| Literature DB >> 34195219 |
Luana Lemos Leão1, Knut Engedal2,3, Renato Sobral Monteiro-Junior1,4, Gro Gujord Tangen2,3, Maria Krogseth2,5,6.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to explore the magnitude and significance of associations among nutritional status, functional status, comorbidities, age, and gender in older adults receiving assistance from the in-home nursing care service. Method: In this cross-sectional study, 210 home-dwelling persons 65 years or older who received in-home nursing care service were evaluated. Demographic variables, nutritional status, comorbidities, and the dependency levels of activities of daily living were analyzed. To assess the correlation among the factors that influence nutritional status, a theoretical model was developed and adjusted using the path analysis model.Entities:
Keywords: comorbididites; frailty; nutritional assessment; nutritional status; older adult
Year: 2021 PMID: 34195219 PMCID: PMC8236523 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2021.684438
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Figure 1Theoretical model for the interrelationships of the factors that influence nutritional status (MNA score).
Sex, years of education, marital status and comorbidities of the participants.
| Male | 72 | 34.3 |
| Female | 138 | 65.7 |
| ≤10 | 142 | 67.6 |
| >10 | 68 | 32.4 |
| <85 | 101 | 48.1 |
| ≥85 | 109 | 51.9 |
| Married/cohabitant | 66 | 31.4 |
| Divorced | 31 | 14.7 |
| Widowed | 107 | 51.0 |
| Single | 06 | 2.9 |
| Myocardial Infarction | 38 | 18.1 |
| Heart failure | 47 | 22.4 |
| Peripheral vascular disease | 19 | 9 |
| Transient ischemic attack | 42 | 20 |
| Dementia | 62 | 29.5 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 42 | 20 |
| Connective tissue disease | 33 | 15.7 |
| Peptic ulcer disease | 28 | 13.3 |
| Mild liver disease | 2 | 1 |
| Diabetes | 41 | 19.5 |
| Diabetes with end-organ damage | 9 | 4.3 |
| Hemiplegia | 23 | 11 |
| Moderate-to-severe renal disease | 23 | 11 |
| Tumor | 23 | 11 |
| Metastatic solid tumor | 7 | 3.3 |
| Leukemia | 1 | 0.5 |
Values are expressed as n and % for categorical variables.
Distribution of participants' characteristics by age groups.
| Age (years) | 77.29 | 5.37 | 91.13 | 3.57 | |
| Years of education | 10 | 3.43 | 9.514 | 3.27 | 0.325 |
| Barthel Index (score) | 15.78 | 4.03 | 15.84 | 3.34 | 0.906 |
| 3.05 | 2.18 | 2.21 | 1.75 | ||
| Malnourished | 3.84 | 2.47 | 2.13 | 1.59 | 0.154 |
| At risk of malnutrition | 3.09 | 2.31 | 2.30 | 1.87 | |
| Normal nutritional status | 2.44 | 1.45 | 2.00 | 1.57 | |
Values are expressed as mean and SD for continuous variables.
P-value of the comparison between the nutritional status groups. P-value results are from ANOVA. Bold values indicate statistical significance.
Participants' nutritional status by age according to sex and marital status.
| Malnourished | Men | 5 | 26.3 | 6 | 40 | 0.316 χ2 = 0,717 |
| Women | 14 | 73.7 | 9 | 60.0 | ||
| Married/cohabitant | 6 | 31.6 | 5 | 0.086 χ2 = 4,911 | ||
| Divorced | 5 | 26.3 | 0 | 0.0 | ||
| Widowed | 8 | 42.1 | 10 | 66.7 | ||
| At risk of malnutrition | Men | 28 | 50.9 | 15 | 21 | |
| Women | 27 | 49.1 | 54 | 78.3 | ||
| Married/cohabitant | 24 | 43.6 | 16 | |||
| Divorced | 10 | 18.2 | 8 | 11.6 | ||
| Widowed | 18 | 32.7 | 43 | 62.3 | ||
| Single | 3 | 5.5 | 2 | 2.9 | ||
| Normal | Man | 12 | 44.4 | 6 | 25 | 0.123 χ2 = 2,104 |
| Women | 15 | 55.6 | 18 | 75.0 | ||
| Married/cohabitant | 8 | 29.6 | 7 | 0.096 χ2 = 6,338 | ||
| Divorced | 7 | 25.9 | 1 | 4.2 | ||
| Widowed | 11 | 40.7 | 16 | 66.7 | ||
| Single | 1 | 3.7 | 0 | 0.0 | ||
Values are expressed as n and % for categorical variables. Significance according to the Chi-square test. Bold font indicates statistical significance.
Figure 2Adjusted model showing the significant associations among variables.