↓ Skip to main content

A cluster randomised feasibility trial evaluating nutritional interventions in the treatment of malnutrition in care home adult residents

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 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
A cluster randomised feasibility trial evaluating nutritional interventions in the treatment of malnutrition in care home adult residents
Published in
Trials, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0952-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth Stow, Natalie Ives, Christina Smith, Caroline Rick, Alison Rushton

Abstract

Protein energy malnutrition (PEM) predisposes individuals to disease, delays recovery from illness and reduces quality of life. Care home residents in the United Kingdom are especially vulnerable, with an estimated 30 to 42 % at risk. Evidence for nutritional interventions to address PEM in the care home setting is lacking. Widely used techniques include food-based intervention and/or the use of prescribed oral nutritional supplements. To define outcomes and optimise the design for an adequately powered definitive trial to compare the efficacy of established nutritional interventions in this setting, a cluster randomised feasibility trial with a 6-month intervention was undertaken. Care home residents with or at risk of malnutrition were identified across six UK care home sites from September to December 2013. Homes were cluster randomised to standard care (SC), food-based intervention (FB) or oral nutritional supplement intervention (ONS), for 6 months. Key outcomes were trial feasibility and the acceptability of design, allocated interventions and outcome assessments. Anthropometry, dietary intake, healthcare resource usage and participant-reported outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months. All six care homes approached were recruited and retained. Of the 110 residents at risk of malnutrition, 85 % entered the trial, and 68 % completed the 6-month intervention. Pre-specified success criteria for feasibility were met for recruitment and retention, intervention acceptability (resident compliance ≥60 %) and measurement of weight, body mass index (BMI), mid-upper arm circumference and dietary intake (data completeness >80 %). Measurement of handgrip strength and triceps skinfold thickness was not found to be feasible in this population. The 95 % confidence interval (CI) data suggested sensitivity to change in dietary intake for weight, BMI and energy intake between baseline and 3 months when each intervention (FB and ONS) was compared with SC. A definitive trial comparing the efficacy of nutritional support interventions in increasing weight and BMI in malnourished care home residents can be conducted. However, whilst the design was feasible, this trial has highlighted the lack of clinically and patient-relevant outcome measures that are appropriate for use in this setting for both research and clinical practice. In particular, this trial identified a need for a more simple measure of functional status, which considers the limitations of functional tests in the care home population. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38047922 , Date assigned: 22 April 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 185 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Researcher 20 11%
Professor 9 5%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 60 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 33 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 17%
Sports and Recreations 11 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 30 16%
Unknown 68 37%