Do Hemodialysis Patients Prefer Renal-Specific or Standard Oral Nutritional Supplements?
Objective We investigated whether hemodialysis (HD) patients prefer standard or renal-specific oral nutritional supplements (ONS). Design Standard ONS Fortisip (Nutricia Clinical Care, Wiltshire, Trowbridge, UK) and renal ONS Renilon (Nutricia Clinical Care) and Nepro (Abbott Laboratories, Ltd., Mai...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of renal nutrition 2009-03, Vol.19 (2), p.183-188 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 188 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 183 |
container_title | Journal of renal nutrition |
container_volume | 19 |
creator | Williams, Rosalind F., BSc (Hons) Summers, Angela M., BSc (Hons), PhD |
description | Objective We investigated whether hemodialysis (HD) patients prefer standard or renal-specific oral nutritional supplements (ONS). Design Standard ONS Fortisip (Nutricia Clinical Care, Wiltshire, Trowbridge, UK) and renal ONS Renilon (Nutricia Clinical Care) and Nepro (Abbott Laboratories, Ltd., Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK) were compared using single-blind taste tests and face-to-face, interviewer-administered questionnaires. Setting This study took place in our HD unit in September 2007. Patients There were 40 patients, including 24 males, 14 smokers, and 26 Caucasians, aged 70 years (n = 9). Intervention Patients ranked ONS taste on a Likert scale (1 to 5), and compared flavor options, phosphate-binder requirements, and fluid contribution. Main Outcome Measure Which factors influenced a patient's choice of ONS? Results Gender, smoking status, ethnicity, and age influenced patients’ choices. The taste of Fortisip and Nepro was liked by 58% (n = 23), versus 28% liking Renilon (n = 11). Renilon was disliked by 35% (n = 14), Nepro was disliked by 30% (n = 12), and Fortisip was disliked by 25% (n = 10). The favorite taste was Fortisip, in 52% (n = 21). However, 21% (n = 4) who preferred the taste of renal ONS would not choose them long-term because of their limited flavor ranges. The lack of phosphate binders with Renilon was a deciding factor in 27% (n = 19/33). The low fluid contribution of renal ONS influenced the choice of 43% (n = 12/28). All factors considered, standard ONS remained most popular for patients aged >70 years. However, in all other subgroups, and particularly males and non-Caucasians, renal ONS became more popular. Many patients (23%; n = 9) would sacrifice taste for the benefits of renal ONS. Conclusions Renal ONS are more popular in HD patients because of their low fluid contribution and phosphate-binder requirements, which can influence preference over taste. Patients need information to make informed choices. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1053/j.jrn.2008.11.011 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_66927841</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S1051227608004688</els_id><sourcerecordid>66927841</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c406t-7015da96eb81d81bf2d80c2416520f6dfd4d8678a31c6a91571602e9e4cc4f113</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kV2L1TAQhoMo7rr6A7yRXnnXOpO2aYqgyPqxC4srHgXvQk4yhdT0w6RdOP_e1HNA2Iu9mrl43hfmGcZeIhQIdfmmL_owFhxAFogFID5i51iXPJc1lI_TDjXmnDfijD2LsYdE1JI_ZWfYcpRQNefs18cpu6Jhsk77Q3Qx-6YXR-OSlkAdhew7jdrnu5mM65zJppDtFj1aHWx2G7TPvq5LcIubEpXt1nn2NGzx98_Zk077SC9O84L9_Pzpx-VVfnP75fryw01uKhBL3gDWVreC9hKtxH3HrQTDKxQ1h07YzlZWikbqEo3QLdYNCuDUUmVM1SGWF-z1sXcO05-V4qIGFw15r0ea1qiEaHkjqw3EI2jCFGM6Ts3BDTocFILadKpeJZ1q06kQFfwrf3UqX_cD2f-Jk78EvD0ClE68cxRUNEmfIesCmUXZyT1Y_-5e2ng3OqP9bzpQ7Kc1JK1RoYpcgdpt_9zeCRKgElKWfwG8cJon</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>66927841</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Do Hemodialysis Patients Prefer Renal-Specific or Standard Oral Nutritional Supplements?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Williams, Rosalind F., BSc (Hons) ; Summers, Angela M., BSc (Hons), PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>Williams, Rosalind F., BSc (Hons) ; Summers, Angela M., BSc (Hons), PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Objective We investigated whether hemodialysis (HD) patients prefer standard or renal-specific oral nutritional supplements (ONS). Design Standard ONS Fortisip (Nutricia Clinical Care, Wiltshire, Trowbridge, UK) and renal ONS Renilon (Nutricia Clinical Care) and Nepro (Abbott Laboratories, Ltd., Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK) were compared using single-blind taste tests and face-to-face, interviewer-administered questionnaires. Setting This study took place in our HD unit in September 2007. Patients There were 40 patients, including 24 males, 14 smokers, and 26 Caucasians, aged <30 years (n = 6), 31 to 50 years (n = 13), 51 to 70 years (n = 12), and >70 years (n = 9). Intervention Patients ranked ONS taste on a Likert scale (1 to 5), and compared flavor options, phosphate-binder requirements, and fluid contribution. Main Outcome Measure Which factors influenced a patient's choice of ONS? Results Gender, smoking status, ethnicity, and age influenced patients’ choices. The taste of Fortisip and Nepro was liked by 58% (n = 23), versus 28% liking Renilon (n = 11). Renilon was disliked by 35% (n = 14), Nepro was disliked by 30% (n = 12), and Fortisip was disliked by 25% (n = 10). The favorite taste was Fortisip, in 52% (n = 21). However, 21% (n = 4) who preferred the taste of renal ONS would not choose them long-term because of their limited flavor ranges. The lack of phosphate binders with Renilon was a deciding factor in 27% (n = 19/33). The low fluid contribution of renal ONS influenced the choice of 43% (n = 12/28). All factors considered, standard ONS remained most popular for patients aged >70 years. However, in all other subgroups, and particularly males and non-Caucasians, renal ONS became more popular. Many patients (23%; n = 9) would sacrifice taste for the benefits of renal ONS. Conclusions Renal ONS are more popular in HD patients because of their low fluid contribution and phosphate-binder requirements, which can influence preference over taste. Patients need information to make informed choices.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1051-2276</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-8503</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1053/j.jrn.2008.11.011</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19218047</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Administration, Oral ; Adult ; Age Distribution ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Dietary Supplements ; Enteral Nutrition - methods ; Enteral Nutrition - psychology ; Enteral Nutrition - standards ; Female ; Humans ; Kidney Failure, Chronic - therapy ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Nephrology ; Nutritional Requirements ; Patient Education as Topic ; Patient Satisfaction ; Phosphates - administration & dosage ; Phosphates - metabolism ; Renal Dialysis ; Sex Distribution ; Smoking ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Taste</subject><ispartof>Journal of renal nutrition, 2009-03, Vol.19 (2), p.183-188</ispartof><rights>National Kidney Foundation, Inc.</rights><rights>2009 National Kidney Foundation, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c406t-7015da96eb81d81bf2d80c2416520f6dfd4d8678a31c6a91571602e9e4cc4f113</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c406t-7015da96eb81d81bf2d80c2416520f6dfd4d8678a31c6a91571602e9e4cc4f113</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.jrn.2008.11.011$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,27905,27906,45976</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19218047$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Williams, Rosalind F., BSc (Hons)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Summers, Angela M., BSc (Hons), PhD</creatorcontrib><title>Do Hemodialysis Patients Prefer Renal-Specific or Standard Oral Nutritional Supplements?</title><title>Journal of renal nutrition</title><addtitle>J Ren Nutr</addtitle><description>Objective We investigated whether hemodialysis (HD) patients prefer standard or renal-specific oral nutritional supplements (ONS). Design Standard ONS Fortisip (Nutricia Clinical Care, Wiltshire, Trowbridge, UK) and renal ONS Renilon (Nutricia Clinical Care) and Nepro (Abbott Laboratories, Ltd., Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK) were compared using single-blind taste tests and face-to-face, interviewer-administered questionnaires. Setting This study took place in our HD unit in September 2007. Patients There were 40 patients, including 24 males, 14 smokers, and 26 Caucasians, aged <30 years (n = 6), 31 to 50 years (n = 13), 51 to 70 years (n = 12), and >70 years (n = 9). Intervention Patients ranked ONS taste on a Likert scale (1 to 5), and compared flavor options, phosphate-binder requirements, and fluid contribution. Main Outcome Measure Which factors influenced a patient's choice of ONS? Results Gender, smoking status, ethnicity, and age influenced patients’ choices. The taste of Fortisip and Nepro was liked by 58% (n = 23), versus 28% liking Renilon (n = 11). Renilon was disliked by 35% (n = 14), Nepro was disliked by 30% (n = 12), and Fortisip was disliked by 25% (n = 10). The favorite taste was Fortisip, in 52% (n = 21). However, 21% (n = 4) who preferred the taste of renal ONS would not choose them long-term because of their limited flavor ranges. The lack of phosphate binders with Renilon was a deciding factor in 27% (n = 19/33). The low fluid contribution of renal ONS influenced the choice of 43% (n = 12/28). All factors considered, standard ONS remained most popular for patients aged >70 years. However, in all other subgroups, and particularly males and non-Caucasians, renal ONS became more popular. Many patients (23%; n = 9) would sacrifice taste for the benefits of renal ONS. Conclusions Renal ONS are more popular in HD patients because of their low fluid contribution and phosphate-binder requirements, which can influence preference over taste. Patients need information to make informed choices.</description><subject>Administration, Oral</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age Distribution</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Dietary Supplements</subject><subject>Enteral Nutrition - methods</subject><subject>Enteral Nutrition - psychology</subject><subject>Enteral Nutrition - standards</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kidney Failure, Chronic - therapy</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nephrology</subject><subject>Nutritional Requirements</subject><subject>Patient Education as Topic</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Phosphates - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Phosphates - metabolism</subject><subject>Renal Dialysis</subject><subject>Sex Distribution</subject><subject>Smoking</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Taste</subject><issn>1051-2276</issn><issn>1532-8503</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kV2L1TAQhoMo7rr6A7yRXnnXOpO2aYqgyPqxC4srHgXvQk4yhdT0w6RdOP_e1HNA2Iu9mrl43hfmGcZeIhQIdfmmL_owFhxAFogFID5i51iXPJc1lI_TDjXmnDfijD2LsYdE1JI_ZWfYcpRQNefs18cpu6Jhsk77Q3Qx-6YXR-OSlkAdhew7jdrnu5mM65zJppDtFj1aHWx2G7TPvq5LcIubEpXt1nn2NGzx98_Zk077SC9O84L9_Pzpx-VVfnP75fryw01uKhBL3gDWVreC9hKtxH3HrQTDKxQ1h07YzlZWikbqEo3QLdYNCuDUUmVM1SGWF-z1sXcO05-V4qIGFw15r0ea1qiEaHkjqw3EI2jCFGM6Ts3BDTocFILadKpeJZ1q06kQFfwrf3UqX_cD2f-Jk78EvD0ClE68cxRUNEmfIesCmUXZyT1Y_-5e2ng3OqP9bzpQ7Kc1JK1RoYpcgdpt_9zeCRKgElKWfwG8cJon</recordid><startdate>20090301</startdate><enddate>20090301</enddate><creator>Williams, Rosalind F., BSc (Hons)</creator><creator>Summers, Angela M., BSc (Hons), PhD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090301</creationdate><title>Do Hemodialysis Patients Prefer Renal-Specific or Standard Oral Nutritional Supplements?</title><author>Williams, Rosalind F., BSc (Hons) ; Summers, Angela M., BSc (Hons), PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c406t-7015da96eb81d81bf2d80c2416520f6dfd4d8678a31c6a91571602e9e4cc4f113</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Administration, Oral</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age Distribution</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Dietary Supplements</topic><topic>Enteral Nutrition - methods</topic><topic>Enteral Nutrition - psychology</topic><topic>Enteral Nutrition - standards</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kidney Failure, Chronic - therapy</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nephrology</topic><topic>Nutritional Requirements</topic><topic>Patient Education as Topic</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Phosphates - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Phosphates - metabolism</topic><topic>Renal Dialysis</topic><topic>Sex Distribution</topic><topic>Smoking</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Taste</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Williams, Rosalind F., BSc (Hons)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Summers, Angela M., BSc (Hons), PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of renal nutrition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Williams, Rosalind F., BSc (Hons)</au><au>Summers, Angela M., BSc (Hons), PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Do Hemodialysis Patients Prefer Renal-Specific or Standard Oral Nutritional Supplements?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of renal nutrition</jtitle><addtitle>J Ren Nutr</addtitle><date>2009-03-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>183</spage><epage>188</epage><pages>183-188</pages><issn>1051-2276</issn><eissn>1532-8503</eissn><abstract>Objective We investigated whether hemodialysis (HD) patients prefer standard or renal-specific oral nutritional supplements (ONS). Design Standard ONS Fortisip (Nutricia Clinical Care, Wiltshire, Trowbridge, UK) and renal ONS Renilon (Nutricia Clinical Care) and Nepro (Abbott Laboratories, Ltd., Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK) were compared using single-blind taste tests and face-to-face, interviewer-administered questionnaires. Setting This study took place in our HD unit in September 2007. Patients There were 40 patients, including 24 males, 14 smokers, and 26 Caucasians, aged <30 years (n = 6), 31 to 50 years (n = 13), 51 to 70 years (n = 12), and >70 years (n = 9). Intervention Patients ranked ONS taste on a Likert scale (1 to 5), and compared flavor options, phosphate-binder requirements, and fluid contribution. Main Outcome Measure Which factors influenced a patient's choice of ONS? Results Gender, smoking status, ethnicity, and age influenced patients’ choices. The taste of Fortisip and Nepro was liked by 58% (n = 23), versus 28% liking Renilon (n = 11). Renilon was disliked by 35% (n = 14), Nepro was disliked by 30% (n = 12), and Fortisip was disliked by 25% (n = 10). The favorite taste was Fortisip, in 52% (n = 21). However, 21% (n = 4) who preferred the taste of renal ONS would not choose them long-term because of their limited flavor ranges. The lack of phosphate binders with Renilon was a deciding factor in 27% (n = 19/33). The low fluid contribution of renal ONS influenced the choice of 43% (n = 12/28). All factors considered, standard ONS remained most popular for patients aged >70 years. However, in all other subgroups, and particularly males and non-Caucasians, renal ONS became more popular. Many patients (23%; n = 9) would sacrifice taste for the benefits of renal ONS. Conclusions Renal ONS are more popular in HD patients because of their low fluid contribution and phosphate-binder requirements, which can influence preference over taste. Patients need information to make informed choices.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>19218047</pmid><doi>10.1053/j.jrn.2008.11.011</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1051-2276 |
ispartof | Journal of renal nutrition, 2009-03, Vol.19 (2), p.183-188 |
issn | 1051-2276 1532-8503 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_66927841 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Administration, Oral Adult Age Distribution Aged Aged, 80 and over Dietary Supplements Enteral Nutrition - methods Enteral Nutrition - psychology Enteral Nutrition - standards Female Humans Kidney Failure, Chronic - therapy Male Middle Aged Nephrology Nutritional Requirements Patient Education as Topic Patient Satisfaction Phosphates - administration & dosage Phosphates - metabolism Renal Dialysis Sex Distribution Smoking Surveys and Questionnaires Taste |
title | Do Hemodialysis Patients Prefer Renal-Specific or Standard Oral Nutritional Supplements? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T05%3A52%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do%20Hemodialysis%20Patients%20Prefer%20Renal-Specific%20or%20Standard%20Oral%20Nutritional%20Supplements?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20renal%20nutrition&rft.au=Williams,%20Rosalind%20F.,%20BSc%20(Hons)&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=183&rft.epage=188&rft.pages=183-188&rft.issn=1051-2276&rft.eissn=1532-8503&rft_id=info:doi/10.1053/j.jrn.2008.11.011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E66927841%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=66927841&rft_id=info:pmid/19218047&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S1051227608004688&rfr_iscdi=true |