FNOA: Aging Programs (2012)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

To assess elderly participants in the Title III-C Nutrition Program for nutrient/energy intake, relationship of income status to intakes and comparison with data from the National Evaluation of the Elderly Nutrition Program (ENP).

Inclusion Criteria:
  • Men and women ages 60 to 103
  • Enrolled in one of three senior centers operated by the DeKalb Community Council on Aging (DCCOA), Decatur, Georgia 
  • Most subjects were capable of recalling what they had eaten over a previous six-hour period 
  • With a few very frail home delivery clients, the information was provided by a caregiver.
Exclusion Criteria:

Those who declined to sign an informed consent form prior to being interviewed.

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

Participants at the senior centers were given a choice to volunteer for the study, without reprisal if they chose not to participate.

Design

Participants were interviewed using a questionnaire and a three-day food record. The questionnaire contained the independent variables.

Intervention

Participation in the Title III-C Nutrition program.

Statistical Analysis

  • Data expressed in percentages was evaluated using chi-square and when expressed as means by T-tests
  • Multiple means were compared using variance analysis
  • These tests were used to show relationships between questionnaire items and nutrient and energy intakes as well as relationships among items within the questionnaire or within food records.
Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

Three-day food record using two weekdays and one weekend day.

Dependent Variables

  • Energy intake based on percent of individually calculated Total Energy Requirement provided by food intake (PTER)
  • Energy intake based on calorie intake
  • Protein
  • Vitamins and minerals: Thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, folic acid, vitamin B12, vitamin C, vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin E, iron, calcium, phosphorus, zinc, magnesium, sodium, potassium
    • Total fat (gm per day), saturated fat, oleic acid, linoleic acid, cholesterol
    • Total carbohydrate, sugar, dietary fiber
    • Protein percentage of total calories
    • Carbohydrate percentage of total calories
    • Total fat percentage of total calories.

Independent Variables

  • Gender
  • Race
  • Age
  • Income
  • Living conditions (type of housing, whether clients lived alone or with others)
  • Participation in food programs other than DCCOA
  • Frequency of consumption of specific food groups
  • Usual number of meals eaten daily and snack patterns
  • Food expenditures
  • Problems that affect ability to shop, prepare and eat food
  • Recent weight loss
  • Alcohol consumption
  • Weekend meal and snack patterns
  • Perceived losses in food taste and smell associated with aging
  • Height and weight. 
Description of Actual Data Sample:
  • Initial N: 103
  • Attrition (final N): Not stated; however, the author notes the number included in several analyses varies and was less than 103
  • Age: Mean age of 74 for congregate meal participants and mean age of 79 for meal home-delivery participants
  • Ethnicity: 55% Black and 45% White
  • Other relevant demographics:
    • 49.5% congregate meal site participants and 50.5% meal home-delivery participants
    • 73% female and 27% male
  • Location: Decatur, Georgia.
Summary of Results:

Key Findings

  • Differences in intakes by gender:
    • Items for which intakes were higher in men than in women were energy (kcal), phosphorus, sodium, total fat, saturated fat, oleic acid, cholesterol and total carbohydrate (P<0.001); iron, potassium and sugar (P<0.01); and vitamin D, calcium and dietary fiber (P<0.05)
    • In both men and women, mean PTER and dietary fiber were low and zinc and vitamin E were inadequate. Women also had marginal vitamin D intakes.
    • Food intakes provided more energy for men than for women (P<0.001). Based on predicted energy requirements calculated for this study, energy intakes of the old-old nearly approached adequacy than those of the young-old. When energy and protein intakes  were expressed per gram of body weight, by gender, the values for both energy (P<0.001) and protein (P<0.005) were higher in women 75 years or older of age than those less than 75 years, but not in men. This was due to decrease in body weight by with age by women (P<0.01).
    • Energy contributed by fat and saturated fat were high for both men and women
    • Complex carbohydrate in both men and women was less than recommended. Percentage of carbohydrate from sugars was higher than the recommended range.
    • Mean intakes of fiber by the subjects were 35% of the minimum for women and 45% for men
  • Differences in intakes by ethnicity:
    • Nutrient/energy intakes of white subjects were greater than those of black subjects in riboflavin, vitamin D, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium and potassium (P<0.001); thiamin, vitamin B6, vitamin E, iron and total carbohydrates (P<0.01); and energy (PTER and kcal), protein, niacin, folate, vitamin C, sodium, dietary fiber ant total fat (%total kcal) (P<0.05)
    • Diets of blacks, but not whites were inadequate in Vitamin D and magnesium and marginal in vitamin B6 and calcium
    • Diets of both were low in zinc, vitamin E and dietary fiber
    • Percent of calories from total fat was higher in blacks than in whites, but high in both groups
    • Percent of carbohydrate contributed from sugar was high in both whites and blacks
  • Differences in intakes by other demographic variables:
    • PTER values over six age intervals were significantly better in older age groups (P<0.01)
    • There were no differences in intakes of energy based on meal type or socialization factor
    • Nutrient intakes for congregate vs. home delivery clients showed no significant differences
    • Person living alone had higher PRDAs for vitamin B6, and folate (P=0.01) and riboflavin, vitamin B12 and magnesium (P<0.05). Percent calories from carbohydrate was higher and percent calories from fat was lower (P<0.01).
    • Independent subjects had higher intakes of folate (P<0.01), calcium (P<0.05) and iron (P<0.05)
    • Intakes of those subjects who lived with a spouse were not significantly different than those who lived alone
  • Impact of the DCCOA two-weekday noon meals on total dietary intakes:
    • The contribution of the noon meal to total intakes of energy and 12 selected nutrients during two consecutive weekdays was significantly higher in energy, thiamin and folate in diets of women than of men (P<0.05)
    • Differences for the other 10 nutrients were not significant except for vitamin B12 and calcium 
    • The contribution of nutrients in the noon meal toward intake was larger in women than in men
    • Vitamin A in the noon meal provided 61% of the total vitamin A intake and 33% to 50% of the other nutrients and energy
    • The noon meal provided significantly more vitamin C to blacks than to whites. For protein, vitamin B12 and calcium, the noon meal contributes a larger percentage of energy/nutrients to intakes of blacks than whites
    • For all nutrients, lunch provided a larger proportion of total intakes to persons aged 75 or more years than to those less than 75 years and in only vitamin E was the difference significant (P<0.05)
  • Summary evaluation of the dietary intakes of DCCOA elders:
    • Only 6% of the population sample had adequate three-day intakes. 25% of intakes were tenuous, 27% marginal and 41% submarginal or inadequate
    • Chi-square analysis showed that dietary intakes of men were better than women and better intake by whites than for blacks was suggested
    • Socialization was not a significant determinant, but those living alone showed a trend toward better nutrient/energy intakes than those living with others
    • Age, type of meal, portion of noon meal usually eaten and number of snacks consumed daily did not show a significant relationship to energy/nutrient level
  • Relation of nutrient/energy intakes to income status in DCCOA study:
    • The below poverty male had higher intakes of total fat, oleic acid, cholesterol, folic acid, iron and percent of total calories from fat
    • Calcium (P<0.01) and potassium (P<0.05) intakes were significantly higher in above-poverty women
    • The below poverty female group had higher intakes of total fat, linoleic acid, cholesterol, sodium and percent of total calories from fat although the differences were not significant
    • The trend observed in this study for both women and men below poverty level had higher intakes of fatty components (total fat, cholesterol and percent fat calories) than those above poverty
  • Comparison of DCCOA nutrient/energy data with the elderly nutrition program (ENP):
    • Food energy of congregate subjects was inadequate in both studies. Overall, nutrient/energy intakes were better for ENP than for DCCOA subjects
    • Intakes of congregate DCCOA subjects were less than two thirds of the RDAs in vitamin D, vitamin E and zinc, while all congregate ENP subjects had nutrient intakes more than two thirds of RDAs
    • Food energy of home delivery participants in both studies was inadequate. Vitamin A was significantly better in DCCOA home delivery clients (P<0.01). There were no differences between the two studies for vitamin C, niacin, vitamin B12, calcium, iron and zinc. For all other nutrients, home delivery ENP intakes were significantly higher than in DCCOA clients.

Other Findings

Discussion of the Adequacy of the DCCOA Noon Meal

  • The means for energy, vitamin E, zinc and dietary fiber were inadequate for both sexes. It appears advisable that the levels of these items be increased in the noon meals because:
    • This is the main meal for most participants and 31% of the subjects reported that they eat only two meals a day and 6% eat one
    • More than half of subjects consumed less than the mean values for energy, vitamin E and zinc
    • Except for dietary fiber, which can easily be increased in the breakfast meal, there are more opportunities for adding foods that are major sources of these nutrients in the noon meal than in a traditional breakfast or light supper
  • The data suggested inadequate intakes of magnesium and vitamin D in the three-day intake of blacks, but they were adequate in the total population sample; hence, the data does not suggest an increase in these nutrients in the noon meal. 
  • The nutrient data base used is based from the Agricultural Handbook Eight. Meals are prepared from single food items, so manufacturer's nutrient data was not required. 
  • It is unlikely that nutrient deficits were due to missing values in the database. 
  • The poor/energy/nutrient intakes of these subjects were due to inadequate food intakes for breakfast and supper rather than inadequacy of the noon weekday meal or unavailability of weekend food.
Author Conclusion:

New ways of implementing better food intakes of elderly adults are needed and nutrition education efforts should be targeted to those elderly adults most at risk for energy/nutrient inadequacies. This was evidenced by the inadequate nutrient/energy intakes found in this study. 

Further research is needed to establish differences in nutrient profiles of elderly below the poverty line.  The high incidence of nutrient/energy inadequacy in this study was consistent with other reports.

Funding Source:
University/Hospital: Georgia State University
Reviewer Comments:

The authors noted the following limitations in the Discussion section of the article:

  • Further research is needed regarding the validity of activity factors for different age groups for determining PTER values
  • The Harris Benedict equation was used to predict basal metabolic energy. Several other studies have challenged the validity of this equation and other equations compared to indirect calorimetry.
  • The three-day food intakes were analyzed for energy and 50 nutrients. Data was not provided for all 50 nutrients analyzed.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? Yes
3. Were study groups comparable? No
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) Yes
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? No
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) N/A
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? ???
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) ???
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? No
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? Yes
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) No
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? No
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? ???
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? No
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? N/A
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) No
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? No
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? N/A
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? Yes
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? N/A
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? N/A
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? N/A
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? N/A
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? ???
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? N/A
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? N/A
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? ???
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? N/A
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes