Relevant outcomes for nutrition interventions to treat and prevent malnutrition in older people: a collaborative senator-ontop and manuel delphi study

Andrea Correa-Pérez*, Isabel Lozano-Montoya, Dorothee Volkert, Marjolein Visser, Alfonso J. Cruz-Jentoft

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

204 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background and aims: Research in malnutrition in older people is limited by the lack of consensus on relevant outcomes. Researchers of two European initiatives, the ‘Malnutrition in the Elderly (MaNuEL) Knowledge Hub’ (mostly experts in nutrition) and the Optimal Evidence-Based Non-drug Therapies in Older People (ONTOP) project (geriatricians) agreed to merge forces performing a systematic review of the effectiveness of nutritional interventions for the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older persons. In a first step, we aimed to identify relevant outcomes for this review using a systematic approach and to explore if the rating of relevant outcomes differed depending on the researchers’ professional background. Methods: Following the ONTOP protocol, we searched all outcomes used in research of nutritional interventions for the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older people. We carried out a web-based Delphi survey using a standardized list of 13 potentially relevant outcomes among 41 experts in geriatrics and nutrition who were asked to rate each outcome from 1 to 9 points: low importance (score 1–3), important but non-critical (score 4–6), and critical (score 7–9). Participants were informed that only those outcomes rated as critical (7–9 points) would be used in the literature review. After two rounds consultation, we compared the results from each group of experts: the ONTOP group formed by 13 geriatricians and the MaNuEL group formed by 28 experts in nutrition. Mean values were used for overall rating and the Mann–Whitney U test was used to see the differences on ratings between both groups. Results: Mortality, morbidity, functional status, nutritional status and quality of life were considered critical outcomes by the whole group of experts. However, by analysing the ratings by the experts’ professional background, geriatricians only rated mortality, morbidity and functional status as critical, while experts in nutrition (MaNuEL group) rated nutritional status, changes in dietary intake, compliance with the intervention, quality of life, and frailty status outcomes as critical too. Two outcomes, changes in dietary intake and compliance with the intervention, were rated with a significant different between the two professional groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Five outcomes were considered critical for research in nutritional interventions for the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older persons: mortality, morbidity, functional status, nutritional status and quality of life by the whole panel of experts. However, more consensus is needed on the relevance of specific outcomes of nutritional interventions. Consensus processes within but also between relevant organizations are required to reach consensus and to contribute to this aim.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)243-248
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Geriatric Medicine
Volume9
Issue number2
Early online date19 Jan 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2018

Funding

Funding sources The preparation of this paper was supported by the MAlNUtrition in the ELderly (MaNuEL) knowledge hub. This work is supported by the Joint Programming Initiative ‘Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life’. The funding agencies supporting this work are (in alphabetical order of participating Member State): Austria: Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy (BMWFW); France: Ecole Supérieure d’Agricultires (ESA); Germany: Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) represented by Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE); Ireland: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM), and the Health Research Board (HRB); Spain: Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and the SENATOR trial (FP7-HEALTH-2012-305930); The Netherlands: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw).The authors from Spain have only received Grants from the SENATOR trial funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under Grant agreement no. 305930. Conflict of interest Dr. Correa-Pérez reports Grants from EUROPEAN UNION FP7 PROGRAM (FP7/2007–2013) under Grant agreement no. 305930, during the conduct of the study; Dr. Cruz-Jentoft reports Grants from EUROPEAN UNION FP7 PROGRAM, during the conduct of the study; Dr. Volkert reports grants from Medical Nutrition Industrie (MNI), Grants from Nestlé Nutrition Institute, outside the submitted work; Dr. Lozano-Montoya has nothing to disclose; Dr. Visser has nothing to disclose.

FundersFunder number
Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
FP7 PROGRAM
FP7/2007305930
Federal Office for Agriculture and Food
Medical Nutrition Industrie
Health Research Board
Nestlé Nutrition Institute
European Space Agency
Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Ireland
ZonMw
Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Wirtschaft
Instituto de Salud Carlos IIIFP7-HEALTH-2012-305930
Seventh Framework Programme
Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft

    Keywords

    • Critical outcomes
    • Elderly
    • Geriatrics
    • Malnutrition
    • Nutritional interventions

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Relevant outcomes for nutrition interventions to treat and prevent malnutrition in older people: a collaborative senator-ontop and manuel delphi study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this