4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Food pickiness in the elderly: Relationship with dependency and malnutrition

期刊

FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 145-151

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.04.003

关键词

Food selectivity; Elderly; Dependency; Nutritional status; Body Mass Index; Eating difficulties

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Among factors contributing to malnutrition in the elderly, the present study aimed at assessing the impact of food selectivity (also referred as food pickiness) on the nutritional status of the elderly. A survey with 559 French people over 65 years old was conducted to collect data on food selectivity, dependency and nutritional status. Food selectivity was assessed by asking respondents to tick each food they dislike among a list of familiar foods. Since some foods could be ticked as disliked because elderly people experience physical difficulties in eating these foods, the survey also included self-report assessment about difficulties encountered when eating. Results showed that an increase of food selectivity is correlated with an increase of malnutrition risk, parallel to the effect of eating difficulties on malnutrition. It seems that the eating difficulties have a stronger impact on malnutrition than the food selectivity. However, the prevalence of food selectivity appears to be higher than the prevalence of eating difficulties. Furthermore, we observed that food selectivity increased as dependency increased. Given the fact that food selectivity may increase the risk of malnutrition, and that the number of picky eaters is far from being negligible in nursing homes, it seems worthwhile to screen for pickiness when elderly people become culinary dependent (delegation of food-related activities to a caregiver or a home helper, meal home-delivery by a catering service, nursing homes). It may give an opportunity to improve food care dedicated to these persons and in fine to prevent malnutrition. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
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