4.5 Article

Characteristics of the Mini-Nutritional Assessment in elderly home-care patients

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 58, 期 1, 页码 64-70

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601748

关键词

elderly; nutritional assessment; Mini-Nutritional Assessment; home-care services

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the risk of malnutrition among elderly people living at home and receiving regular home-care services using the Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and to study the characteristics of the instrument in this patient group. Design: A cross-sectional study using the MNA score to assess the nutritional status of elderly home-care patients. Setting: Municipal home-care services in rural Finland. Subjects: A total of 178 (65%) out of 272 eligible patients aged 75-94 y agreed to participate. Major outcome methods: MNA questionnaire, anthropometrics, structured questionnaire, menu record. Results: According to MNA, 3% were malnourished (MNA < 17 points), 48% at risk for malnutrition (17-23.5 points) and 49% well nourished (>23.5 points). The mean MNA score was 23.4. Weight loss, psychological stress, nutritional status, decline in food intake, self-perceived health status and mid-arm circumference (MAC) showed the strongest significant correlations (P = 0.0001) to total MNA score. MNA questions with the strongest significant intercorrelations (P = 0.0001) were body mass index with MAC and calf circumference; and the decline of food intake and self-perceived nutritional status. The number of eating problems correlated significantly to the MNA score (P = 0.0011). Those with chewing and swallowing problems (n = 64, 36%) had a significantly lower MNA score than others (P = 0.0001). Dry mouth together with chewing and swallowing problems (n = 40, 22%) reduced the MNA score even further (P = 0.0001). Conclusions: The results suggest that MNA is a useful tool in the identification of elderly home-care patients at risk for malnutrition.

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