| Literature DB >> 33916157 |
Fatmah Fatmah1, Suyud Warno Utomo2, Fatma Lestari3.
Abstract
Older people risk poor nutritional status during natural disasters due to low intakes of energy, carbohydrates, protein, and fat. A food bar is a form of emergency food product that contains carbohydrate and protein, and is practical for disaster situations. The study aimed to investigate the effect of a broccoli-soybean-mangrove food bar on older people's weight following natural disasters. A quasi-experimental pre-post intervention study was designed using 33 subjects at the treatment group of various nutritional status types of older people during two weeks with balanced nutrition education over two weeks. Bivariate analysis with a paired t-test used to test whether weight, macronutrient intakes, and balanced nutrition knowledge were significantly different before and after the study. The study showed broccoli-soybean-mangrove food bar consumption resulted in a significantly increased weight of 0.2 kg, energy (291.9 kcal), protein (6.1 g), carbohydrate (31.1 g), dan fat (15.6 g) intakes. Balanced nutrition education of older people could also substantially increase knowledge of older people regarding nutrition (11.8 points). The proportion of malnourished subjects who gained weight was more remarkable than normal subjects in the first and second weeks of the intervention. However, the proportion of normal nutritional status subjects having increased macronutrients intakes was higher than the malnourished subjects. These findings recommend broccoli-soybean-mangrove food bar consumption to significantly improve weight and macronutrients intakes in older people following a natural disaster. It is necessary to make the broccoli-soybean-mangrove food bar more available, accessible, and affordable to all people in emergencies, mainly for older people.Entities:
Keywords: broccoli-soybean-mangrove food bar; food emergency product; natural disaster; older people; weight
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33916157 PMCID: PMC8037724 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18073686
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The study scheme.
Acceptability test.
| Level of Likeness | Broccoli Soybean Mangrove Food Bar | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aroma | Texture | Taste | Color | |||||
|
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % | |
| Dislike extremely | 2 | 7.1 | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 7.1 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Dislike | 11 | 39.3 | 1 | 3.6 | 5 | 17.9 | 4 | 14.3 |
| Like | 13 | 46.4 | 25 | 89.3 | 18 | 64.3 | 20 | 71.4 |
| Like extremely | 1 | 3.6 | 2 | 7.1 | 2 | 7.1 | 3 | 10.7 |
Figure 2Broccoli-soybean-mangrove food bar (Bruguiera gymnorrhiza).
The hedonic quality test.
| Attribute | Broccoli Soybean Mangrove Food Bar | |
|---|---|---|
|
| % | |
| Aroma: | ||
| It was very bad | 4 | 14.3 |
| It was a little nice | 11 | 39.3 |
| Good | 11 | 39.3 |
| Very good | 2 | 7.1 |
| Texture: | ||
| It was not very crunchy | 2 | 7.1 |
| It was a bit crunchy | 12 | 42.9 |
| It was crunchy | 13 | 46.4 |
| It was very crunchy | 1 | 3.6 |
| Taste: | ||
| It was not very sweet | 2 | 7.1 |
| It was a little sweet | 8 | 28.6 |
| It was sweet | 16 | 57.1 |
| It was very sweet | 2 | 7.1 |
| Color: | ||
| It was not attractive | 2 | 7.1 |
| It was a bit attractive | 5 | 17.9 |
| It was attractive | 20 | 71.4 |
| It was very attractive | 1 | 3.6 |
Characteristic of socio-demography, nutritional status, cognitive performance, and level of independence profiles.
| Indicator |
| % | Mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | |||
| Male | 6 | 18.2 | |
| Female | 27 | 81.8 | |
| Marital status | |||
| Married | 13 | 39.4 | |
| Widow/widower | 20 | 60.6 | |
| Age (y.o) | 70.4 ± 7.8 | ||
| 60–70 | 14 | 42.4 | |
| 71–80 | 16 | 48.5 | |
| ≥81 | 3 | 9.1 | |
| Final education level | |||
| Low | 29 | 87.9 | |
| Moderate | 4 | 12.1 | |
| Staying at home | |||
| Alone | 3 | 9.1 | |
| Husband/wife/4/12.1 | |||
| Children/grandchild/son-in-law | 23 | 69.7 | |
| Another family member | 3 | 9.1 | |
| Body Mass Index/BMI (kg/m2) | 19.6 ± 3.5 | ||
| Underweight (<18.5 kg/m2) | 15 | 45.5 | |
| Normal (18.5–24.9 kg/m2) | 18 | 54.5 | |
| Overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m2) | 0 | 0.0 | |
| Obesity (≥30.0 kg/m2) | 0 | 0.0 | |
| MUAC (Mid Upper Arm Circumference) (cm) | 22.5 ± 2.8 | ||
| MNA (Mini Nutritional Assessment) | 21.2 ± 3.9 | ||
| At risk malnourished | 25 | 75.8 | |
| Normal | 8 | 24.2 | |
| MMSE (Mini Mental State Examination) | 21.1 ± 6.4 | ||
| Cognitive impairment | 8 | 24.2 | |
| Probably cognitive impairment | 11 | 33.3 | |
| Normal | 14 | 42.5 | |
| BADL (Basic Activity Daily Living) | 19.8 ± 0.9 | ||
| Light dependence | 3 | 9.1 | |
| Independently | 30 | 90.9 | |
| IADL (Instrumental Activity Daily Living) | 5.1 ± 2.3 | ||
| Need help all the time | 2 | 6.1 | |
| Need help now and then | 3 | 9.1 | |
| Independently | 28 | 84.8 |
Change of weight at pre-post study.
| Nutritional Status | In the First Week | In the Second Week | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loose | Stay | Gain | Loose | Stay | Gain | |||||||
|
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % | |
| Underweight | 6 | 50.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 9 | 50.0 | 3 | 33.3 | 2 | 50.0 | 10 | 50.0 |
| Normal | 6 | 50.0 | 3 | 100.0 | 9 | 50.0 | 6 | 66.7 | 2 | 50.0 | 10 | 50.0 |
| Total | 12 | 100.0 | 3 | 100.0 | 18 | 100.0 | 9 | 100.0 | 4 | 100.0 | 20 | 100.0 |
| Mean (kg) | −0.30 | 0.0 | 0.34 | −0.29 | 0.0 | 0.50 | ||||||
| Minimum (kg) | −0.80 | 0.0 | 0.10 | −1.20 | 0.0 | 0.10 | ||||||
| Maximum (kg) | −0.10 | 0.0 | 0.90 | −0.10 | 0.0 | 1.20 | ||||||
Change of macronutrient intakes at pre-post study.
| Nutritional Status | Energy Intake | Carbohydrate Intake | Protein Intake | Fat Intake | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (kcal) | (gr) | (gr) | (gr) | |||||||||||||
| Loose | Gain | Loose | Gain | Loose | Gain | Loose | Gain | |||||||||
|
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % | |
| Underweight | 5 | 71.4 | 10 | 38.5 | 4 | 66.7 | 11 | 40.0 | 8 | 66.7 | 7 | 33.3 | 5 | 62.5 | 10 | 40.0 |
| Normal | 2 | 28.6 | 16 | 61.5 | 2 | 33.3 | 16 | 59.3 | 4 | 33.3 | 14 | 66.7 | 3 | 37.5 | 15 | 60.0 |
| Total | 7 | 100.0 | 26 | 100.0 | 6 | 100.0 | 27 | 100.0 | 12 | 100.0 | 11 | 100.0 | 8 | 100.0 | 25 | 100.0 |
Anthropometry, macronutrient intakes, and nutrition and natural disaster preparedness of older people changes.
| Measurement | Mean | SD | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body weight (baseline vs. week 1) | 41.6 | 8.3 | 26.8–64.2 | >0.01 |
| Body weight (week 1 vs. week II) | 41.7 | 8.2 | 26.9–64.2 | <0.01 |
| Body weight (baseline vs. weeks I) | 41.8 | 8.2 | 26.7–64.4 | <0.01 |
| Energy (kcal) | 2291.9 | 210.0 | 217.4–366.4 | <0.01 |
| Protein (g) | 6.1 | 13.3 | 1.33–10.8 | <0.01 |
| Fat (g) | 15.6 | 14.6 | 10.4–20.8 | <0.01 |
| Carbohydrate (g) | 31.1 | 46.9 | 14.5–47.8 | <0.01 |
| Nutrition and natural disaster | 11.8 | 21.7 | 4.1–19.5 | <0.01 |
Comparison of mean macronutrient intake with percentage of recommended dietary allowance (RDA) during study.
| Mean (SD) Macronutrient Intake | Mean Macronutrient Intakes as Percentage of RDA | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nutrient | Baseline | At the Second Week | Baseline | At the Second Week | ||||||||
| Mean | DS | Mean | DS | Mean | DS | Mean | DS | Male | Female | Male | Female | |
| Energy (kcal) | 828.60 | 317.56 | 52.67 | 15.62 | 1271.90 | 296.04 | 69.33 | 14.19 | 46.03 | 52.67 | 70.66 | 69.33 |
| Protein (g) | 29.90 | 11.40 | 47.81 | 20.25 | 37.68 | 10.13 | 57.62 | 17.73 | 46.74 | 47.81 | 58.88 | 57.62 |
| Fat (g) | 27.95 | 9.39 | 63.47 | 28.66 | 45.05 | 10.57 | 97.32 | 21.67 | 55.90 | 63.47 | 90.10 | 97.32 |
| Carbohydrate (g) | 129.67 | 80.90 | 52.77 | 19.52 | 180.68 | 50.52 | 64.38 | 11.68 | 47.15 | 52.77 | 65.70 | 64.38 |
Figure 3Mangrove/lindur fruit.
Figure 4Mangrove/lindur fruit flour.