4.7 Article

Oral nutritional supplements in a randomised trial are more effective than dietary advice at improving quality of life in malnourished care home residents

期刊

CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 36, 期 1, 页码 134-142

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2016.01.002

关键词

Quality of life; Malnutrition; Supplement; Care home; Elderly

资金

  1. Nutricia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & aims: Few trials have explored the effect of nutrition support on quality of life (QoL). This study examined the effects of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) vs dietary advice on QoL in malnourished care home residents. Methods: 104 malnourished, care home residents (medium + high risk), identified using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ('MUST'), (mean age 88.5 +/- 7.9y) were randomised to receive either oral nutritional supplements (ONS) (n = 53) or dietary advice (n = 51) for 12 weeks. Dietary intake was measured using 24 h dietary recall, and QoL assessed using EuroQol (EQ-5D), including time trade off (TTO) (range -0.59 to 1) and visual analogue scale (VAS) (score 0 to 100) for self-perceived health. Results: QoL (adjusted for baseline QOL, malnutrition risk, type of care received (nursing or residential)) was significantly higher in the ONS than the dietary advice group (intention to treat analysis at week 12; n = 104). EQ-5D TTO scores (mean +/- SE) were 0.50 +/- 0.04 vs 0.36 +/- 0.05 (P = 0.005), VAS rescaled scores were 0.54 + 0.03 vs 0.046 + 0.03 (P = 0.006) and VAS scores were 61.3 +/- 4.5 vs 54.6 +/- 6.3 (P = 0.533) for ONS vs dietary advice respectively. Total energy, protein and the majority of micronutrient intakes were significantly greater in the ONS group, with energy intake being 423 kcal greater in the ONS than the dietary advice group at week 12. Conclusions: This study in malnourished care home residents indicates that ONS can improve QoL and nutritional intake more effectively than dietary advice alone. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. 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

4.7
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