首页> 外文期刊>The British Journal of Nutrition >‘Self-screening’ for malnutrition with an electronic version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (‘MUST’) in hospital outpatients: concurrent validity, preference and ease of use
【24h】

‘Self-screening’ for malnutrition with an electronic version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (‘MUST’) in hospital outpatients: concurrent validity, preference and ease of use

机译:营养不良的“自我筛选”,带有电子版本的营养不良通用筛选工具('必须')在医院门诊病人:并发有效性,偏好和易用性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Self-screening using an electronic version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (‘MUST’) has been developed but its implementation requires investigation. A total of 100 outpatients (mean age 50 (sd 16) years; 57 % male) self-screened with an electronic version of ‘MUST’ and were then screened by a healthcare professional (HCP) to assess concurrent validity. Ease of use, time to self-screen and prevalence of malnutrition were also assessed. A further twenty outpatients (mean age 54 (sd 15) years; 55 % male) examined preference between self- screening with paper and electronic versions of ‘MUST’. For the three-category classification of ‘MUST’ (low, medium and high risk), agreement between electronic self-screening and HCP screening was 94 % (κ=0·74, se 0·092; P0·001). For the two-category classification (low risk; medium+high risk) agreement was 96 % (κ=0·82, se 0·085; P0·001), comparable with the previously reported paper-based self-screening. In all, 15 % of patients categorised themselves ‘at risk’ of malnutrition (5 % medium, 10 % high). Electronic self-screening took 3 min (sd 1·2 min), 40 % faster than previously reported for the paper-based version. Patients found the tool easy or very easy to understand (99 %) and complete (98 %). Patients that assessed both tools found the electronic tool easier to complete (65 %) and preferred it (55 %) to the paper version. Electronic self-screening using ‘MUST’ in a heterogeneous group of hospital outpatients is acceptable, user-friendly and has ‘substantial to almost-perfect’ agreement with HCP screening. The electronic format appears to be as agreeable and often the preferred format when compared with the validated paper-based ‘MUST’ self-screening tool.
机译:已经开发了使用营养不良通用筛选工具('必须')的电子版进行自屏,但其实施需要调查。共有100名门诊病人(平均50岁(SD 16)岁; 57%的男性)用电子版“必须”自我筛选,然后被医疗保健专业人员(HCP)筛选,以评估并发有效性。还评估了易用性,还评估了营养不良的自我筛选和患病率。另外二十个门诊病人(平均54岁(SD 15)岁; 55%男性)检查了与“必须”的纸张和电子版本的自我筛选之间的偏好。对于“必须”的三类分类(低,中等和高风险),电子自筛选和HCP筛选之间的一致性为94%(κ= 0·74,SE 0·092; P <0·001)。对于两类分类(低风险;中+高风险)协议为96%(κ= 0·82,SE 0·085; P& 0·001),与先前报告的纸张自筛选相当。总而言之,15%的患者分类为营养不良的“风险”(5%培养基,10%)。电子自屏蔽3分钟(SD 1·2分钟),比以前报告的纸张版本快40%。患者发现该工具容易或易于理解(99%)并完成(98%)。评估两种工具的患者发现电子工具更容易完成(65%),并首选其(55%)到纸张版本。在异质的医院门诊病人中使用“必须”的电子自我筛选是可以接受的,用户友好的,并与HCP筛选有“几乎完美”的协议。与验证的纸张的“必须”自屏工具相比,电子格式似乎与优选的格式相同。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号