Nutritional status in older people – An explorative analysis. (December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Engelheart, Stina; Andrén, Daniela; Repsilber, Dirk; Bertéus Forslund, Heléne; Brummer, Robert Jan
• Is Part Of: Clinical nutrition ESPEN. Volume 46(2021)
• Page Start: 424
• Page End: 433
• Publication Date: 2021-12
• Subjects: Nutritional status -- Factor analysis -- Aged -- 80 and over; Nutritionally induced diseases -- Periodicals; Metabolism -- Disorders -- Periodicals; 616.39005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2021.08.036
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2405-4577

Abstract

Summary: Background & aims: The nutritional status is seldom defined in general, but is considered to be important throughout life span, especially in times of diseases and disabilities. We previously proposed a theoretical model of the nutritional status from a functional perspective [1 ], however without proposing a definition of the nutritional status. The model comprises four domains that might affect the nutritional and functional status in a bidirectional way. These four domains are: Food and nutrition; Health and somatic disorders; Physical function and capacity; and Cognitive, affective, and sensory function. This study contributes to the existing literature and knowledge by empirically analysing patterns and relationships of possible nutritional status indicators within and between the four domains. Methods: This study is based on a sample of 69 men and women; older than 65 years, receiving home health care. They were followed up for three years. A broad set of nutritional status indicators in the participants were assessed in their home yearly. Given the small sample size and large number of variables, we used both correlation and factor analysis to explore patterns of nutritional status indicators within the four domains and relationships between the four domains suggested by the theoretical model of nutritional status which we proposed earlier. Results: At baseline, between 4 and 18 components were extracted from the four domains, separately, using factor analysis. The first three components of each domain (called main components) were correlated (p < 0.05) with at least one of the main components of each of the other three domains (r = −0.34–0.79 at baseline, 0.38–0.74 at year 1, 0.40–0.77 at year 2 and 0.47–0.71 at year 3). At baseline, these main components explained, respectively, 31%, 52%, 57% and 63% of the sample variation in the four domains. This remained stable throughout all three years of follow up. In all four domains, there were statistically significant differences in prevalence of malnutrition, frailty, sarcopenia, and dehydration (all different inadequate nutritional status) between individuals' individual component scores. Conclusions: This study provides empirical evidence for the relationship between nutritional status indicators within and between the four domains suggested by our theoretical model of nutritional status. Components in all four domains were associated with inadequate nutritional status, highlighting that a wide perspective of the nutritional status assessment is necessary to be applied in clinical practice.