4.7 Article

Sarcopenia Prevalence and Risk Factors among Residents in Aged Care

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 14, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu14091837

关键词

sarcopenia; aged care; malnutrition; EWGSOP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of sarcopenia and associated risk factors among older adults in three residential aged care facilities in Auckland, New Zealand. The findings revealed that a majority of residents were malnourished or at risk of malnutrition, and 41% had sarcopenia. Lower body mass index and lower Mini Nutrition Assessment-Short Form score were predictive of sarcopenia.
The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of sarcopenia and associated risk factors among older adults living in three residential aged care (RAC) facilities within Auckland, New Zealand. A total of 91 older adults (63% women, mean age +/- SD; 86.0 +/- 8.3 years) were recruited. Using the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People criteria, sarcopenia was diagnosed from the assessment of: appendicular skeletal muscle mass/height(2), using an InBody S10 body composition analyser and a SECA portable stadiometer or ulna length to estimate standing height; grip strength using a JAMAR handheld dynamometer; and physical performance with a 2.4-m gait speed test. Malnutrition risk was assessed using the Mini Nutrition Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF). Most (83%) of residents were malnourished or at risk of malnutrition, and 41% were sarcopenic. Multivariate regression analysis showed lower body mass index (Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1, 1.7, p = 0.003) and lower MNA-SF score (OR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.0, 2.4, p = 0.047) were predictive of sarcopenia after controlling for age, level of care, depression, and number of medications. Findings highlight the need for regular malnutrition screening in RAC to prevent the development of sarcopenia, where low weight or unintentional weight loss should prompt sarcopenia screening and assessment.

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