IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v20y2011i15-16p2162-2171.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived health and risk of undernutrition: a comparison of different nutritional screening results in older patients

Author

Listed:
  • Ulrika Söderhamn
  • Sylvi Flateland
  • Liss Jessen
  • Olle Söderhamn

Abstract

Aims and objectives. To compare screening results using different nutritional screening instruments with respect to nutritional risk and associations with perceived health and health‐related issues in a group of older hospital patients. Background. The association between lower perceived health and nutritional risk in older people is widely known. It is advised to use a screening instrument to identify nutritional at‐risk patients. Design. A cross‐sectional study design was used. Methods. One hundred and fifty‐eight older patients, in three medical hospital wards in two hospitals in southern Norway, were interviewed using a questionnaire containing questions about background variables, perceived health and health‐related issues and the nutritional screening instruments Nutritional Form for the Elderly and Mini Nutritional Assessment (including Mini Nutritional Assessment‐Short Form). Data were also collected regarding the screening instrument Nutrition Risk Screening 2002. All data were analysed using statistical methods. Results. Many patients were at nutritional risk independent of instrument used. Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 identified fewer nutritional at‐risk patients than the other instruments did. Perceived ill health was significantly associated with nutritional risk using instruments specifically designed for older people. Feeling satisfied with life and lower risk of undernutrition were two important predictors for perceived good health. Conclusions. Nutritional Form for the Elderly, Mini Nutritional Assessment and Mini Nutritional Assessment‐Short Form could identify approximately the same number of nutritional at‐risk patients. Being at nutritional risk had a negative impact on older patients’ perceived health. Relevance for practice. Corresponding nutritional screening results can be obtained using either Nutritional Form for the Elderly or Mini Nutritional Assessment, as well as Mini Nutritional Assessment‐Short Form. Instruments designed for older people should be used to screen older patients. Factors associated with nutritional risk can aid nurses in becoming aware of nutritional at‐risk patients. Preventing undernutrition is important for overall health enhancement.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulrika Söderhamn & Sylvi Flateland & Liss Jessen & Olle Söderhamn, 2011. "Perceived health and risk of undernutrition: a comparison of different nutritional screening results in older patients," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(15‐16), pages 2162-2171, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:20:y:2011:i:15-16:p:2162-2171
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03677.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03677.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03677.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Simon Langley‐Evans & Cynthia R. King, 2014. "Editorial: Assessment of nutritional status in clinical settings," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3-4), pages 299-300, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:20:y:2011:i:15-16:p:2162-2171. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.