4.7 Article

Malnutrition Risk among Older Mexican Adults in the Mexican Health and Aging Study

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13051615

关键词

malnutrition; older adults; Mexico; MNA; MHAS

资金

  1. National Institute of Health/National Institute on Aging in the United States [R01AG018016]
  2. Mexican Statistical Bureau (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Y Geografia, INEGI) in Mexico

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study modified the Mini Nutritional Assessment tool and found in a sample of 13,338 participants that women, those older than 70, individuals with Seguro Popular health insurance, and those in fair/poor health were more likely to be malnourished.
Few studies assess the malnutrition risk of older Mexican adults because most studies do not assess nutritional status. This study proposes a modified version of the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) to assess the risk of malnutrition among older Mexicans adults in the Mexican Health and Aging Study (MHAS). Data comes from the 2012, 2015, and 2018 waves of the MHAS, a nationally representative study of Mexicans aged 50 and older. The sample included 13,338 participants and a subsample of 1911 with biomarker values. ROC analysis was used to calculate the cut point for malnutrition risk. This cut point was compared to the definition of malnutrition from the ESPEN criteria, BMI, low hemoglobin, or low cholesterol. Logistic regression was used to assess predictors of malnutrition risk. A score of 10 was the optimal cut point for malnutrition risk in the modified MNA. This cut point had high concordance to identify malnutrition risk compared to the ESPEN criteria (97.7%) and had moderate concordance compared to BMI only (78.6%), and the biomarkers of low hemoglobin (56.1%) and low cholesterol (54.1%). Women, those older than 70, those with Seguro Popular health insurance, and those with fair/poor health were more likely to be malnourished. The modified MNA is an important tool to assess malnutrition risk in future studies using MHAS data.

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

4.7
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