4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Helping understand nutritional gaps in the elderly (HUNGER): A prospective study of patient factors associated with inadequate nutritional intake in older medical inpatients

期刊

CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 320-325

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2010.12.007

关键词

Malnutrition; Aged; Hospitalization; Energy intake

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & aims: Malnutrition and poor intake during hospitalisation are common in older medical patients. Better understanding of patient-specific factors associated with poor intake may inform nutritional interventions. The aim of this study was to measure the proportion of older medical patients with inadequate nutritional intake, and identify patient-related factors associated with this outcome. Methods: Prospective cohort study enrolling consecutive consenting medical inpatients aged 65 years or older. Primary outcome was energy intake less than resting energy expenditure estimated using weight-based equations. Energy intake was calculated for a single day using direct observation of plate waste. Explanatory variables included age, gender, number of co-morbidities, number of medications, diagnosis, usual residence, nutritional status, functional and cognitive impairment, depressive symptoms, poor appetite, poor dentition, and dysphagia. Results: Of 134 participants (mean age 80 years, 51% female), only 41% met estimated resting energy requirements. Mean energy intake was 1220 kcal/day (SD 440), or 18.1 kcal/kg/day. Factors associated with inadequate energy intake in multivariate analysis were poor appetite, higher BMI, diagnosis of infection or cancer, delirium and need for assistance with feeding. Conclusions: Inadequate nutritional intake is common, and patient factors contributing to poor intake should be considered in designing nutritional interventions. (C) 2011 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