4.6 Article

Nutritional status in older adults with mild cognitive impairment living in elderly homes in Cairo, Egypt

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION HEALTH & AGING
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 104-108

出版社

SPRINGER FRANCE
DOI: 10.1007/s12603-011-0021-9

关键词

Mild cognitive impairment; nutritional status; older adults

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To delineate the difference in nutritional risk between older adults with normal cognitive function and mild cognitive impairment living in elderly homes. Cross-sectional study. Three elderly homes in Cairo, Egypt. One hundred twenty older adults; men and women aged 60 years and older. Comprehensive geriatric assessment was done for every participant to evaluate medical, functional, cognitive and affective aspects. Nutritional status was assessed by using the mini-nutritional assessment (MNA). Nutritional deficit was considered to be present if the individuals were classified as malnourished or at nutritional risk by means of the MNA. The cognitive function was assessed by using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). MCI was identified in 46 (38.3%) of the participants. According to the MNA classification, 58 (48.3%) of the sample study was assessed as well nourished, 49 (40.8%) at risk of malnutrition and 13 (10.8%) as malnourished. Older adults with MCI had significantly higher frequency of being at risk of malnutrition or malnourished than those with normal cognition. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that the associations between MCI and nutritional deficit remained significant after adjustment for age, illiteracy, female gender and depression. These results suggest that MCI may be associated with nutritional risk, which emphasizes the importance of early identification of nutritional status among individuals with MCI. It remains to be demonstrated whether improvement in nutritional status may improve the cognitive function or delay progression to dementia in these patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据