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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of renal nutrition 2009-03, Vol.19 (2), p.183-188
Hauptverfasser: Williams, Rosalind F., BSc (Hons), Summers, Angela M., BSc (Hons), PhD
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 &lt;30 years (n = 6), 31 to 50 years (n = 13), 51 to 70 years (n = 12), and &gt;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 &gt;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 &amp; 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 &lt;30 years (n = 6), 31 to 50 years (n = 13), 51 to 70 years (n = 12), and &gt;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 &gt;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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &lt;30 years (n = 6), 31 to 50 years (n = 13), 51 to 70 years (n = 12), and &gt;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 &gt;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