4.2 Article

The Malnutrition Screening Tool is a useful tool for identifying malnutrition risk in residential aged care

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN NUTRITION AND DIETETICS
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 545-550

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-277X.2009.01008.x

关键词

dietetics; malnutrition; nutrition; nutrition screening; residential aged care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) is a valid nutrition screening tool in the acute hospital setting but has not been assessed in residential aged care facilities. The aim of this secondary analysis was to determine whether the MST could be a useful nutrition screening tool when compared with a full nutrition assessment by Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) in the residential aged care setting. Methods: Two hundred and eighty-five residents (29% male; mean age 84 +/- 9 years) from eight residential aged care facilities in Australia participated in the study. A secondary analysis of data collected during a nutrition intervention study was conducted. The MST consists of two questions related to recent weight loss and appetite. Although the MST was not specifically applied, weight loss and appetite information was available and an estimated MST score (0-5) was calculated. Nutritional status was assessed by a research assistant trained in using the SGA. Results: Malnutrition prevalence was 42.8% (122 malnourished out of 285 residents). Compared to the SGA, the MST was an effective predictor of nutritional risk (sensitivity = 83.6%, specificity = 65.6%, positive predictive value = 0.65, negative predictive value = 0.84). Conclusions: The components of the MST have acceptable sensitivity and specificity, suggesting that it can play a valuable role in quickly identifying the risk of malnutrition in the residential aged care setting. Further prospective research using the MST tool against a broader array of objective and subjective nutritional parameters is required to confirm its validity as a screening tool in aged care settings.

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

4.2
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