| Literature DB >> 29562879 |
Idah Chatindiara1, Jacqueline Allen2, Amy Popman3, Darshan Patel3, Marilize Richter3, Marlena Kruger3, Carol Wham3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malnutrition in patients admitted to hospital may have detrimental effects on recovery and healing. Malnutrition is preceded by a state of malnutrition risk, yet malnutrition risk is often not detected during admission. The aim of the current study was to investigate the magnitude and potential predictors of malnutrition risk in older adults, at hospital admission.Entities:
Keywords: Dysphagia risk; Hospital malnutrition risk; MNA®-SF; Muscle strength; Older adults
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29562879 PMCID: PMC5863453 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-018-0771-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Participants’ demographic characteristics by malnutrition status: MNA®-SF
| Characteristics | Malnutrition status | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| *Total | Well-nourished | At malnutrition risk | Malnourished | |
| All participants’ | 234 (100) | 62 (26.5) | 109 (46.6) | 63 (26.9) |
| Admission source | ||||
| - Community | 156 (88.1) | 46 (29.5) | 70 (44.9) | 40 (25.6) |
| - Aged carea | 21 (11.9) | 5 (23.8) | 7 (33.3) | 9 (42.9) |
| Age | ||||
| - < 85 years | 122 (52.1) | 32 (26.2) | 58 (47.5) | 32 (26.2) |
| - ≥85 years | 112 (47.9) | 30 (26.8) | 51 (45.5) | 31 (27.7) |
| BMI | ||||
| - < 23 kg/m2 | 95 (40.6)** | 9 (9.5) | 45 (47.4) | 41 (43.2) |
| - ≥23 kg/m2 | 139 (59.4) | 53 (38.1) | 64 (46.0) | 22 (15.8) |
| Gender | ||||
| - Men | 95 (40.6) | 25 (26.3) | 46 (48.4) | 24 (25.3) |
| - Women | 139 (59.4) | 37 (26.6) | 63 (45.3) | 39 (28.1) |
| Marital status | ||||
| - Married/partnered | 95 (40.6) | 26 (27.4) | 42 (44.2) | 27 (28.4) |
| - Singleb | 139 (59.4) | 36 (25.9) | 67 (48.2) | 36 (25.9) |
| Ethnicity | ||||
| - All other ethnicitiesc | 87 (37.2) | 21 (24.1) | 38 (43.7) | 28 (32.2) |
| - New Zealand European | 147 (62.8) | 41 (27.9) | 71 (48.3) | 35 (23.8) |
| Living arrangements | ||||
| - Living alone | 104 (44.4) | 31 (29.8) | 49 (47.1) | 24 (23.1) |
| - Living with partner only | 73 (31.2) | 21 (28.8) | 32 (43.8) | 20 (27.4) |
| - Living with others | 57 (24.4) | 10 (17.5) | 28 (49.1) | 19 (33.3) |
| Income source | ||||
| - Pension only income | 152 (65.0) | 37 (24.3) | 69 (45.4) | 46 (30.3) |
| - Pension plus other income | 82 (35.0) | 25 (30.5) | 40 (48.8) | 17 (20.7) |
| Education | ||||
| - Primary | 52 (22.2) | 11 (21.2) | 28 (53.8) | 13 (25.0) |
| - Secondary | 144 (61.5) | 38 (26.4) | 62 (43.1) | 44 (30.6) |
| - Tertiary | 38 (16.2) | 13 (34.2) | 19 (50.0) | 6 (15.8) |
BMI body mass index, MNA®-SF Mini Nutritional Assessment Short-Form
*The percentages (%) in the total column are percentage total. All other percentages are percentage total within a category. All values are reported after rounding up to 1 decimal place, therefore percentages add up to 100 ± 0.1 **Only BMI was statistically significant across nutrition status groups: p < 0.05 Chi-square test of independence
aAged care: admitted from long term residential care (n = 16) or private hospital interim care (n = 5)
bMarital status single: widowed n = 110, divorced n = 15, single/never married n = 14
cOther ethnicities: Māori n = 6, Pacific n = 6, others n = 75
Physical and health predictors of malnutrition risk indicator score (MNA®-SF)
| Descriptive statisticsa | Malnutrition risk scoreb | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | (MNA®-SF) | ||||
| Total | Not at risk ( | At risk ( | Prevalence ratio (95% CI) | ||
| Dental status n (%) | |||||
| Dentate | 46 (19.7) | 13 (28.3) | 33 (71.7) | 1 | |
| Edentulous | 51 (21.8) | 13 (25.5) | 38 (74.5) | 0.95 (0.84–1.07) | 0.384 |
| Dental appliance | 137 (58.5) | 36 (26.3) | 101 (73.7) | 1.00 (0.91–1.09) | 0.956 |
| Dysphagia risk | |||||
| EAT-10 score (mean ± SD)c | 3.0 ± 5.8 | 1.4 ± 2.2 | 3.6 ± 6.5 | 0.98 (0.97–0.99) | < 0.0001** |
| BMI | |||||
| (mean ± SD) | 24.7 ± 5.3 | 27.4 ± 5.2 | 23.7 ± 5.0 | 1.02 (1.02–1.03) | < 0.0001** |
| Muscle strength | |||||
| Hand grip, kg (mean ± SD)d | 14.5 ± 7.0 | 16.0 ± 7.5 | 13.9 ± 6.7 | 1.01 (1.00–1.02) | 0.006** |
| Requires help with ADL n (%) | |||||
| No | 77 (32.9) | 25 (32.5) | 52 (67.5) | 1 | |
| Yes | 157 (67.1) | 37 (23.6) | 120 (76.4) | 0.93 (0.86–1.00) | 0.061 |
| Cognitive status | |||||
| MoCA score (mean ± SD)e | 18.5 ± 5.8 | 20.3 ± 5.4 | 17.8 ± 5.8 | 1.01 (1.00–1.02) | 0.025** |
| Number of medications | |||||
| (mean ± SD) | 7.5 ± 4.4 | 7.1 ± 3.5 | 7.7 ± 4.6 | 1.00 (0.99–1.01) | 0.537 |
| Number of comorbidities | |||||
| (mean ± SD) | 5.7 ± 2.7 | 5.6 ± 2.9 | 5.7 ± 2.7 | 1.00 (0.98–1.02) | 0.683 |
| Nutrition supplements n (%) | |||||
| Takingf | 82 (35.0) | 25 (30.5) | 57 (69.5) | 1 | |
| Not taking | 152 (65.0) | 37 (24.3) | 115 (75.7) | 0.95 (0.87–1.02) | 0.163 |
MNA®-SF Mini Nutritional Assessment Short-Form, EAT-10 Eating Assessment Tool, BMI body mass index, ADL activities of daily living, MoCA Montreal Cognitive Assessment
Descriptive statistics for continuous data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and categorical data presented as frequencies (n) and percentages (%)
bPoisson regression with robust variance estimation. Each parameter was adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, number of comorbidities and medications; PR (95% CI) ** p value significant at p < 0.05
cMissing data n = 2
dMissing data n = 66
eMissing data n = 69
fAverage number of supplements taken n = 1