4.5 Article

Defining malnutrition: Mission or mission impossible?

期刊

NUTRITION
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 432-440

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2009.06.012

关键词

Malnutrition; Elements; Definition; Operationalism; Expert panel

资金

  1. Nutricia Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Although screening for malnutrition in health care has expanded enormously, a gold standard for the optimal definition and operationalism of malnutrition Is still lacking This report reflects expert opinions on the elements of the definition and operationalism of malnutrition and Is meant to trigger further debate within the nutritional societies Methods: A Delphi study was performed consisting of three phases After a literature review (phase 1). questions for a semistructured interviews (phase 2) were formulated Subsequently, the results of these semistructured interviews were used to develop the final list of elements (for defining and operationalism of malnutrition) In phase 3 (final phase). experts were asked to provide written feedback regal cling the ranking of elements concerning the importance of these elements Results: Twenty-two experts (response 73 3%) were included in the final phase of this Delphi study No overall agreement could be reached The elements deficiencies of energy or pi went and decrease in fat-free mass were most often mentioned to be particularly important in defining malnutrition. Elements mentioned to be important in operationalism of malnutrition were involuntary weight loss. body mass index, and no nutritional intake Opinions on cutoff points regarding these elements differed strongly among experts Conclusion: This study shows that there is no full agreement among experts on the elements defining and operationalism of malnutrition The results of this study may fuel the discussion within the nutritional societies. which will most ideally lead to an international consensus on a definition and operationalism of malnutrition (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc All rights reserved

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