Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T21:36:05.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Mini Nutritional Assessment’ (MNA) and the ‘Determine Your Nutritional Health’ Checklist (NSI Checklist) as predictors of morbidity and mortality in an elderly Danish population

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Anne Marie Beck ,
L. Ovesen  and
M. Osler
Anne Marie Beck*
Affiliation:
Danish Veterinary and Food Administration, Institute of Food Chemistry and Nutrition, DK-2860 Søborg, Denmark
L. Ovesen
Affiliation:
Danish Veterinary and Food Administration, Institute of Food Chemistry and Nutrition, DK-2860 Søborg, Denmark
M. Osler
Affiliation:
Department of Social Medicine and Psychosocial Health, Institute of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 3, DK-2200 N, Denmark
*
*Corresponding author: fax +45 33 95 60 01, email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the capacity of the‘Determine Your Nutritional Health’ Checklist (NSI Checklist) and the ‘Mini Nutritional Assessment’ (MNA) methods to predict nutrition-related health problems. Data were from the Danish part of the ‘Survey in Europe of Nutrition in the Elderly, a Concerted Action’ (SENECA) baseline survey from 1988, and the follow-up study from 1993. Based on the baseline survey thirty-nine (19.3 %) of the subjects were classified at high nutritional risk, 103 (51 %) were considered at moderate nutritional risk and sixty (29.7 %) were within the ‘good’ range according to the criteria in the NSI Checklist. With the MNA, 171 subjects were classified according to their nutritional risk into a well-nourished group, comprising 78.4 %, and a group who were at risk of undernutrition, comprising 21·6 % at baseline. A total of 115 subjects participated in the follow-up study. The mortality rate and the prevalence of various morbidity indicators were compared between the different risk groups. The analysis showed that subjects with a high MNA score (≥ 24) had significantly lower mortality (rate ratio estimate: 0.35; 95 % Cl 0.18, 0.66) compared with subjects with a low MNA score (≤ 23.5). In contrast, the NSI Checklist score was not a significant predictor of mortality (rate ratio estimate: 1.45; 95 % Cl 0.78, 2.71). The sixteen Danes judged to be at high nutritional risk by the NSI Checklist in 1988, had more acute diseases (P < 0.001) than the rest of the participants, between 1988 and 1993. No significant differences were found in the participation rates, hospitalization rates, physician visits, need of help or weight loss between the groups. The thirteen Danes judged to be at risk of undernutrition in 1988 by the MNA, had a lower participation rate (P < 0.01) and higher occurrence of acute disease (P < 0.05), need of help (P < 0.05), and weight loss (P < 0.001) than the well-nourished group, between 1988 and 1993. No significant differences were found in hospitalization rates and physician visits between the two groups. In conclusion, the results indicate that modified versions of the NSI Checklist and the MNA are capable of identifying a group of 70–75-year-old subjects with increased risk of certain nutrition-related health problems. Further, an MNA score ≤ 23.5 predicts mortality in a Danish population.

Keywords

ScreeningElderlyNutritional assessment
Type
Short communication
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , January 1999 , pp. 31 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1999

References

Barrocas, ABistrian, BRBlackburn, GLChernoff, RLipschitz, DACohen, DDwyer, JRosenberg, IHHam, RJKeller, GCWellman, NS & White, J (1995) Appropriate and effective use of the NSI checklist and screens. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 95, 647–648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, AM & Ovesen, L (1998) When should hospitalised elderly patients be considered at nutritional risk? Clinical Nutrition (In the Press).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coulston, AMCraig, L & Voss, AC (1996) Meals-on-wheels applicants are a population at risk for poor nutritional status. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 96, 570–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Groot, LCPGMEnzi, GPeradigao, AL & Deurenberg, P (1996a) Longitudinal changes in anthropometric characteristics of elderly Europeans. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50, Suppl. 2, S9–S15.Google ScholarPubMed
de Groot, LCPGM & van Staveren, WA (editors) (1988) Nutrition and the Elderly: Manual of Operations. Euronut Report no. 11. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Euronut.Google Scholar
de Groot, LCPGMvan Staveren, WADirren, H & Hautvast, JGAJ (editors) (1996b) SENECA. Nutrition and the elderly in Europe. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50, Suppl. 2, S1–S172.Google Scholar
Guigoz, YVellas, BJ & Garry, PJ (1994) The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA): A practical assessment tool for grading the nutritional state of elderly patients. In Nutrition in the Elderly — The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA). Facts and Research in Gerontology, 2nd ed., pp. 15–61 [Vellas, BJ, Guigoz, Y, Garry, PJ and Albarede, JL, editors]. Paris: Serdi Publisher.Google Scholar
Miller, DKCarter, MESigmund, RHSmith, JQMiller, JPBentley, JAMcDonald, KCoe, RM & Morley, JE (1996) Nutritional risk in inner-city-dwelling older black Americans. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 44, 952–962.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morley, JE (1995) Anorexia of ageing and protein–energy undernutrition. In Geriatric Nutrition, A Comprehensive Review, 2nd ed., pp. 75–78 [Morley, JE, Glick, Z and Rubenstein, LZ, editors]. New York, NY: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Mowé, MBøhmer, T & Kindt, E (1994) Reduced nutritional status in elderly population (=70 y) is probable before disease and possibly contributes to the development of disease. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 59, 317–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osler, M & Schroll, M (1991) A dietary study of the elderly in the city of Roskilde 1988/89 (II). A nutritional risk assessment. Danish Medical Bulletin 38, 410–413.Google Scholar
Posner, BMJette, AMSmith, KW & Miller, DR (1993) Nutrition and health risks in the elderly: the Nutrition Screening Initiative. American Journal of Public Health 83, 972–978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sahyoun, NRJacques, PFDallal, GE & Russel, RM (1997) Nutrition Screening Initiative checklist may be a better awareness/educational tool than a screening one. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 97, 760–764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandström, BMAro, ABecker, WLyhne, NPedersen, JI & þórsdóttir, I (1996) Nordiska näringsrekommendationer 1996 (Nordic Recommended Dietary Allowances 1996), no. 28. Köpenhamn: Nordisk Forlagshus.Google Scholar
Schlettwein-Gsell, D & Barclay, D (1996) Longitudinal changes in dietary habits and attitudes. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50, Suppl. 2, S56–S66.Google ScholarPubMed
Schlettwein-Gsell, D de Prins, L & Ferry, M (1991) Life-style: marital status, education, living situation, social contacts, personal habits (smoking, drinking). European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 45, Suppl. 3, 153–168.Google ScholarPubMed
Sørensen, JLLassen, MKAlsbjørn, BFGottrup, F (1997) Tryksår (Pressure ulcers). Journal of the Danish Medical Association 159, 275–279.Google Scholar
van't Hof, MA & Burema, J (1996) Assessment of bias in the SENECA study. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50, Suppl. 2, S4–S8.Google ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (1985) Energy and Protein Requirements. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation. Technical Report Series no. 724. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1995) Physical Status: The Use and Interpretation of Anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee. Technical Report Series no. 854. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar