Validation of the nutrition screening tool ‘Seniors in the Community: Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition, version II’ among octogenarians

OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of the nutrition screening tool’ Seniors in the Community: Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition, version II’ (SCREEN II) among a purposive sample of octogenarians. Design: Cross-sectional validation study. SETTING: Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. Participants: Fo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of nutrition, health & aging health & aging, 2014, Vol.18 (1), p.39-43
Hauptverfasser: Wham, C. A, Redwood, K. M, Kerse, N
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of the nutrition screening tool’ Seniors in the Community: Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition, version II’ (SCREEN II) among a purposive sample of octogenarians. Design: Cross-sectional validation study. SETTING: Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. Participants: Forty-five community-living residents aged 85-86 years. Equal proportions of participants were recruited at low, medium and high nutrition risk based on their SCREEN II score 12 months prior. MEASUREMENTS: Nutrition risk was assessed using SCREEN II. Demographic and health data were established. Using established criterion a dietitian’s nutrition risk rating assessment ranked participants from low risk (score of 1) to high risk (score of 10). The assessment included a medical history, anthropometric measures and dietary intake. Dietary intake was established from three 24 hour multiple pass recalls (MPR). A Spearman’s correlation determined the association between the SCREEN II score and the dietitian’s risk score. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were completed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the cut-off point for high nutrition risk. RESULTS: The SCREEN II score was significantly correlated with the dietitian’s risk rating (rs = −0.76 (p
ISSN:1279-7707
1760-4788
DOI:10.1007/s12603-013-0361-8