We have located links that may give you full text access.
Sarcopenia and cachexia evaluation in different healthcare settings: a questionnaire survey of health professionals.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The rates of sarcopenia and cachexia evaluations by different occupational groups at different settings are unclear. The objectives are to evaluate and compare the relative use of sarcopenia and cachexia evaluations among dietitians and associated healthcare professionals in a diverse range of settings.
METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: Participants were 4,621 members from the Japanese Association of Rehabilitation Nutrition. Settings included acute general wards, convalescent rehabilitation wards, long-term care wards, homecare service, and other settings. A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was performed to evaluate assessments for sarcopenia and cachexia among dietitians and other professionals. Multiple comparisons based on Bonferroni method and logistic regression analysis were used.
RESULTS: 718 (15.5%) answered the questionnaire. Data from 683 valid questionnaires were analyzed. Muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, and cachexia were assessed by 53.4%, 51.1%, 53.4%, and 17.4% of dietitians. At convalescent rehabilitation wards, these rates were 81.8%, 62.0%, 82.5%, and 14.0%. The use of muscle strength and physical function evaluations was significantly lower among dietitians than among physical therapists and occupational therapists. The use of muscle mass and cachexia evaluations was not significantly different among the occupations. The use of muscle mass and strength evaluations was significantly higher in convalescent rehabilitation wards than in acute general wards, long-term care wards and facilities, and other settings, but not in homecare services. Cachexia evaluations were not significantly different between all settings.
CONCLUSIONS: Raising the awareness of cachexia and sarcopenia among dietitians is a key issue, which should be addressed.
METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: Participants were 4,621 members from the Japanese Association of Rehabilitation Nutrition. Settings included acute general wards, convalescent rehabilitation wards, long-term care wards, homecare service, and other settings. A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was performed to evaluate assessments for sarcopenia and cachexia among dietitians and other professionals. Multiple comparisons based on Bonferroni method and logistic regression analysis were used.
RESULTS: 718 (15.5%) answered the questionnaire. Data from 683 valid questionnaires were analyzed. Muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, and cachexia were assessed by 53.4%, 51.1%, 53.4%, and 17.4% of dietitians. At convalescent rehabilitation wards, these rates were 81.8%, 62.0%, 82.5%, and 14.0%. The use of muscle strength and physical function evaluations was significantly lower among dietitians than among physical therapists and occupational therapists. The use of muscle mass and cachexia evaluations was not significantly different among the occupations. The use of muscle mass and strength evaluations was significantly higher in convalescent rehabilitation wards than in acute general wards, long-term care wards and facilities, and other settings, but not in homecare services. Cachexia evaluations were not significantly different between all settings.
CONCLUSIONS: Raising the awareness of cachexia and sarcopenia among dietitians is a key issue, which should be addressed.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app