4.5 Article

Nutritional counseling improves quality of life and nutrient intake in hospitalized undernourished patients

期刊

NUTRITION
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 53-60

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2009.04.018

关键词

Nutrition therapy; Quality of life; Malnutrition; Enemy intake; Formula diet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Up to 60% of hospitalized patients are undernourished. We studied the impact of nutritional therapy on quality of life and food intake Methods: Undernourished patients were randomized into two groups The nutritional therapy group (NT group) received individual nutritional counseling and interventions. including oral nutritional supplements if appropriate, by a dietitian. The oral nutritional supplement group (ONS group) teemed oral nutritional supplements in addition to hospital meals without further instruction or counseling Study duration was 10 to 15 d At baseline and before discharge (time point 1) we measured energy and protein intakes and quality of life Quality of life was measured again 2 mo after discharge (time point 2) Results: Energy and protein intakes increased between baseline and time point I in both groups (P = 0.001). The NT group (n = 18) met the energy requirements at time point 1 by 107% and of protein by 94%. the ONS group (n = 18) by 90% and 88%, respectively Hospital meals alone did not cover the requirements From baseline to time point 1. quality of life increased in both groups. Quality of life increased further in the NT group from time point 1 to time point 2 (P = 0 016), but not in the ONS group Conclusion: Both interventions caused a significant increase in energy and protein intakes and quality of life. In the NT group every patient received an efficacious individualized intervention. In contrast. the 7 of 18 patients in the ONS group who did not consume ONS had no intervention at all Therefore. undernourished patients should be counseled individually by a dietitian (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc 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

4.5
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