4.6 Review

Educational interventions on nutrition among older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

期刊

MATURITAS
卷 136, 期 -, 页码 13-21

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2020.03.003

关键词

Food and nutrition education; Aged; Vegetable; Fruit; Elderly nutrition

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Poor nutrition is a major risk factor for non-communicable diseases and nutritional deficiencies. Dietary interventions have been proposed to improve eating habits. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy of randomized clinical trials of nutritional interventions in food habits among older people. A systematic literature review using the MEDLINE, LILACS, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases was conducted, according to PRISMA guidelines. The keywords were: food and nutrition education OR educacion alimentaria y nutricional OR educacao alimentar e nutricional AND clinical trial OR ensayo clinico OR ensaio clinico AND elderly OR aged OR anciano OR idoso AND human OR seres humanos. The pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using I-2 tests. After screening based on the title and abstract, and a full-text assessment, 11 studies remained. Results of pooling eleven studies were as follows: SMD = 0.25 (95 % CI = 0.15 - 0.34; I-2 = 0,0%) for vegetable, SMD = 0.18 (95 % CI = 0.08 - 0.27; I-2 = 0,0%) for fruit and SMD = 0.27 (95 % CI = 0.18 - 0.36; I-2 = 58,3%) for fibre intake. Our results suggest that nutritional interventions were effective in increasing vegetable, fruit and fibre intake. However, these results should be analyzed carefully, due to the small number of studies included in the meta-analysis. Further studies should be encouraged due to the aging process.

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