4.2 Editorial Material

Economic Burden of Community-Based Disease-Associated Malnutrition in the United States

期刊

JOURNAL OF PARENTERAL AND ENTERAL NUTRITION
卷 38, 期 -, 页码 77S-84S

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1177/0148607114550000

关键词

disease-associated malnutrition; community-based; malnutrition; quality of life; quality-adjusted life year; burden of disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The burden imposed by disease-associated malnutrition (DAM) on patients and the healthcare system in food-abundant industrialized countries is often underappreciated. This study measured the economic burden of community-based DAM in the United States. Methods: The burden of DAM was quantified in terms of direct medical costs, quality-adjusted life years lost, and mortality across 8 diseases (breast cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], colorectal cancer [CRC], coronary heart disease [CHD], dementia, depression, musculoskeletal disorders, and stroke). To estimate the total economic burden, the morbidity and mortality burden was monetized using a standard value of a life year and combined with direct medical costs of treating DAM. Disease-specific prevalence and malnutrition estimates were taken from the National Health Interview Survey and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Deaths by disease were taken from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Estimates of costs and morbidity were taken from the literature. Results: The annual burden of DAM across the 8 diseases was $156.7 billion, or $508 per U.S. resident. Nearly 80% of this burden was derived from morbidity associated with DAM; around 16% derived from mortality and the remainder from direct medical costs of treating DAM. The total burden was highest in COPD and depression, while the burden per malnourished individual was highest in CRC and CHD. Conclusion: DAM exacts a large burden on American society. Therefore, improved diagnosis and management of community-based DAM to alleviate this burden are needed.

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

4.2
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