Relevant outcomes for nutrition interventions to treat and prevent malnutrition in older people: a collaborative senator-ontop and manuel delphi study

Andrea Correa-Pérez, Isabel Lozano-Montoya, Dorothee Volkert, Marjolein Visser, Alfonso J. Cruz-Jentoft

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background and aims: Research in malnutrition in older people is limited by the lack of consensus on relevant outcomes. Researchers of two European initiatives, the ‘Malnutrition in the Elderly (MaNuEL) Knowledge Hub’ (mostly experts in nutrition) and the Optimal Evidence-Based Non-drug Therapies in Older People (ONTOP) project (geriatricians) agreed to merge forces performing a systematic review of the effectiveness of nutritional interventions for the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older persons. In a first step, we aimed to identify relevant outcomes for this review using a systematic approach and to explore if the rating of relevant outcomes differed depending on the researchers’ professional background. Methods: Following the ONTOP protocol, we searched all outcomes used in research of nutritional interventions for the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older people. We carried out a web-based Delphi survey using a standardized list of 13 potentially relevant outcomes among 41 experts in geriatrics and nutrition who were asked to rate each outcome from 1 to 9 points: low importance (score 1–3), important but non-critical (score 4–6), and critical (score 7–9). Participants were informed that only those outcomes rated as critical (7–9 points) would be used in the literature review. After two rounds consultation, we compared the results from each group of experts: the ONTOP group formed by 13 geriatricians and the MaNuEL group formed by 28 experts in nutrition. Mean values were used for overall rating and the Mann–Whitney U test was used to see the differences on ratings between both groups. Results: Mortality, morbidity, functional status, nutritional status and quality of life were considered critical outcomes by the whole group of experts. However, by analysing the ratings by the experts’ professional background, geriatricians only rated mortality, morbidity and functional status as critical, while experts in nutrition (MaNuEL group) rated nutritional status, changes in dietary intake, compliance with the intervention, quality of life, and frailty status outcomes as critical too. Two outcomes, changes in dietary intake and compliance with the intervention, were rated with a significant different between the two professional groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Five outcomes were considered critical for research in nutritional interventions for the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older persons: mortality, morbidity, functional status, nutritional status and quality of life by the whole panel of experts. However, more consensus is needed on the relevance of specific outcomes of nutritional interventions. Consensus processes within but also between relevant organizations are required to reach consensus and to contribute to this aim.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)243-248
JournalEuropean Geriatric Medicine
Volume9
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Cite this

Correa-Pérez, Andrea ; Lozano-Montoya, Isabel ; Volkert, Dorothee ; Visser, Marjolein ; Cruz-Jentoft, Alfonso J. / Relevant outcomes for nutrition interventions to treat and prevent malnutrition in older people: a collaborative senator-ontop and manuel delphi study. In: European Geriatric Medicine. 2018 ; Vol. 9, No. 2. pp. 243-248.
@article{cfb81974a0f542a881d16ba05f3538c6,
title = "Relevant outcomes for nutrition interventions to treat and prevent malnutrition in older people: a collaborative senator-ontop and manuel delphi study",
abstract = "Background and aims: Research in malnutrition in older people is limited by the lack of consensus on relevant outcomes. Researchers of two European initiatives, the ‘Malnutrition in the Elderly (MaNuEL) Knowledge Hub’ (mostly experts in nutrition) and the Optimal Evidence-Based Non-drug Therapies in Older People (ONTOP) project (geriatricians) agreed to merge forces performing a systematic review of the effectiveness of nutritional interventions for the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older persons. In a first step, we aimed to identify relevant outcomes for this review using a systematic approach and to explore if the rating of relevant outcomes differed depending on the researchers’ professional background. Methods: Following the ONTOP protocol, we searched all outcomes used in research of nutritional interventions for the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older people. We carried out a web-based Delphi survey using a standardized list of 13 potentially relevant outcomes among 41 experts in geriatrics and nutrition who were asked to rate each outcome from 1 to 9 points: low importance (score 1–3), important but non-critical (score 4–6), and critical (score 7–9). Participants were informed that only those outcomes rated as critical (7–9 points) would be used in the literature review. After two rounds consultation, we compared the results from each group of experts: the ONTOP group formed by 13 geriatricians and the MaNuEL group formed by 28 experts in nutrition. Mean values were used for overall rating and the Mann–Whitney U test was used to see the differences on ratings between both groups. Results: Mortality, morbidity, functional status, nutritional status and quality of life were considered critical outcomes by the whole group of experts. However, by analysing the ratings by the experts’ professional background, geriatricians only rated mortality, morbidity and functional status as critical, while experts in nutrition (MaNuEL group) rated nutritional status, changes in dietary intake, compliance with the intervention, quality of life, and frailty status outcomes as critical too. Two outcomes, changes in dietary intake and compliance with the intervention, were rated with a significant different between the two professional groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Five outcomes were considered critical for research in nutritional interventions for the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older persons: mortality, morbidity, functional status, nutritional status and quality of life by the whole panel of experts. However, more consensus is needed on the relevance of specific outcomes of nutritional interventions. Consensus processes within but also between relevant organizations are required to reach consensus and to contribute to this aim.",
author = "Andrea Correa-P{\'e}rez and Isabel Lozano-Montoya and Dorothee Volkert and Marjolein Visser and Cruz-Jentoft, {Alfonso J.}",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1007/s41999-018-0024-8",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "243--248",
journal = "European Geriatric Medicine",
issn = "1878-7649",
publisher = "Elsevier Masson",
number = "2",

}

Relevant outcomes for nutrition interventions to treat and prevent malnutrition in older people: a collaborative senator-ontop and manuel delphi study. / Correa-Pérez, Andrea; Lozano-Montoya, Isabel; Volkert, Dorothee; Visser, Marjolein; Cruz-Jentoft, Alfonso J.

In: European Geriatric Medicine, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2018, p. 243-248.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Relevant outcomes for nutrition interventions to treat and prevent malnutrition in older people: a collaborative senator-ontop and manuel delphi study

AU - Correa-Pérez, Andrea

AU - Lozano-Montoya, Isabel

AU - Volkert, Dorothee

AU - Visser, Marjolein

AU - Cruz-Jentoft, Alfonso J.

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Background and aims: Research in malnutrition in older people is limited by the lack of consensus on relevant outcomes. Researchers of two European initiatives, the ‘Malnutrition in the Elderly (MaNuEL) Knowledge Hub’ (mostly experts in nutrition) and the Optimal Evidence-Based Non-drug Therapies in Older People (ONTOP) project (geriatricians) agreed to merge forces performing a systematic review of the effectiveness of nutritional interventions for the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older persons. In a first step, we aimed to identify relevant outcomes for this review using a systematic approach and to explore if the rating of relevant outcomes differed depending on the researchers’ professional background. Methods: Following the ONTOP protocol, we searched all outcomes used in research of nutritional interventions for the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older people. We carried out a web-based Delphi survey using a standardized list of 13 potentially relevant outcomes among 41 experts in geriatrics and nutrition who were asked to rate each outcome from 1 to 9 points: low importance (score 1–3), important but non-critical (score 4–6), and critical (score 7–9). Participants were informed that only those outcomes rated as critical (7–9 points) would be used in the literature review. After two rounds consultation, we compared the results from each group of experts: the ONTOP group formed by 13 geriatricians and the MaNuEL group formed by 28 experts in nutrition. Mean values were used for overall rating and the Mann–Whitney U test was used to see the differences on ratings between both groups. Results: Mortality, morbidity, functional status, nutritional status and quality of life were considered critical outcomes by the whole group of experts. However, by analysing the ratings by the experts’ professional background, geriatricians only rated mortality, morbidity and functional status as critical, while experts in nutrition (MaNuEL group) rated nutritional status, changes in dietary intake, compliance with the intervention, quality of life, and frailty status outcomes as critical too. Two outcomes, changes in dietary intake and compliance with the intervention, were rated with a significant different between the two professional groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Five outcomes were considered critical for research in nutritional interventions for the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older persons: mortality, morbidity, functional status, nutritional status and quality of life by the whole panel of experts. However, more consensus is needed on the relevance of specific outcomes of nutritional interventions. Consensus processes within but also between relevant organizations are required to reach consensus and to contribute to this aim.

AB - Background and aims: Research in malnutrition in older people is limited by the lack of consensus on relevant outcomes. Researchers of two European initiatives, the ‘Malnutrition in the Elderly (MaNuEL) Knowledge Hub’ (mostly experts in nutrition) and the Optimal Evidence-Based Non-drug Therapies in Older People (ONTOP) project (geriatricians) agreed to merge forces performing a systematic review of the effectiveness of nutritional interventions for the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older persons. In a first step, we aimed to identify relevant outcomes for this review using a systematic approach and to explore if the rating of relevant outcomes differed depending on the researchers’ professional background. Methods: Following the ONTOP protocol, we searched all outcomes used in research of nutritional interventions for the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older people. We carried out a web-based Delphi survey using a standardized list of 13 potentially relevant outcomes among 41 experts in geriatrics and nutrition who were asked to rate each outcome from 1 to 9 points: low importance (score 1–3), important but non-critical (score 4–6), and critical (score 7–9). Participants were informed that only those outcomes rated as critical (7–9 points) would be used in the literature review. After two rounds consultation, we compared the results from each group of experts: the ONTOP group formed by 13 geriatricians and the MaNuEL group formed by 28 experts in nutrition. Mean values were used for overall rating and the Mann–Whitney U test was used to see the differences on ratings between both groups. Results: Mortality, morbidity, functional status, nutritional status and quality of life were considered critical outcomes by the whole group of experts. However, by analysing the ratings by the experts’ professional background, geriatricians only rated mortality, morbidity and functional status as critical, while experts in nutrition (MaNuEL group) rated nutritional status, changes in dietary intake, compliance with the intervention, quality of life, and frailty status outcomes as critical too. Two outcomes, changes in dietary intake and compliance with the intervention, were rated with a significant different between the two professional groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Five outcomes were considered critical for research in nutritional interventions for the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older persons: mortality, morbidity, functional status, nutritional status and quality of life by the whole panel of experts. However, more consensus is needed on the relevance of specific outcomes of nutritional interventions. Consensus processes within but also between relevant organizations are required to reach consensus and to contribute to this aim.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85044584159&origin=inward

U2 - 10.1007/s41999-018-0024-8

DO - 10.1007/s41999-018-0024-8

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 243

EP - 248

JO - European Geriatric Medicine

JF - European Geriatric Medicine

SN - 1878-7649

IS - 2

ER -