↓ Skip to main content

Making the Most of Mealtimes (M3): protocol of a multi-centre cross-sectional study of food intake and its determinants in older adults living in long term care homes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
247 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Making the Most of Mealtimes (M3): protocol of a multi-centre cross-sectional study of food intake and its determinants in older adults living in long term care homes
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0401-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather H. Keller, Natalie Carrier, Susan Slaughter, Christina Lengyel, Catriona M. Steele, Lisa Duizer, K. Steve Brown, Habib Chaudhury, Minn N. Yoon, Alison M. Duncan, Veronique M. Boscart, George Heckman, Lita Villalon

Abstract

Older adults living in long term care (LTC) homes are nutritionally vulnerable, often consuming insufficient energy, macro- and micronutrients to sustain their health and function. Multiple factors are proposed to influence food intake, yet our understanding of these diverse factors and their interactions are limited. The purpose of this paper is to fully describe the protocol used to examine determinants of food and fluid intake among older adults participating in the Making the Most of Mealtimes (M3) study. A conceptual framework that considers multi-level influences on mealtime experience, meal quality and meal access was used to design this multi-site cross-sectional study. Data were collected from 639 participants residing in 32 LTC homes in four Canadian provinces by trained researchers. Food intake was assessed with three-days of weighed food intake (main plate items), as well as estimations of side dishes, beverages and snacks and compared to the Dietary Reference Intake. Resident-level measures included: nutritional status, nutritional risk; disease conditions, medication, and diet prescriptions; oral health exam, signs of swallowing difficulty and olfactory ability; observed eating behaviours, type and number of staff assisting with eating; and food and foodservice satisfaction. Function, cognition, depression and pain were assessed using interRAI LTCF with selected items completed by researchers with care staff. Care staff completed a standardized person-directed care questionnaire. Researchers assessed dining rooms for physical and psychosocial aspects that could influence food intake. Management from each site completed a questionnaire that described the home, menu development, food production, out-sourcing of food, staffing levels, and staff training. Hierarchical regression models, accounting for clustering within province, home and dining room will be used to determine factors independently associated with energy and protein intake, as proxies for intake. Proportions of residents at risk of inadequate diets will also be determined. This rigorous and comprehensive data collection in a large and diverse sample will provide, for the first time, the opportunity to consider important modifiable factors associated with poor food intake of residents in LTC. Identification of factors that are independently associated with food intake will help to develop effective interventions that support food intake. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02800291 , retrospectively registered June 7, 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 247 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 246 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 12%
Student > Bachelor 22 9%
Researcher 15 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 86 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 69 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 14%
Psychology 11 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 92 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,069,374
of 25,019,915 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,788
of 3,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,977
of 432,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#38
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,019,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 432,814 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.