4.5 Article

Undernutrition in geriatric institutions in South-West France: Policies and risk factors

期刊

NUTRITION
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 155-164

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2008.07.016

关键词

Mini-Nutritional Assessment; Staff training; Functional dependency; Nutritional supplementation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study aimed to describe the nutritional status of geriatric home residents according to their place of dwelling and to identify institutional factors associated with higher rates of undernutrition. Methods: All institutions (514) in the Aquitaine region were interviewed for staff ratio, nutritional procedures, staff training, and other procedures in the area of nutrition. A stratified random sample of 601 residents in a subsample of 42 institutions underwent Mini-Nutritional Assessment. Results: The estimated prevalence of undernutrition was 19.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.0-24.2), with a higher rate in long-term care (48.0%, 95% CI 15.9-80.2) than in nursing homes (14.5%, 95% CI 10.6-18.4, P < 0.0001). In univariate analyses the risk of undernutrition was higher in long-term care (P < 0.0001), in settings with better weighing equipment (P < 0.0001), with a higher staff ratio (P = 0.0001), and a higher rate of subjects needing help for eating (P < 0.0001) and was lower in settings with a higher rate of training in nutritional screening (P = 0.0001) and management (P < 0.0001). In nursing homes, each item of the Mini-Nutritional Assessment Short Form was independently predictive of undernutrition. In multivariate analyses in nursing homes only, better weighing equipment (adjusted odds ratio 2.34, 95% CI 1.39-4.12, P = 0.0017) and higher staff ratio (adjusted odds ratio 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.05, P = 0.0230) were associated with higher rates of undernutrition. Conclusion: Undernutrition in institutions was linked to the resident health problems, with little evidence in favor of the influence of institutional policies. (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.5
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