 1 in Fig. 1).

From this specification, a prototype was developed by the chef (phase 1 in Fig. 1) which provided a starting point for participants to taste and provide feedback. In addition to this main prototype, two variations were prepared which illustrated different sensorial characteristics and were used during tasting phases to foster creativity. The objective was to minimise a potential fixation affect where participants' cognitive bias would focus on maintaining overall existing
characteristics of prototype (Smith, 1995), thus limiting creativity. The marked changes in prototype colour, flavour and appearance aimed to open the scope of possibilities that participants may not have considered.

The prototype was a single-mouthful choux pastry incorporating eggs (37 %), butter (17 %), wheat flour (15 %), green lentil flour (14 %) (Inveja SAS, Martigné-Ferchaud, France) and salt (1 %) (raw ingredients only, excluding water). All ingredients, except where stated, were purchased from French supermarket Auchan's own brand. The choux pastry was cut in half and topped with a whipped cream and goats' cheese mixture containing green lentil and wheat textured vegetable protein (TVP) (Inveja), courgette, hazelnut, basil, and salt (Table 2). Variant 1 contained the same ingredients as the prototype but with different appearance and texture: a round shape, crunchy craquelini topping, green food colouring, and denser filling. Variant 2 had the same appearance as the prototype but with different flavours: a sweet and savoury blue cheese and pear cream filling (see Fig. 2 for image and supplementary table 2 for recipes).

All prototypes were prepared in advance of the workshops in a

<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

Number of older adults (and percentage of total) included in workshops and consumer study with breakdown by sex, age (±SD), nationality, household composition, living environment, smoking status, and professional situation. For the consumer study, missing data is indicated where necessary. Chi-square goodness-of-fit tests were used to assess the distribution of sociodemographic categories within the consumer study sample, where expected counts were ≥ 5 (all results: *p* < 0.001).

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Workshops</th><th>Consumer study</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Older adult participants</strong></td><td>n = 21</td><td>n = 236</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Age</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mean age ± SD</td><td>64.6 ± 5.5</td><td>65.3 ± 5.7</td></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td>65</td><td>66</td></tr><tr><td>Minimum</td><td>55</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum</td><td>74</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Sex</strong></td><td>Count (%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td>17 (81.0 %)</td><td>147 (62.3 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td>4 (19.0 %)</td><td>89 (37.7 %)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Nationality</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>French</td><td>21 (100 %)</td><td>231 (97.9 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>0</td><td>5 (2.1 %)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Household</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lives with spouse/partner</td><td>13 (61.9 %)</td><td>145 (62.0 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Lives alone</td><td>5 (23.8 %)</td><td>61 (26.1 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Lives with spouse/partner and children</td><td>2 (9.5 %)</td><td>21 (9.0 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Lives with child(ren)</td><td>1 (4.8 %)</td><td>6 (2.6 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>0</td><td>1 (0.4 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Missing data</td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Environment</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Suburban / semi-urban</td><td>19 (90.5 %)</td><td>142 (61.7 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Countryside</td><td>0</td><td>34 (14.8 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Urban / city centre</td><td>2 (9.5 %)</td><td>54 (23.5 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Missing data</td><td>0</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Smoker</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Never</td><td>19 (90.5 %)</td><td>212 (90.2 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Rarely</td><td>2 (9.5 %)</td><td>15 (6.4 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Often</td><td>0</td><td>7 (3.0 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td>0</td><td>1 (0.4 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Missing data</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Professional status</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Retired</td><td>17 (81.0 %)</td><td>156 (67.0 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Active (full or part-time)</td><td>3 (14.2 %)</td><td>67 (28.8 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed</td><td>1 (4.8 %)</td><td>5 (2.1 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>0</td><td>5 (2.1 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Missing data</td><td>0</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Professional background</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Executive, higher intellectual profession</td><td></td><td>120 (51.7 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Employee</td><td>data not collected</td><td>43 (18.5 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate professions</td><td></td><td>39 (16.8 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Business owner</td><td></td><td>23 (9.9 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Labourer</td><td></td><td>4 (1.7 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td></td><td>3 (1.3 %)</td></tr><tr><td>Missing data</td><td></td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table>

professional development kitchen, frozen, transported respecting cold-chain procedure, and subsequently defrosted in a refrigerator two hours prior to the start of each workshop. Appetisers were moved from the fridge 10 min prior to tastings.

### 2.1.3. Workshop progression

All participants, both older adults and experts, received identical instructions and engaged in the same activities, with experts contributing according to their specific areas of expertise. A script was used to ensure repeatable instructions for all the workshops (phase 2 in Fig. 1), the steps of which are detailed below:

1. **Warm up (15 min).** Icebreaker activities aimed at creating a convivial and creative atmosphere: 1) Participants, moderator, and chef wrote their names as anagrams, each letter paired with a related adjective or noun describing themselves, with another participant presenting it; 2) In an Alternate Uses Task (AUT) (Guilford, 1967), participants listed alternative functions for kitchen tongs for 3 min, followed by a group discussion.

2. **Prototype tasting (25 min).** Participants were given the prototype appetisers (one each, plus an extra for visual reference, and additional filling for further tasting). They wrote likes (green sticky note) and dislikes (pink sticky notes) about the appetisers. Comments were grouped and discussed. The innovative ingredients were presented, with samples available for inspection. They were then asked: "How would you make this prototype more appetizing, creative, or to your own taste?" and noted their answers on yellow sticky notes. Different sized sticky notes were available depending on the length of their answers. Answers were discussed after everyone had finished.

3. **Variant tasting (25 min).** Participants tasted variant 1 followed by variant 2 (one each, plus an extra for visual reference, and additional filling for further tasting), with instructions to drink water in between samples. Participants were asked to note "How would you make the prototype appetiser more appetizing, creative or to your own taste?" on orange sticky notes.

4. **Recipe definition (10 min).** All sticky note comments were discussed among participants, the moderator, and the chef. If the group reached a consensus on modifications, the chef proposed feasible solutions. When multiple ideas were suggested, the chef clarified their feasibility, leading to a group decision. The chef only responded to participant input without proposing their own ideas. Due to time constraints, only the filling was modified, while the choux pastry base remained unchanged.

5. **Break (10 min).**

6. **Kitchen (60 min).** The chef baked fresh choux pastries and prepared the new recipe filling as proposed by the group, noting the recipe. Participants were provided with kitchen utensils and ingredients (listed in supplementary table 3) to make their own version of the filling. They were free to follow the same recipe as the chef or improvise new combinations. Participant fillings were refrigerated until ready for next tasting.

7. **Co-created tasting (25 min).** Participants tasted the final co-created appetiser as prepared by the chef, followed by the different participant fillings. Finally, they completed orange sticky notes with any last comments on how to modify or improve their final co-created version.

8. **Questionnaire and conclusion (10 min).** Participants completed a questionnaire (see Table 3), were thanked, asked any final questions, and received a small box of chocolates.

**Co-creation indicators.**

To investigate the impact of group composition (C vs C + E) on co-creation (phase 2) and final products (phase 3), three main indicators were assessed:
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Images of culinary co-creation workshops. A) prototype appetiser made with green lentil and wheat flour choux pastry base with goats' cheese, green lentil TVP, courgettes and basil. B) Variation of prototype, illustrating different colour, shape and textures. C) Chef preparing new recipe based on co-creation participant ideas. D) Discussion between older adult consumers with moderator. E) Feedback written on sticky notes displayed on flip chart. F) Original prototype and co-created versions. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)</figcaption></figure>

i) *Cognitive creativity via thematic analysis of idea generation.* Participants were asked to note their ideas for improving the appetisers on sticky notes during the workshop (prototype tasting, variant tasting and co-created appetiser tasting) (Jensen et al., 2018; Rakova & Fedorenko, 2021). These were then subject to thematic analysis.

ii) *Social creativity using self-reported participant feedback.* A questionnaire captured participant perceptions of their workshop contributions. Drawing from evaluations of participatory design sessions and tailored to the culinary workshop, the survey focused on factors contributing to a supportive and enjoyable environment, which fosters latent creativity (Dove & Jones, 2013; Wishart & Eagle, 2014). Five categories were included capturing the perception of their: 1) global satisfaction regarding enjoyment, appropriateness of the food and the duration of the workshop; 2) knowledge acquisition (Bretschneider et al., 2014); 3) contribution to workshop objectives and working as a team with other participants (Fransen et al., 2011); 4) creative contribution, including as aided by the variant appetisers and trained chef, and 5) their evaluation of the innovative and appetising nature of their co-created product. At the end of the workshop all participants (older adults, master culinary students and registered dieticians) anonymously completed the 17-state-ment survey and noted their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale (see Table 4 in results for statements). Three items were reversed and question order was randomised (Paulhus, 1991).

iii) *Characteristics of final appetisers as evaluated by domain-specific judges using a multi-criteria evaluation grid.* To evaluate the original prototype appetiser and the final co-created versions, a panel of independent judges evaluated five different criteria (Dean et al., 2006; Dove et al., 2013). The grid displayed a randomised code for each appetiser, a description, estimated nutritional content, and images of the product. Judges with relevant scientific and/or culinary expertise, from Institut Lyfe Research Centre and University of Paris-Saclay, evaluated each criterion: 1) workability for a consumer study; 2) novelty of the final appetiser; 3) nutritional content; 4) sustainability and 5) visual appeal.

Judges included experienced researchers in sensory and consumer science, chefs working in new food product development, a lecturer in nutrition and doctoral students in sustainability and

health domains. Due to cross-over in expertise, some judges evaluated more than one criterion. A total of 14 judges were included, with seven included in each criterion (shown in Table 1). This indicator was used to choose the most appropriate appetisers to evaluate their liking in a real consumption context (consumer study, phase 4 in Fig. 1).

## 2.2. Consumer study

### 2.2.1. Participants

Older adults were recruited via flyer and social media and directed to an on-line screening questionnaire (Microsoft Forms). Interested participants were sent project objectives and consent forms for audio and visual recordings. A total of 236 adults were recruited, between 55 and 75 years of age, declaring no allergies, intolerances, taste or smell loss, or distaste for foods in the study. Socio-demographic profile is shown in Table 2. Participants were predominantly women (62 %), retired (67 %) living with a partner (62 %), from higher professional backgrounds (52 %) and non-smokers (90 %). No remuneration was given, with participants informed that they would not have to pay for their meal. They could come with other people (who also met inclusion criteria) or alone (and consented to sit at tables with other lone consumers).

### 2.2.2. Food products

During the consumer study in the restaurant, the participants consumed, as the first part of their meal, three different appetisers served at the same time: the prototype, one of the co-created appetisers issuing from the consumer-only workshops and one appetiser from the consumer-expert workshops (C-2 and C + E-1, shown in Fig. 2 and Table 2). Selection was based on multi-criteria assessment scores (phase 3). Appetisers were identified by random 3-digit codes and participants ate these three different products following a Latin square design. Participants were not informed as to the prior co-creation study nor who had created the different appetisers.

### 2.2.3. Consumer study

Participants arrived at the experimental restaurant located at the Institut Lyfe, which serves as a fully functional establishment for local diners and also for research and development activities (Cosson et al., 2025). Experimental restaurants provide a realistic consumption setting allowing participants to evaluate foods in an environment that more
<caption>**Table 3**</caption>

Themes and sub-themes, with definitions and selected examples of comments for improving appetisers, issuing from co-creation workshops. Total number of codes are shown for the 3 consumer groups (Consumer-only, n = 14) and 3 groups with older adult consumers, registered dieticians, and culinary master students (Consumer-Expert, n = 13). Frequency of sub-theme codes, and as a percentage of total number of C (163 codes) or C + E (178 codes) also shown.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Themes</th><th rowspan="2">Sub-themes</th><th rowspan="2">Description</th><th rowspan="2">Examples (workshop)</th><th colspan="2">C (n = 14)</th><th colspan="2">C + E (n = 13)</th></tr><tr><th>N°</th><th>%</th><th>N°</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">VISUAL</td><td>Appearance</td><td>General visual appearance</td><td>"Cumin for the colour" (C + E-1);</td><td>4</td><td>2%</td><td>8</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td>Appearance-Colour</td><td>As above, mentioning colour</td><td>"Choux made with red beetroot" (C-2).</td><td>7</td><td>4%</td><td>14</td><td>8%</td></tr><tr><td>Appearance-Colour-Ingredient</td><td>As above, mentioning ingredient</td><td></td><td>2</td><td>1%</td><td>4</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>Topping-Ingredient</td><td>Modifying or new toppings</td><td></td><td>13</td><td>8%</td><td>8</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Visual theme %</td><td></td><td>16%</td><td></td><td>19%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">ORAL PERCEPTION</td><td>Odour/aroma</td><td>Aromatic characteristics</td><td>"More aromatic herbs" (C + E-1);</td><td>5</td><td>3%</td><td>3</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>Flavour</td><td>Non-specific taste characteristics</td><td></td><td>9</td><td>6%</td><td>10</td><td>6%</td></tr><tr><td>Flavour-Ingredient</td><td>As above, including ingredient suggestions</td><td>"Keep the craquelins of the variant but with less sweetness" (C + E-3);</td><td>36</td><td>22%</td><td>29</td><td>16%</td></tr><tr><td>Spice</td><td>Ex: pepper, curry, turmeric</td><td>"Pieces of walnut for the crunch" (C-2);</td><td>10</td><td>6%</td><td>12</td><td>7%</td></tr><tr><td>Salt</td><td>Modifying salt level</td><td></td><td>5</td><td>3%</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Sweetness</td><td>Modifying sweetness</td><td>"Enhance the flavour, without salt or sugar, grated gouda?" (C-1).</td><td>6</td><td>4%</td><td>4</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>Acidity</td><td>Modifying acidity</td><td></td><td>4</td><td>2%</td><td>10</td><td>6%</td></tr><tr><td>Bitter</td><td>Modifying bitterness</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>1%</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>Texture</td><td>In-mouth characteristics</td><td></td><td>9</td><td>6%</td><td>22</td><td>12%</td></tr><tr><td>Texture-Ingredient</td><td>As above, mentioning specific ingredients</td><td></td><td>12</td><td>7%</td><td>7</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Temperature</td><td>Modifying temperature</td><td></td><td>2</td><td>1%</td><td>2</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="15">INGREDIENTS AND RECIPE</td><td></td><td></td><td>Oral perception theme %</td><td></td><td>61%</td><td></td><td>56%</td></tr><tr><td>Recipes</td><td>List of ingredients, or basic outline</td><td>"Light cream with goats' cheese + cashew nuts + balsamic vinegar + honey (tiny amount)" (C-1);</td><td>3</td><td>2%</td><td>7</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td>Combination Of Variants</td><td>Recipes based on variant ingredients</td><td>"Goats' cheese base with cubes of chorizo" (C-2);</td><td>3</td><td>2%</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td>Technique</td><td>Flavour or textural cooking techniques</td><td>"Champagne and orange gel on the filling" (C + E-1).</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td><td>4</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>Exotic</td><td>International (non-French) ingredients</td><td></td><td>9</td><td>6%</td><td>2</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Terroir</td><td>French/regional products</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>4</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>Novel</td><td>Novel ingredient or change to appetiser</td><td></td><td>3</td><td>2%</td><td>5</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>Replace base</td><td>Alternatives to choux pastry</td><td></td><td>6</td><td>4%</td><td>3</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>Ingredient coherence</td><td>Coherence of ingredients</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>2</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Textured vegetable protein</td><td>Relating to lentil TVP</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Meat, fish, egg</td><td>Non-vegetarian/egg ingredients</td><td></td><td>4</td><td>2%</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Alcohol</td><td>Inclusion of alcohol</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>2</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Ingredient &amp; recipe theme %</td><td></td><td>18%</td><td></td><td>17%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>"Make the appetiser smaller" (C-3)</td><td>0</td><td>0%</td><td>4</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">FORMAT</td><td>Practicality</td><td>Improving practicality of eating</td><td></td><td>5</td><td>3%</td><td>8</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td>Shape</td><td>Modifying shape</td><td></td><td>4</td><td>2%</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Size</td><td>Modifying size</td><td></td><td></td><td>6%</td><td></td><td>7%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Format theme %</td><td></td><td>100</td><td></td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Total all codes</td><td></td><td>163</td><td></td><td>178</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

closely resembles natural contexts (as opposed to laboratories or sensory booths). Participants arrived at midday and signed informed consent forms before entering the restaurant. The lunches were served over 12 days, during a three-week period. Participants were served a complete meal (appetisers, main course and dessert) and were not informed in advance of the precise ingredients of the proposed food products. To start, the three appetisers were served and participants completed a paper questionnaire responding to questions on which of the three appetisers they found visually most appealing (before consumption) and their taste appreciation of all three different appetisers using a 9-point Likert scale. Then, they were asked about which one they would most like to eat again (questions in supplementary fig. 1). Instructions specified that a sip of water should be consumed in between each appetiser and that participants should not discuss their responses with their table until the end of the meal. Following the starter evaluation, they consumed a main course and dessert (with similar questions, not discussed in this article) and completed socio-demographic information.

## 2.3. Data analysis

Co-creation workshops: Qualitative data from idea generation phase was transcribed (in original French language) and subject to thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) using MaxQDA 2022 (VERBI software, 2021). Data was coded independently by one project member (S.D.) and one external coder (S.L.) who subsequently met to discuss final codes and theme organization, which were then translated into English. Proportion of different codes for consumer and consumer-expert workshops were calculated. For the questionnaire, scores for the three reversed statements were inversed and one missing data was replaced with a median value. Likert scale results were analysed as continuous data (Sullivan & Artino, 2013) for the questionnaire and multi-criteria grid, with overall mean scores and standard deviation (SD) calculated.

Consumer study: Analyses were carried out using Jamovi software (Version 2.3.21) and include descriptive analyses of the 236 participants including sex, age (±SD) and other socio-demographic information, with missing data stated. The appetisers selected for visual appeal
<caption>**Table 4**</caption>

Mean scores (Likert 1–5) ± standard deviation (SD) for different questions and category totals, for participants in different workshop compositions: consumer-only (C) (n = 14) and consumer-expert (C + E) (n = 13), and the mean score of only the older adult consumers in the C + E (expert scores excluded) (n = 7). Statements originally in negative form are italicised.

<table><thead><tr><th>Q. n°</th><th>Statement</th><th>C n = 14 older adults</th><th>C + E n = 6 experts, n = 7 older adults</th><th>C + E (just older adults) n = 7</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td><strong>Satisfaction:</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>I appreciated the good organization of the activities</td><td>4.93 ± 0.27</td><td>4.92 ± 0.28</td><td>4.86 ± 0.38</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>I had fun coming up with creative ideas</td><td>4.43 ± 0.76</td><td>4.38 ± 0.51</td><td>4.29 ± 0.49</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td><em>The appetisers and ingredients used were suitable</em></td><td>4.21 ± 1.31</td><td>4.69 ± 0.63</td><td>4.57 ± 0.79</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>I enjoyed the workshop and would do it again</td><td>4.79 ± 0.58</td><td>4.85 ± 0.38</td><td>4.86 ± 0.38</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>The duration of the workshop was adequate to achieve the objectives</td><td>4.86 ± 0.36</td><td>4.73 ± 0.44</td><td>4.64 ± 0.48</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Satisfaction total (1–5)</strong></td><td>4.64 ± 0.49</td><td>4.72 ± 0.32</td><td>4.64 ± 0.41</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Knowledge:</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>I acquired new knowledge in nutrition or health</td><td>3.71 ± 1.44</td><td>3.08 ± 0.95</td><td>3.29 ± 0.76</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>I acquired new knowledge in sustainability</td><td>3.00 ± 1.04</td><td>2.23 ± 1.17</td><td>2.43 ± 1.13</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>I acquired new culinary knowledge</td><td>3.79 ± 1.05</td><td>3.15 ± 1.41</td><td>3.71 ± 0.95</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Knowledge total (6–8)</strong></td><td>3.50 ± 0.97</td><td>2.82 ± 0.91</td><td>3.14 ± 0.70</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Participation:</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>I contributed a lot to the discussion</td><td>3.71 ± 0.73</td><td>4.08 ± 0.76</td><td>4.00 ± 0.82</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>I was able to work easily with the other participants</td><td>5.00 ± 0.00</td><td>4.77 ± 0.60</td><td>4.86 ± 0.38</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td><em>I felt comfortable proposing creative ideas</em></td><td>3.93 ± 1.54</td><td>4.15 ± 1.46</td><td>4.29 ± 1.50</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>We created a new appetiser in a way that was accepted by all participants</td><td>4.79 ± 0.43</td><td>4.46 ± 0.97</td><td>4.14 ± 1.22</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Participation total (9–12)</strong></td><td>4.36 ± 0.41</td><td>4.37 ± 0.49</td><td>4.32 ± 0.37</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Creativity:</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>I was encouraged to generate new and varied ideas</td><td>4.00 ± 1.11</td><td>4.46 ± 0.78</td><td>4.43 ± 0.79</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>The variants helped me be more creative</td><td>4.14 ± 0.66</td><td>4.46 ± 0.52</td><td>4.43 ± 0.54</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td><em>Cooking with a chef helped me explore creativity</em></td><td>4.14 ± 1.29</td><td>3.85 ± 1.14</td><td>3.86 ± 1.07</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Creativity total (13–15)</strong></td><td>4.10 ± 0.66</td><td>4.26 ± 0.63</td><td>4.24 ± 0.63</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Outcome:</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>For me, the final appetisers are innovative</td><td>4.50 ± 0.86</td><td>3.92 ± 0.76</td><td>4.00 ± 0.82</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>For me, the final appetisers are tasty and appetising</td><td>4.71 ± 0.47</td><td>4.38 ± 0.51</td><td>4.43 ± 0.54</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Outcome total (16–17)</strong></td><td>4.61 ± 0.49</td><td>4.15 ± 0.56</td><td>4.21 ± 0.57</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>TOTAL</strong></td><td>4.27 ± 0.32</td><td>4.15 ± 0.37</td><td>4.18 ± 0.34</td></tr></tbody></table>

(single-choice) and for repeat consumption (single-choice) are summarised and tested statistically by Chi² Goodness of Fit test. If participants checked multiple appetisers (instead of single response), their data was excluded from analyses (4 and 2 participant responses excluded for visual preference and repeat consumption respectively). Liking scores are visualised using histograms and mean values are compared using an analysis of variance (repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test, alpha level set at 0.05).

### 3. Results

The below results relate to indicators used for exploring workshop differences in cognitive and social creativity (phase 2 in Fig. 1), followed by the characteristics of the co-created appetisers and the multi-criteria assessment indicator (phase 3 in Fig. 1). Finally, the liking of three appetisers is evaluated in an older adult consumer study (phase 4 in Fig. 1).

#### 3.1. Culinary co-creation workshop indicators

##### 3.1.1. Cognitive creativity via idea generation

A total of 341 codes were generated from 211 sticky notes. Notes received multiple codes if it referenced several ideas. Four main themes were identified during the feedback from participants regarding improving the appetisers (Table 3).

1. Appearance: 18 % of all codes focused on the visual of the product, sometimes with reference to the colour of the pastry or the filling and with ingredient suggestions to improve it.

2. Oral perception: more than half (58 %) of all codes related to the oral perception of the appetiser, including olfactory, gustatory, and mouth-feel characteristics.

3. Ingredients and recipes (17 %): comments listed a preferred combination of ingredients, or proposed ingredients with notable characteristics, such as being exotic or local, or adding meat to the vegetarian prototype appetiser.

4. Format: the theme with the smallest proportion (6 %) related to the practicality of the appetiser and how easy it was to hold and eat.

Overall the different themes and most sub-themes were similar between the two different group compositions. When looking at the ingredient and recipe theme, some sub-themes may be more skewed to one composition. For example, consumer-expert workshops had higher occurrence of comments relating to recipe suggestions, cooking techniques, and inclusion of regional ingredients. This is logical given the inclusion of a master culinary student who will be used to thinking of these themes in their daily activity. Ideas relating to acidity were mentioned slightly more in the consumer-expert workshops compared to the consumer-only groups, as were comments relating to practicality of the appetisers, whereas no comments were made in consumer-only sessions. Consumer-only workshops had slightly higher proportion of comments relating to animal protein sources and more exotic (i.e. less regional) ingredients. More consumer-only comments focused on ingredients relating to the flavour of the appetisers and referenced adding salt than in consumer-expert workshops. Whilst most groups during the discussion phase said that the appetisers were perceived as lacking salt, the consumer-expert groups did not note adding salt.

##### 3.1.2. Social creativity via participant questionnaire

Results from the end-of-workshop questionnaire are shown in Table 4. Overall, participants scored different elements of the workshops highly (4.27 ± 0.32/5.0 for consumers and 4.15 ± 0.37 for consumer-expert groups). Cronbach's alpha value for the 17 sentences was 0.64 indicating moderate internal consistency. It was observed that some participants probably did not register the negative statements and therefore scored statements in a similar way to the affirmative sentences thus having an overall decrease on mean scores. This indicates a possible lack of reflection regarding some participant answers, and highlights the known risk with self-reported results and reverse statements (Suárez-Alvarez et al., 2018).

Mean participant scores showed high levels of satisfaction for the workshops (4.27 ± 0.32/5.0 for consumer-only and 4.15 ± 0.37 for consumer-expert groups) indicating that the 3-h workshop was sufficiently well organised, motivating and engaging, which is conducive to creative activities (Krueger & Minet, 2022; Lee & Lee, 2023). Knowledge, Participation and Creativity statements, were rated highly (>4) in
both groups. For the Outcome category, all groups gave high scores concerning the tasty nature of their final appetisers (C:4.71 ± 0.47; C + E: 4.38 ± 0.51). Statement 16, regarding the innovative nature of the final appetiser, may indicate a tendency for culinary and dietary experts to view these products as less novel, likely due to their working with or being exposed to new or plant-based products more frequently than older adults.

### 3.1.3. Co-created appetisers

Images of the appetisers co-created during the different workshops are shown in Fig. 2 and a summary of the ingredients used to develop them and their calculated nutrition content in Table 5. The co-created appetisers show a variety of interpretations of the prototype noticeably focusing on enhancing the appearance (addition of toppings) and flavour (honey, increased spices and herbs).

Co-created appetisers kept a similar percentage (66.7–78.3 %) of dairy ingredients as deemed necessary by the chef to retain desirable proportions between the filling and choux pastry, as developed in the prototype (76.1 %). All groups decided to keep the primary filling ingredient of goats' cheese, as inclusion of blue cheese was less consensual within groups. Proportion of fruit and vegetables varied (9.3–16.0 %), as did total TVP (4.7–23.3 %). Two groups (C-3, C + E-3) opted to add honey. Two groups opted to remove nuts (C-1, C + E-1). Others added spice using a common French chili powder (piment d'Espelette), citrus zest or toppings. Several new ingredients were included in co-created appetisers that were not found in the prototype or variants: apple, carrot, lemon, grapefruit, pistachio, sun-dried tomato, mint, chili powder.

The energy-dense appetisers are high in protein (11–12 %) due to dairy products, green lentil flour and TVP ingredients. The dairy ingredients in the choux pastry and filling contribute to a high fat content, with saturated fats of between 12 and 16 %. Carbohydrate content was between 13 and 19 % with low fibre content (<2 %). Salt content was between 0.3 and 0.5 % except for C + E-1 group which was higher at 1.3 %.

Estimating for an average intake of 3 appetisers (total of 45 g as of the consumer study) equates to 5.4 g of protein, or 8 % of recommended protein intake (based on 1.0 g protein/kg body weight/day for a 70-g individual) (Bauer et al., 2013). A total of 6.1 g of saturated fats constitute 2.8 % (55 cal) of a 2000-cal daily intake, contributing just over a quarter of the recommended maximum 10 % energy from saturated fats (WHO, 2023). Similarly, based on WHO recommendations to limit salt consumption to 5 g/day (World Health Organization, 2012), 3 appetisers would contribute to 9 % of maximum intake guidelines.

### 3.1.4. Multi-criteria evaluation by domain-specific judges

Final co-created and prototype appetisers were evaluated (phase 3 in Fig. 1) for five criteria using a 5-point Likert scale, by a panel of judges with relevant expertise (phase 3 shown on Fig. 1). Mean judge scores are shown in Table 6. Workability score identified the prototype (3.7 ± 0.5) and C-1 appetiser (3.7 ± 1.1) as the easiest to prepare in the context of a large-scale consumer study. Another consumer appetiser (C-3) was judged as the least adapted (2.6 ± 1.1). This is coherent with the preparation of the original appetiser by a chef, who considered logistics for the workshops, when creating the prototype. Workshop participants were not instructed with these constraints and so additions of topping or extra ingredients would accumulate extra steps in the preparation process, thereby decreasing the workability for a consumer study.

Except for one appetiser (C + E-3), all the co-created versions were evaluated as more novel compared to the prototype. This may be because of the appearance (toppings) or the combination of ingredients (sweet and savoury, spice). Prototype and mean consumer-only and consumer-expert scores for nutritional content are similar due to the common ingredients in all appetisers (choux pastry base, cream and goats' cheese, TVP). Ingredients such as extra cheese or pistachios in C-2 and C-3, contributed to lower sustainability scores, suggesting

<caption>Table 5</caption>

Compositional summary of prototype (in italics) and six co-created appetisers showing description of cream and lentil-based textured vegetable protein (TVP) filling with estimated percentage of different food groups (excludes the choux pastry base which is the same for all appetisers). Summary of nutritional values are estimated using product labelling and reference database (CIQUAL) (ANSES, 2020) with values representing 60 % filling and 40 % choux pastry. Average weight of one appetiser is 15 & Nutrition values of choux pastry estimated based on raw ingredients, with 20 % total water content as for similar products (ANSES, 2024).

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Appetiser and description of filling</th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="7">Ingredient composition (%)</th><th colspan="6">Estimated nutritional content (per 100 g)</th></tr><tr><th>Dairy</th><th>Veg./ fruit</th><th>TVP</th><th>Nuts</th><th>Honey</th><th>Herbs/ spice</th><th>Salt</th><th>Energy kJ</th><th>Protein</th><th>Fats</th><th>Saturated fat</th><th>Carbo- hydrate</th><th>Sugar</th><th>Fibre</th><th>Salt</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Proto- type C + E- 1</td><td>Cream-based filling with TVP, goats' cheese, diced courgette, hazelnuts, basil, salt.</td><td>76.1</td><td>10.9</td><td>6.5</td><td>3.5</td><td>-</td><td>2.6</td><td>0.4</td><td>1286.6</td><td>11.7</td><td>22.4</td><td>14.3</td><td>13.5</td><td>2.3</td><td>1.7</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Cream-based filling with TVP, goats' cheese, diced granny smith apple, mint, chili powder (piment d'Espelette), topped with grapefruit zest.</td><td>70.5</td><td>16.0</td><td>9.6</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2.6</td><td>1.3</td><td>1229.7</td><td>12.6</td><td>19.7</td><td>13.4</td><td>14.7</td><td>3.0</td><td>1.8</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">C + E- 2</td><td>Cream-based filling with TVP, goats' cheese, diced Granny Smith apple, hazelnuts, salt, lemon zest, topped with cheese tuile and chili powder (piment d'Espelette).</td><td>74.9</td><td>10.7</td><td>6.4</td><td>3.4</td><td>-</td><td>4.3</td><td>0.3</td><td>1288.3</td><td>11.5</td><td>22.2</td><td>14.1</td><td>14.0</td><td>2.8</td><td>1.9</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><td>Cream-based filling with TVP, goats' cheese, diced Granny Smith apple, basil, salt, topped with strips of carrot.</td><td>68.3</td><td>13.7</td><td>13.7</td><td>3.6</td><td>3</td><td>3.9</td><td>0.3</td><td>1210.8</td><td>11.4</td><td>20.2</td><td>12.0</td><td>15.3</td><td>3.9</td><td>1.7</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">C + E- 3</td><td>Cream-based filling with TVP, goats' cheese, diced courgette, diced pear, salt, chili powder (piment d'Espelette).</td><td>66.7</td><td>9.3</td><td>23.3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.4</td><td>1155.9</td><td>11.8</td><td>19.0</td><td>12.2</td><td>14.5</td><td>3.0</td><td>1.7</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Cream-based filling with TVP, goats' cheese, sun-dried tomatoes, pistachios, basil, salt, topped with lemon zest.</td><td>78.3</td><td>9.4</td><td>4.7</td><td>4.7</td><td>-</td><td>2.5</td><td>0.4</td><td>1311.2</td><td>12.3</td><td>22.5</td><td>14.4</td><td>13.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.0</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">C-2</td><td>Cream-based filling with TVP, goats' cheese, hazelnuts, salt, lemon zest, topped with pieces of cheese tuile.</td><td>71.1</td><td>11.8</td><td>7.1</td><td>4.7</td><td>7</td><td>4.7</td><td>0.5</td><td>1532.2</td><td>12.6</td><td>26.6</td><td>15.7</td><td>19.2</td><td>7.5</td><td>2.1</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Mean value</td><td>72.3</td><td>11.7</td><td>10.2</td><td>2.9</td><td>1.5</td><td>3.0</td><td>0.5</td><td>1287.8</td><td>12.0</td><td>21.8</td><td>13.7</td><td>14.9</td><td>3.6</td><td>1.8</td><td>1.0</td></tr></tbody></table>
<caption>**Table 6**</caption>

Multi-criteria evaluation of seven different appetisers co-created by consumer-only (C) and consumer-expert (C + E) groups showing mean score (1–5 Likert scale) and standard deviation. Five criteria were evaluated by judges based on their expertise (n = 7 judges per criteria, with 14 judges in total due to expertise cross-over).

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Workability</th><th>Novelty</th><th>Nutrition</th><th>Sustainability</th><th>Visual appeal</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Appetiser</td><td>1: Long to prepare, requires special ingredients, or advanced techniques.<br>5: Easy to make, ingredients widely available.</td><td>1: Nothing new, already widely existing.<br>5: A strong dose of novelty, significantly different compared to market.</td><td>1: The recipe is not healthy or suitable and requires major revision.<br>5: Nutritionally adequate, suited to older adults</td><td>1: Ingredients have high environmental impact<br>5: Ingredients have low environmental impact</td><td>1: Product is not visually appealing.<br>5: Product is visually very attractive.</td><td>Mean appetiser score</td></tr><tr><td>Prototype</td><td>3.7 ± 0.5</td><td>3.0 ± 0.8</td><td>3.1 ± 0.4</td><td>3.4 ± 1.0</td><td>3.4 ± 0.8</td><td>3.5 ± 0.8</td></tr><tr><td>C + E-1</td><td>3.4 ± 0.5</td><td>3.7 ± 1.0</td><td>3.2 ± 0.8</td><td>3.4 ± 1.0</td><td>3.7 ± 1.1</td><td>3.5 ± 0.9</td></tr><tr><td>C + E-2</td><td>3.3 ± 0.5</td><td>3.4 ± 0.5</td><td>3.0 ± 0.6</td><td>3.3 ± 1.0</td><td>3.1 ± 1.0</td><td>3.2 ± 0.7</td></tr><tr><td>C + E-3</td><td>3.1 ± 1.1</td><td>2.7 ± 1.0</td><td>3.3 ± 0.5</td><td>3.9 ± 0.7</td><td>3.3 ± 0.8</td><td>3.3 ± 0.9</td></tr><tr><td>C + E Mean</td><td>3.3 ± 0.8</td><td>3.3 ± 0.9</td><td>3.2 ± 0.6</td><td>3.5 ± 0.9</td><td>3.4 ± 1.0</td><td>3.3 ± 0.8</td></tr><tr><td>C-1</td><td>3.7 ± 1.1</td><td>3.3 ± 1.0</td><td>3.4 ± 0.5</td><td>3.7 ± 0.8</td><td>2.9 ± 1.1</td><td>3.4 ± 0.9</td></tr><tr><td>C-2</td><td>3.3 ± 0.8</td><td>4.0 ± 0.8</td><td>3.0 ± 0.6</td><td>2.9 ± 1.2</td><td>4.0 ± 1.0</td><td>3.4 ± 1.0</td></tr><tr><td>C-3</td><td>2.6 ± 1.1</td><td>3.6 ± 0.5</td><td>2.6 ± 0.5</td><td>2.7 ± 1.1</td><td>3.3 ± 1.5</td><td>2.9 ± 1.0</td></tr><tr><td>C Mean</td><td>3.2 ± 1.1</td><td>3.6 ± 0.8</td><td>3.0 ± 0.6</td><td>3.1 ± 1.1</td><td>3.4 ± 1.2</td><td>3.3 ± 1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>3.3 ± 0.8</td><td>3.4 ± 0.8</td><td>3.1 ± 0.6</td><td>3.3 ± 1.0</td><td>3.4 ± 1.0</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

consumers alone may not automatically consider ingredient provenance or environmental consequences in this context. Prototype, mean consumer-only and consumer-expert appetisers had similar scores for visual appeal. C-2 had the highest score (4.0 ± 1.0) and C-1 the lowest (2.9 ± 1.1).

The scores were used as an indicator to select 2 appetisers (one C and one C + E) to be tested in a consumer study: C-2 and C + E-1 were chosen as they had one of the highest overall scores (C-1 and C-2 had similar mean scores, however C-2 had a higher cumulative score when adding individual judge scores).

## 3.2. Consumer study

A total of 236 older adults were included in the consumer study (phase 4 in Fig. 1). Participants were principally female (62.3 %), French (97.9 %), retired (67.0 %), non-smokers (90.2 %) living in a suburban environment (61.7 %) with their partner (62.0 %) (Table 1).

Upon receiving the 3 appetisers in the restaurant, consumers were asked to choose the most visually appealing. The majority of participants chose one of the co-created appetisers, with 48 % choosing version C + E and 37 % choosing version C. In contrast, the original prototype was

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** A) Frequency of liking scores (1–9) for prototype, consumer, and consumer-expert created appetisers, showing mean score ± SD. B) Mean score bar chart with SD and results of repeated measure ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test showing significant difference between prototype and co-created versions (p < 0.001), but no significant difference between C and C-E appetisers (p = 0.69). C) Results of participants choice of one of the three appetisers for most visually appealing and which they would prefer to eat again, (Chi² Goodness-of-fit test, p < 0.001).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
chosen by only 14 % of participants, representing the lowest preference (Chi-square test, *p* < 0.001).

Each consumer ate the 3 appetisers according to a Latin square design, evaluating liking for each one on a 9-point Likert scale. As observed in Fig. 3, the three appetisers were globally appreciated, but they received a wide range of liking scores, between 1 and 9. This is consistent with expected heterogeneity among the consumers and their range of food habits and taste preferences (Whitelock & Ensauff, 2018). Mean liking for the initial prototype was 6.2 ± 1.5, which was less liked than the consumer-only appetiser (6.8 ± 1.5) and the consumer-expert version (7.0 ± 1.5) (ANOVA F:25, DF:2, *p* < 0.001). There was no significant difference in liking between the consumer-only and consumer-expert appetisers.

Following the tasting of all appetisers, consumers were asked which one they would most prefer to eat again. Most participants chose one of the co-created appetisers with the majority choosing the C + E version (C + E: 51 %, C: 33 %). The original prototype version had the lowest frequency of being chosen at 15 % (Chi square test, *p* < 0.001).

### 3.3. Overview of co-creation indicators and main outcomes

The different workshop phases, co-creation indicators and outcomes are summarised in Table 7. Overall, these metrics enabled quantitative and qualitative comparison of the food co-creation process, as discussed in the following section.

## 4. Discussion

Study objectives were to investigate the impact of workshop group composition on the co-creation process and its results. To that end, indicators focusing on participants' creativity and post-workshop evaluation of co-created products (Table 7) were used thus exploring our objective as to what indicators may be useful when comparing group compositions. Indicators combined quantitative and qualitative insights into participants' food development priorities, their motivation during workshops, a multi-criteria analysis of final co-created products and end-consumer appreciation in a realistic consumption setting. As such these indicators provide important data across the co-creation process.

These indicators were based on evaluation principles used primarily in an ideation context, and were adapted to the culinary context, facilitating co-creation exploration. Our results indicate that the inclusion of experts appeared to enhance the creation process, leading to more focused recipe suggestions, greater use of local ingredients, and adherence to the (vegetarian) theme, without leading to less enjoyment or motivation from consumers.

Final co-created consumer-only and consumer-expert appetisers were appreciated by older adults in a real-life consumption context, with no significant difference between the two versions, both of which received higher liking scores than the initial prototype. This lack of significant difference in liking suggests that both co-creation configurations were equally effective in delivering acceptable and appreciated

products, which is a valuable insight for designing resource-efficient participatory processes. Just over half (51 %) of older adult consumers expressed preference to eat the consumer-expert appetiser again, compared to a third for consumer-only version. This suggests that while both were appreciated by consumers, there was a slight preference for the appetiser that included experts in the co-creation process. This could, speculatively, be due to inclusion of more pronounced fresh or tangy flavours from acidic apple, mint, chili powder, and grapefruit zest in the consumer-expert appetiser. This would be coherent with chefs focusing on using acidity to add “bright” flavour notes (Schifferstein et al., 2022) and older adults finding fresh, trigeminal sensations appealing (den Uijl et al., 2016).

Indeed all three appetisers resulted from participatory processes as the initial prototype was based on specifications issuing from multi-actor ideation (a phase not covered in this article). Many studies on the subject of food co-creation focus on principally ideation phases, utilising focus groups, design thinking or other creative approaches to align products to end-user preferences (Pinesso Ribeiro et al., 2025). Such strategies are effective in increasing consumer appreciation (Barone et al., 2021). This study aimed to go a step further with additional co-creative optimisation via consumer and other actor participation in the kitchen with real-time tasting and chef-led recipe alterations. As such the initial prototype was an appropriate control product to compare to the subsequent appetisers which resulted from ‘hands on’ co-creativity of other actors. To gain further insights into the appreciation of co-created foods, a comparison with a version developed solely by a food development team - without input from older adults or other professionals - could have been included.

Our results are in harmony with literature highlighting the promise of co-creation in aiding innovative food development, as already implemented with meat hybrids (Grasso et al., 2022) and co-products (secondary products generated during manufacturing process) such as raspberry pips (Vrgović et al., 2022)), and could be a pertinent approach for insect-based, or 3D printed foods. It may be particularly relevant for older adult populations as they may have more anchored habits or greater food neophobia than other adult age groups (Hazley et al., 2022). The novel forms of flour and textured vegetable protein in this study elicited some negative feedback in terms of contributing to a darker pastry colour than preferred, or unusual texture, and illustrates how unfavourable attributes could be overcome with consumer input and practical culinary solutions (van Lier et al., 2024).

The profile of these appetisers may hold particular interest for a population suffering from, or at risk of, protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) due to their high protein (12 % mean content) and fat (21 % mean content) (Table 5). While traditional, common pre-dinner snacks or starters for older French adults such as cheese (e.g., Emmental, 28 % protein) or cured meats (e.g., salami 24 % protein) are high in protein, more crafted or refined canapé options are also popular, especially in a family or social gathering context. Indeed, the French savoury snack market was estimated at $2.6B in 2022 with continued predicted growth (Research and Markets, 2022). An analysis of over 50 different canapés

<table><caption>**Table 7**
Summary of co-creation indicators used in study to compare consumer-only (C) and consumer-expert (C + E) workshops.</caption><thead><tr><th>Phase</th><th>Indicators</th><th>Approach</th><th>Outcomes</th><th>Data</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Workshop</td><td>2 Participants' cognitive creativity</td><td>Idea generation for improving prototype</td><td>Similar themes in both workshops, focusing on sensory characteristics.<br/>C + E: recipe suggestions, cooking techniques, and regional ingredients.<br/>C: salt reference, exotic and non-vegetarian ingredients.</td><td rowspan="2">Quantitative + qualitative</td></tr><tr><td>2 Participants' social creativity</td><td>Self-reported scores of satisfaction, participation, creativity, knowledge gained, outcome</td><td>Similar high scores between actor compositions.<br/>Results suggest older adults found co-created products more innovative than experts.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Post-workshop</td><td>3 Product pertinence</td><td>Multi-criteria assessment by independent judges</td><td>Similar scores for workability, novelty, nutrition, sustainability and visual appeal between workshop type.</td><td rowspan="2">Quantitative</td></tr><tr><td>4 Product appreciation</td><td>Older adult liking in real-life context</td><td>Co-created appetisers both significantly more appreciated than prototype.</td></tr></tbody></table>
available from French retailers (extracted from Openfoodfacts.org shown in supplementary table 4), which are similar in style to the co-created versions in this study, showed an average of 9.1 % protein. Thus the co-created appetisers lean towards a higher protein content than standard retail options in France, in addition to their novel and vegetarian attributes.

For an older adult population with low risk of PEM, or with high body mass index (BMI), further optimisation of the appetisers should focus on reducing salt and saturated fat content. On the other hand, the salt and sugar content are likely to increase palatability, which could be beneficial in older adults where sensorial perceptions are declining (Doets & Kremer, 2016). Additionally, the handheld nature of the appetiser could make them appropriate for an ageing population.

Measuring creativity, particularly in co-creation, remains challenging, with few tools adapted for the food context (Said Metwaly et al., 2017) prompting this study to explore tailored indicators. Our results did not find significant differences in self-reported motivation and participation between consumer-only and consumer-expert groups. This finding suggests that, in the context of our workshops, both group compositions were similarly effective in engaging participants, highlighting that consumer-only groups can foster sufficient motivation and participation to sustain productive co-creation processes. This may be due to the indicators not capturing significant differences in group dynamics, or that there were similar creativity levels between the groups studied. It may also be that (older adult) participants were reluctant to provide specific critiques and thus short exit interviews could yield more nuanced qualitative insights into workshop dynamics. Scientific literature points out that the stimulating effect of diverse perspectives in heterogenous groups can lead critical and creative thinking (Bloor et al., 2001) and can lead to greater productivity (Paulus & Brown, 2007). This was likely achieved in both group compositions, as participants in consumer-only sessions drew on different backgrounds and experience of other older adults and were also interacting with the culinary chef. Inclusion of expert stakeholders may be more beneficial when incorporating specific criteria in product development, rather than just sparking creativity with consumers. Integrating multiple stakeholders such as food scientists, policymakers, health specialists, food producers, the food industry, and target consumers, is essential in food co-creation for generating innovative and practical solutions, and also more broadly in food systems as highlighted in the UN guide for multi-stakeholder collaboration (UN Nations, 2023).

Cognitive creativity is often measured quantitatively (Said Metwaly et al., 2017), however this study aimed to deepen insights by analysing thematic content of participants' comments on food products improvements, in order to better explore potential differences between workshop compositions. Whilst most workshops focused on ideas relating to the flavour and texture of the appetisers, consumer-expert groups mentioned salt, adding meat or fish, or non-local ingredients less often, possibly due to expert influence. Older adults in mixed groups may have exhibited a social desirability bias (Bispo Júnior, 2022) or felt moderated by professionals, like dietitians, especially with a vegetarian prototype (Fleury et al., 2020). This suggests experts may unconsciously influence ideas without participants' awareness, warranting further research on how expert presence affects consumer participation.

Multi-criteria analysis by domain-specific judges did not show major differences between the appetisers, likely explained by similar product composition (Table 5). This is also in harmony with research suggesting older adults are more likely to suggest incremental rather than radical proposals (Zatorska, Dębska, Król, Skupiński and Magdalena, 2023). The different criteria used for evaluating the products were not specified to participants during the workshops, thus allowing observation of any natural tendencies to focus (or not) or different aspects of product characteristics. It is conceivable that had the workshop introduced increased focus, or extra presentation of nutrition or sustainability criteria, that ideas and resulting appetisers would have reflected this. However, in this study we chose not to limit participants to specific

criteria. The study used different judges between criteria in order to maximise expertise. For example, independent chefs were asked to score the workability criteria, researchers in sustainability for the sustainability score, and consumer scientists and older adults for the appealing visual evaluation. This is line with other food co-creation approaches, where, for example, researchers and chefs evaluated feasibility and sustainability of legumes-based school canteen dishes (Kokkorou et al., 2025). Not using the same group of judges for each criteria introduces variability in scoring styles, which can complicate comparisons between criteria. This approach is more appropriate for comparing products within a single criterion rather than across multiple criteria. Judges were given a guide for minimum and maximum scores (as seen in Table 6) to aid score harmonisation. Additionally, a worked example or training could aid inter-rater reliability. The multi-criteria evaluation of co-created food concepts could be strengthened by integrating more specific and measurable constraints. For example, by setting defined nutritional or sustainability targets (e.g., minimum protein content, use of low-impact ingredients), as well as including estimated preparation time and the number of recipe steps, to better assess practicality for chefs. Additionally, incorporating the estimated cost of the final appetiser would allow evaluators to judge the economic feasibility of the concept, contributing to a more realistic and application-oriented assessment framework. Overall, the multi-criteria evaluation by independent judges is a valuable metric to evaluate specific product criteria and can be modulated according to project goals (Dean, 2022).

Ultimately, product success is determined by consumer acceptance (Hultink & Robben, 1995), which extends beyond mere liking. As Günden et al. (2024) emphasise, consumer responses to novel foods are influenced by numerous factors, from personality traits and sustainability concerns to social context and disgust, underscoring the complexity of this process. Context is important when considering consumer appreciation and it could be argued that serving the starter in a restaurant context which is associated with French gastronomy could bias higher appreciation scores. However, between 15 and 31 % of participants scored the appetisers 5 or lower on the 9-point scale. The higher scores may also be partly explained by the socio-demographic situation of participants as they are principally from higher professional background (Table 2), with more ability to eat regularly in restaurants and taste a variety of (innovative) foods and cuisines. The consumer-expert appetiser had the highest estimated salt content which may partly explain the higher liking scores and being chosen as the appetiser participants would most like to eat again. However, the consumer-only appetiser had a similar salt content to the prototype and received higher scores, suggesting that salt content is not the main factor driving liking. This study provided robust confirmation of higher appreciation for co-created appetisers compared to the chef-created prototype. This finding aligns with efforts to address the research gap in comparing consumer preferences for co-created foods versus traditional, non-co-created approaches. For example, López-Mas et al. (2022) found that co-created packaging for novel fish burgers garnered higher acceptability and purchasing intention scores than existing retail packaging. Such evidence underscores the importance of collaborative approaches in enhancing consumer engagement and product success.

It is worth recalling there are limitations in including consumers in the co-creation process. For example, when co-creating 'insect snack balls for kids', children preferred the versions created by adults rather than the child-driven recipes (van Lier et al., 2024). When considering the value of including older adults in food co-creation, the limitation of their contributions will likely not be regarding flavour, but more with nutritional content, for example, being unaware of the increasing importance of maintaining protein intake (Smith et al., 2024). Older adults may be more reticent about co-creation in an increasingly used on-line/digital scenario due to privacy concerns or use of technology (Zatorska, Dębska, Król, Skupiński and Magdalena, 2023). This highlights the need for consumer-adapted approaches depending on the population and a consideration towards the limitations of the consumer
output.

One of the novel aspects of this study was the kitchen and culinary content in which older consumers worked. However, this may not be suitable for other population groups as it requires a certain ease with culinary equipment and skills. Due to space and time constraints participants prepared simple food mixtures alongside the chef. Exploring co-creation of more complex foods or ones that require longer preparation would be considerably more cost- and time consuming, thus potentially limiting its industrial or research potential. Adaptations of this approach could expand culinary co-creation to other consumers sectors, including children or vulnerable populations (Tueros & Uriarte, 2018), with real-time tastings and chef-facilitated modifications driving optimised food development.

Alongside the potential applications of this work, the study presents certain limitations. The novel use of prototypes, variants, and cooking sessions aimed to engage the senses and promote creativity, however multiple tastings could lead to overstimulation (Hildebrand et al., 2021) and decreased energy paid towards the end of the workshops. Inter- and intra-individual creativity levels may vary (Barbot, 2022), suggesting future research should measure individual creativity to minimise group differences. A within-subjects design could reduce variability but may introduce bias from repeated ideation steps. Additionally, there is a limited convenience sample, necessitating cautious interpretation (Andrade, 2021), and results cannot be generalised to the broader population. More workshops could address this but would increase costs. The process is subject to the individual creativity level of the chef, and there may be an impact on bias with successive workshops. However, including trained chefs, with their culinary experience plays a vital role in new food development, added value to food desirability, and contributing to literature on co-creation with chefs (Ekincek & Günay, 2023; Öztürk, 2024).

## 5. Conclusion

This study highlights the benefits of involving both older adult consumers and experts in co-creation workshops, leading to innovative vegetarian appetisers that align with objectives and receive high consumer acceptance. It examines group dynamics in homogenous (consumer-only) versus heterogeneous (consumer-expert) settings, showing how this collaboration impacts creativity and food improvement trends. This study found co-creation dynamics and final product characteristics were comparable between the two settings, with some differences observed when integrating actors with culinary and nutrition expertise, such as increased focus on ingredient regionality. Future research on co-creation should further examine the dynamics among participants during culinary workshops, as well as the granularity of the resulting product concepts in relation to their pertinence for end consumers. When tested in a realistic consumption setting, older adult consumers preferred co-created versions to the initial prototype appetiser, highlighting the benefits of relevant multi-actor and end-consumer input. The research introduces a sensory-led co-creation framework and validates outcomes in real-world contexts, showcasing the potential of this approach to develop nutrient-dense, consumer-friendly foods tailored to specific dietary needs.

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Sarah Domingie:** Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.
**Anne Saint-Eve:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.
**Lucia Espinosa-Brisset:** Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.
**Agnès Giboreau:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
**Audrey Cosson:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.

### Ethics statement

All the study phases were conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and this study was approved by the University of Paris-Saclay ethics committee (CER-Paris-Saclay-2024-11). Written informed consent was obtained from all consumers before their participation in the study and privacy rights of human subjects have been observed.

### Ethics statement

We confirm that the appropriate protocols for protecting the rights and privacy of all participants were utilized during the execution of the research. No coercion to participate, full disclosure of study requirements and risks, written or verbal consent of participants, no release of participant data without their knowledge, ability to withdraw from the study at any time.

### Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

During the preparation of this work, the authors used OpenAI to check and improve grammar and spelling. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

### Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Lucia Espinosa-Brisset, Audrey Cosson, Anne Saint-Eve, Agnès Giboreau, Sarah Domingie reports financial support was provided by French National Research Agency (ANR-Co-Party-Senior Projet ANR-23-SSRP-0007) and the French National Research and Technology Agency (CIFRE ANRT 2021/1926). Project co-funders DSM-Firmenich and Campbell's Soup Company were consulted regarding choice of product categories but authors were independent in study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of results, and the writing of the manuscript. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

### Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the French National Research and Technology Agency (ANRT-CIFRE 2021/1926), ANR project Co-Party-Senior (https://anr.fr/Projet-ANR-23-SSRP-0007) AgroParisTech (Paris, France), the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE), DSM-Firmenich (Geneva, Switzerland) and Campbell Soup Company (New Jersey, USA). Food industry sponsors did not participate in the study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of results, or the writing of the manuscript.

A CC-BY public copyright license has been applied by the authors to the present document and will be applied to all subsequent versions up to the Author Accepted Manuscript arising from this submission, in accordance with the grant's open access conditions.

Thanks to Inveja for supplying ingredients, and to the Innovation Chef M. Esteve, project interns S. Amrani, N. Abumanneh, R. Attavar, and S. Loustalet, restaurant staff, and all participants.

## Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105660.
# Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

## References

de Almeida, M. D., Graça, P., Afonso, C., Kearney, J. M., & Gibney, M. J. (2001). Healthy eating in European elderly: Concepts, barriers and benefits. *The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 5*(4), 217–219.

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43*(5), 997–1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45*(2), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. *Harvard Business Review, 76*(5), 76–87, 186.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. *Academy of Management Journal, 39*(5), 1154–1184. https://doi.org/10.2307/256995

Andrade, C. (2021). The inconvenient truth about convenience and purposeful samples. *Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 43*(1), 86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620977000

ANSES. (2020). *Ciqual French food composition table* [available online, downloadable in excel and xml format from https://ciqual.anses.fr]. Anses. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4770202

ANSES. (2022). Ciqual. https://ciqual.anses.fr/#/aliments/23467/chouette

Banović, M., Krystallis, A., Guerrero, L., & Reinders, M. J. (2016). Consumers as creators of new product ideas: An application of projective and creative research techniques. *Food Research International, 87*, 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.07.010

Barbot, B. (2022). Intra-individual variability in creativity: Nature, measurement, and prospects. *European Psychologist, 27*. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000470

Barone, A. M., Banovic, M., Asoli, D., Wallace, E., Ruiz-Capillas, C., & Grasso, S. (2021). The usual suspect: How to co-create healthier meat products. *Food Research International, 143*, Article 110304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110304

Bauer, J., Biolo, G., Cederholm, T., Cesari, M., Cruz-Jentoft, A. J., Morley, J. E., ... Boirie, Y. (2013). Evidence-based recommendations for optimal dietary protein intake in older people: A position paper from the PROT-AGE study group. *Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 14*(8), 542–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2013.05.021

Bevelander, K. E., Kwakernaak, L., Laset, E., Zeinstra, G., & Molleman, G. (2019). Placing healthy kids meals on the restaurant menu by co-creation between chef-cooks and children. *European Journal of Public Health, 29*(Supplement 4), cxk187.191.

Bispo Júnior, J. P. (2022). Social desirability bias in qualitative health research. *Revista de Saúde Pública, 56*, 101. https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2022056004164

Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001). *Focus groups in social research*. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209175

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. *Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3*, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp0630a

Bretschneider, U., Leimeister, J. M., & Mathiassen, L. (2014). IT-enabled product innovation: Customer motivation for participating in virtual idea communities. *International Journal of Product Development*. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2015.068966

Castanho, A., Guerra, M., Brites, C., Oliveira, J. C., & Cunha, L. M. (2023). Design thinking for food: Remote association as a creative tool in the context of the ideation of new rice-based meals. *International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 31*, Article 100664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2023.100664

Chew, S. T. H., Tey, S. L., Yalawar, M., Liu, Z., Baggs, G., How, C. H., ... Tan, N. C. (2022). Prevalence and associated factors of sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults at risk of malnutrition. *BMC Geriatrics, 22*(1), 997. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03704-1

Cosson, A., Domingie, S., Besbombe, C., Veron-Chavanne, C., Pénicaud, C., Cerf, M., Saint-Eve, A., & Espinosa-Brisset, L. (2024). Sensory and multi-stakeholder co-ideation: Unleashing creativity to meet seniors' needs (manuscript under review).

Cosson, A., Sebbane, M., Chevillard, E., & Dougkas, A. (2025). Gastronomizing legumes: Can we increase legume consumption in restaurants by improving the sensory experience and modifying the portions of legumes and meat on the plate? *Food Quality and Preference, 127*, Article 105459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105459

Dean, D., Hender, J., Rodgers, T., & Santanen, E. (2006). Identifying quality, novel, and creative ideas: Constructs and scales for idea evaluation. *Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7*. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00106

Dean, M. (2022). Including multiple perspectives in participatory multi-criteria analysis: A framework for investigation. *Evaluation, 28*(4), 505–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890221123822

Dean, M., O’Kane, C., Issartel, J., McCloat, A., Mooney, E., McKernan, C., ... Lavelle, F. (2022). Cook like a boss: An effective co-created multidisciplinary approach to improving children’s cooking competence. *APPETITE, 168*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105727

Doets, E. L., & Kremer, S. (2016). The silver sensory experience – A review of senior consumers’ food perception, liking and intake. *Food Quality and Preference, 48*, 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.08.010

Domenici, Marina, Pierguidi, Lapo, Spinelli, Sara, Dinnella, Caterina, & Monteleone, Erminio (2025). Innovating meat products: guiding tailor-made new product development for flexitarians and omnivores through a Jobs-To-Be-Done co-creation approach. *Food Quality and Preference, 128*, Article 105473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105473

Dove, G., Jones, S., Dykes, J., Brown, A., & Duffy, A. (2013). Using data visualization in creativity workshops: A new tool in the designer's kit. *Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on Creativity & Cognition*, 304–307. https://doi.org/10.1145/2466627.2466665

Dove, & Jones. (2013). Evaluating creativity support in co-design workshops. *In Evaluating Methods for Creativity Support Environments. Proc CHI'13*.

Ekinecik, S., & Güney, S. (2023). A recipe for culinary creativity: Defining characteristics of creative chefs and their process. *International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 31*, Article 100633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2022.100633

El Nemar, S., Khoury, A., Nehmeh, B., Mitri, F., Najjar, T., Abboud, N., & Maassarani, Y. (2022). *Consumer co-creation during the online age of New Product Development*. 2022.

Field, K., & Duizer, L. M. (2016). Food sensory properties and the older adult: Sensory properties and aging. *Journal of Texture Studies, 47*(4), 266–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12197

Fleury, S., Agnes, A., Cados, L., Denis-Lutard, Q., Duchêne, C., Rigaud, N., & Richir, S. (2020). Effects of social influence on idea selection in creativity workshops. *Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37*, Article 100691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100691

Fransen, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2011). Mediating team effectiveness in the context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness. *Computers in Human Behavior, 27*(3), 1103–1113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.017

Grasso, S., Asoli, D., & Smith, R. (2012). Consumer co-creation of hybrid meat products: A cross-country European survey. *Food Quality and Preference, 100*, Article 104586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.024.104586

Guilford, J. P. (1967). *The nature of human intelligence*. McGraw-Hill.

Günden, C., Atakan, P., Yercan, M., Mattas, K., & Knez, M. (2024). Consumer response to novel foods: A review of behavioral barriers and drivers. *Foods, 13*(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13132051. Article 13.

Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2003). *A new approach of innovative design: An introduction to CK theory. (The International Conference on Engineering Design)*.

Hazley, D., Stack, M., Walton, J., McNulty, B. A., & Kearney, J. M. (2022). Food neophobia across the life course: Pooling data from five national cross-sectional surveys in Ireland. *Appetite, 171*, Article 105941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.105941

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. *Annual Review of Psychology, 61* (1), 569–598. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416

Hildebrand, D., Rubin, D., Hadi, R., & Kramer, T. (2021). Flavor fatigue: Cognitive depletion influences consumer enjoyment of complex flavors. *Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31*(1), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1167

Hoyer, C., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. (2010). Consumer co-creation in new product development. *Journal of Service Research, 13*, 283–296.

Hultink, E. J., & Robben, H. S. J. (1995). Measuring new product success: The difference that time perspective makes. *Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12*(5), 392–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(95)00055-0

Jenkins, E. L., Brennan, L., Jackson, M., & McCaffrey, T. A. (2023). Re-licious: Co-design with adolescents to turn leftovers into delicious and healthy meals—a school-based pilot intervention. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20*(16), Article 6544. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph2016544

Jensen, M. M., Thiel, S.-K., Hoggan, E., & Bødker, S. (2018). Physical versus digital sticky notes in collaborative ideation. *Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 27*(3), 690–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9325-1

Kokkorou, M., Spinelli, S., Dinnella, C., Pierguidi, L., Wollgast, J., Maragkoudakis, P., & Monteleone, E. (2025). Co-creating innovative and accepted legume-based dishes for school canteens with adolescents in a low socioeconomic area. *Food Quality and Preference, 123*, Article 105343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105343

Krueger, A. E., & Minet, S. (2022). Designing positive experiences in creative workshops at work using a warm up set based on psychological needs. *Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 6*(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/mti6100090. Article 10.

Lee, J. H., & Lee, S. (2023). Relationships between physical environments and creativity: A scoping review. *Thinking Skills and Creativity, 48*, Article 101276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101276

Leij-Halfwerk, S., Verwijs, M. H., van Houdt, S., Borkent, J. W., Guaitoli, P. R., Pelgrim, T., ... MaNuEL Consortium. (2019). Prevalence of protein-energy malnutrition risk in European older adults in community, residential and hospital settings, according to 22 malnutrition screening tools validated for use in adults ≥65 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis. *Maturitas, 126*, 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2019.05.006

van Lier I. van den Heuvel E. van Mil E. Havermans R. C. 2024 The value of food innovation with children: The case of 'insect snack balls for kids' Food Quality and Preference 118 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105199.

López-Mas, L., Claret, A., Bermúdez, A., Llauger, M., & Guerrero, L. (2022). Co-creation with consumers for packaging design validated through implicit and explicit methods: Exploratory effect of visual and textual attributes. *Foods, 11*(9), 1183. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11091183

Ohnishi, S., Osako, M., Nakamura, S., Togawa, T., Kawai, K., Suzuki, K., Yoshida, A., Gomi, K., & Tsujii, T. (2024). A framework for analyzing co-creation value chain mechanisms in community-based approaches: A literature review. *Sustainability, 16* (7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072919

Öztürk, B. (2024). Art of food: Systematic literature review of culinary creativity. *International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 36*, Article 100940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2024.100940
Paulhus, D. L. 1991. Measurement and control of response bias. In Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes(pp. 17–59). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-590241-0.50006-X.

Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation: A cognitive-social-motivational perspective of brainstorming. *Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1*(1), 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00006.x

Pinesso Ribeiro, A. C., Esmerino, E. A., Tavares Filho, E. R., Cruz, A. G., & Pimentel, T. C. (2025). Unraveling the potential of co-creation on the new food product development: A comprehensive review on why and how listening to consumer voices. *Trends in Food Science & Technology, 159*, Article 104978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2025.104978

Rakova, O., & Fedorenko, O. (2021). Sticky notes against corporate hierarchies in South Korea: An ethnography of workplace collaboration and design co-creation. *Design Studies, 76*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101033

Research and Markets. (2022). France savory snacks market summary, competitive analysis and forecast to 2027. https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5850771/france-savory-snacks-market-summary-competitive.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. *The Phi Delta Kappan, 42*(7), 305–310.

Said Metwaly, S., Van den Noortgate, W., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Approaches to measuring creativity: A systematic literature review. *Creativity Theories – Research – Applications, 4*. https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2017-0013

Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. *CoDesign, 4*(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068

Saunders, R. P., Evans, M. H., & Joshi, P. (2005). Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: A how-to guide. *Health Promotion Practice, 6*(2), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839904273387

Schifferstein, H. N. J., Kudrowitz, B. M., & Breuer, C. (2022). Food perception and aesthetics—Linking sensory science to culinary practice. *Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 20*(4), 293–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/15428052.2020.1824833

Siegel, S. M., & Kaemmerer, W. F. (1978). Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 63*(5), 553–562. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.63.5.553

Silvia, P. J., Martin, C., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2009). A snapshot of creativity: Evaluating a quick and simple method for assessing divergent thinking. *Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4*(2), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2009.06.005

Smith. (1995). Getting into and out of mental ruts: A theory of fixation, incubation, and insight. In *The nature of insight* (pp. 229–251). The MIT Press.

Smith, R., Clegg, M. E., Methven, L., Sulmont-Rossé, C., & Ueland, O. (2022). *Co-creation of food solution to improve nutritional status in older adults*. 2022. Leeds, (United Kingdom. Hal-03791441): 46. Annual meeting of the British feeding and drinking group (BFDG).

Smith, R., Methven, L., Clegg, M. E., Geny, A., Ueland, Ø., Synnøve Grini, I., ... Sulmont-Rossé, C. (2024). Older adults' acceptability of and preferences for food-based protein fortification in the UK, France and Norway. *Appetite, 197*, Article 107319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107319

Soucier, V. D., Doma, K. M., Farrell, E. L., Leith-Bailey, E. R., & Duncan, A. M. (2019). An examination of food neophobia in older adults. *Food Quality and Preference, 72*, 143–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.10.010

Spence, C., & Youssef, J. (2021). Aging and the (chemical) senses: Implications for food behaviour amongst elderly consumers. *Foods, 10*(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10010168, article 1.

Suárez-Álvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., & Lozano, L. M. (2018). Using reversed items in Likert scales: A questionable practice. *Psicothema*, 149–158. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.33

Sullivan, G. M., & Artino, A. R. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from likert-type scales. *Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5*(4), 541–542. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME.5-4-18

Teggart, K., Phillips, S., Ganann, R., Moore, C., Sihota, D., Neil-Sztramko, S., ... Senson, C. (2022). Group-based nutrition interventions for community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review to inform community co-design. *Annals of Family Medicine, 20*(Suppl. 1), 2875. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.20.s1.2875

Tueros, I., & Uriarte, M. (2018). Innovative food products for cancer patients: Future directions. *Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 98*(5), 1647–1652. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8789

den Uijl, L. C., Jager, G., de Graaf, C., Meiselman, H. L., & Kremer, S. (2016). Emotion, olfaction, and age: A comparison of self-reported food-evoked emotion profiles of younger adults, older normosmic adults, and older hyposmic adults. *Food Quality and Preference, 48*, 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.09.011

UN, Nations, F. and A. O. of the U., & Programme, U. N. D. (2023). *Rethinking our food systems: A guide for multi-stakeholder collaboration*. FAO and UNDP: UNEP. https://we documents.unep.org/xmlui/handle/20.500.11822/42743.

United Nations. (2020). *Department of Economic and Social Affairs, & Population Division. World population ageing, 2019 highlights.*

Velázquez, A., Galler, M., Vidal, L., Varela, P., & Ares, G. (2022). Co-creation of a healthy dairy product with and for children. *Food Quality and Preference, 96*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104414

Volpe, R., Predieri, S., Cianciabella, M., Daniele, G. M., Gatti, E., Magli, M., ... Urbinati, S. (2021). EWHETA (eat well for a HEALTHY third age) project: Novel foods to improve the nutrition in the elderly people. *Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 33*(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01671-4

Vrgović, P., Pojić, M., Teslić, N., Mandić, A., Kljakić, A. C., Pavlić, B., ... Mišan, A. (2022). Communicating function and co-creating healthy food: Designing a functional food product together with consumers. *Foods, 11*(7), 961. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11070961

Whitelock, E., & Ensaff, H. (2018). On your own: Older adults' food choice and dietary habits. *Nutrients, 10*(4), Article 413. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10040413

WHO. (2023). *Saturated fatty acid and trans-fatty acid intake for adults and children*. WHO guideline (ISBN 978-92-4-007363-0).

Wishart, J., & Eagle, S. (2014). The development of a scale to assess creative collaboration via online tools. In D. K. W. Chiu, M. Wang, E. Popescu, Q. Li, & R. Lau (Eds.), *New horizons in web based learning* (pp. 320–329). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43454-3_33.

World Health Organization. (2012). *Guideline: Sodium intake for adults and children*. World Health Organization. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/77985.

Zatorska, K. K., Dębska, K., Król, K., Skupiński, M., & Magdalena. (2023). *Challenges and opportunities of new product co-creation with older consumers*. Routledge international handbook of participatory approaches in ageing research. Routledge.