4.7 Article

Energy-dense meals improve energy intake in elderly residents in a nursing home

Journal

CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 125-131

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1054/clnu.2002.0610

Keywords

energy-dense meals; elderly residents; nursing home; energy intake; inexpensive

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Several studies have shown that malnutrition is common among nursing home residents. Aim.-We hypothesized that addition of natural energy-dense ingredients to a standard diet would improve voluntary energy intake and ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL) and decrease infections in elderly residents under nursing home care. Methods-Thirty-five residents in a municipality nursing home (median age 83 years) were served either a standard diet (1600 kcal/day) (control group, n=18) or the same meals fortified with natural energy-dense ingredients (2100 kcal/day) (experimental group, n=17). Energy intake and ADL function were measured before and after the intervention. All episodes of infection were registered. Non-parametric statistics were used. Results: Energy intake increased in the experimental group from 23.5 (21.3-28.5) kcal/kg/body weight before, to 31.9 (29.7-33.7) kcal/kg/body weight during the intervention (P<0.001). There was no change in energy intake in the control group. ADL function in the experimental group was unchanged, while it decreased significantly in the control group (P<0.001). The number of infections tended to be lower in the experimental group than in the control group (5 vs; 13). The cost for the energy-dense ingredients was approx. 0.11 EUR per resident and day. Conclusions: Addition of natural energy-dense ingredients to regular meals is an inexpensive way to improve voluntary energy intake in elderly nursing home residents, a treatment that was accompanied by maintained ADL function. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available