Comparison of three interventions in the treatment of malnutrition in hospitalised older adults: a clinical trial

Campbell, Katrina L., Webb, Lindsey, Vivanti, Angela, Varghese, Paul and Ferguson, Maree (2013) Comparison of three interventions in the treatment of malnutrition in hospitalised older adults: a clinical trial. Nutrition and Dietetics, 70 4: 325-331. doi:10.1111/1747-0080.12008

Author Campbell, Katrina L.
Webb, Lindsey
Vivanti, Angela
Varghese, Paul
Ferguson, Maree
Title Comparison of three interventions in the treatment of malnutrition in hospitalised older adults: a clinical trial
Journal name Nutrition and Dietetics   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1446-6368
Publication date 2013
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/1747-0080.12008
Open Access Status
Volume 70
Issue 4
Start page 325
End page 331
Total pages 7
Place of publication Richmond, VIC, Australia
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell
Collection year 2014
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Aim: The objective of the present study was to determine the most effective method for providing oral nutrition support to hospitalised older adult patients with malnutrition using clinical and patient-centred measures.

Methods: The present study involved consecutive assignment of 98 inpatients assessed as malnourished (Subjective Global Assessment B or C) to conventional commercial supplements (traditional, n = 33), MedPass (n = 32, 2cal/mL supplement delivered 60mL four times a day at medication rounds) or mid-meal trolley (n = 33, selective snack trolley offered between meals) for two weeks. Weight change, supplement compliance, energy and protein intake (3-day food records), quality of life (EQ-5D), patient satisfaction and cost were evaluated.

Results: Weight change was similar across the three interventions (mean ± SD): 0.4 ± 3.8% traditional; 1.5 ± 5.8% MedPass; 1.0 ± 3.1% mid-meal (P = 0.53). Energy and protein intakes (% of requirements) were more often achieved with traditional (107 ± 26, 128 ± 35%) and MedPass (110 ± 28, 126 ± 38%) compared with mid-meal (85 ± 25, 88 ± 25%) interventions (P = < 0.01). Overall quality-of-life ratings (scale 0-100) improved significantly with MedPass (mean change, 12.4 ± 20.9) and mid-meal (21.1 ± 19.7) interventions, however, did not change with traditional intervention (1.5 ± 18.1) (P = 0.05). Patient satisfaction including sensory qualities (taste, look, temperature, size) and perceived benefit (improved health and recovery) was rated highest for mid-meal trolley (all P < 0.05).

Conclusions: Patients achieved recommended intake with supplements (MedPass or traditional), and despite lower cost, higher satisfaction and quality of life with selective mid-meal trolley did not achieve recommended energy and protein intake. Future research is warranted for implementing a combination of strategies in providing oral nutrition support.
Keyword Intervention
Older adult
Oral nutrition support
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Official 2014 Collection
School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 3 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 3 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 31 Dec 2013, 00:54:37 EST by System User on behalf of School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences