Validity of Nutritional Screening Tools for Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the validity of nutritional screening tools to detect the risk of malnutrition in community-dwelling older adults. Design A systematic review and meta-analysis. The protocol for this systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017072703). Setting and participants A literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane using the combined terms “malnutrition,” “aged,” “community-dwelling,” and “screening.” The time frame of the literature reviewed was from January 1, 2001, to May 18, 2018. Older community-dwellers were defined as follows: individuals with a mean/median age of >65 years who were community-dwellers or attended hospital outpatient clinics and day hospitals. All nutritional screening tools that were validated in community-dwelling older adults against a reference standard to detect the risk of malnutrition, or with malnutrition, were included. Measures Meta-analyses were performed on the diagnostic accuracy of identified nutritional screening tools validated against the Mini Nutritional Assessment-Long Form (MNA-LF). The symmetric hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models were used to estimate test performance. Results Of 7713 articles, 35 articles were included in the systematic review, and 9 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Seventeen nutritional screening tools and 10 reference standards were identified. The meta-analyses showed average sensitivities and specificities of 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75–0.99) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.85–0.99) for the Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF; cutoff point ≤11), 0.85 (95% CI 0.80–0.89) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.86–0.89) for the MNA-SF-V1 (MNA-SF using body mass index, cutoff point ≤11), 0.85 (95% CI 0.77–0.89) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.79–0.87) for the MNA-SF-V2 (MNA-SF using calf circumference instead of body mass, cutoff point ≤11), respectively, using MNA-LF as the reference standard. Conclusions and Implications The MNA-SF, MNA-SF-V1, and MNA-SF-V2 showed good sensitivity and specificity to detect community-dwelling older adults at risk of malnutrition validated against the MNA-LF. Clinicians should consider the use of the cutoff point ≤11 on the MNA-SF, MNA-SF-V1, and MNA-SF-V2 to identify community-dwelling older adults at risk of malnutrition

Self-reported physical activity before a COVID-19 ‘lockdown’: is it just a matter of opinion?

There are growing concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic has facilitated a sedentary shift in our physical activity habits. A reduction in physical activity during the pandemic may be secondary to restrictive policies implemented at the government-level, typically those policies which limit interpersonal contact; for example, physical/social distancing. It is without question that social distancing is a necessary measure to mitigate community transmission of the novel virus; however, these policies often limit the public’s opportunities to engage in physical activity. The strictest enforcement of social distancing occurs during an authority-mandated ‘lockdown’ (also known as a ‘shelter-in-place’ or ‘stay-at-home’ order). This Viewpoint focuses on the current evidence demonstrating that physical activity declines during a COVID-19 ‘lockdown’. We highlight the point that most of the available evidence stems from investigations using non-validated, self-reported measures of physical activity and discuss the caveats therewith. This Viewpoint explores whether current evidence reflects an ‘actual’ or rather a ‘perceived’ reduction in physical activity, and raises the question of whether this distinction matters in the end

The Influence of Social Distancing Behaviors and Psychosocial Factors on Physical Activity During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-sectional Survey Study

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has arguably facilitated a shift toward increased sedentariness and reduced physical activity. Moreover, there is mounting evidence that mental health has also declined during the pandemic. However, it remains unknown to what extent social distancing (SD) behaviors and mental health have affected the physical activity levels of the general population. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of SD behaviors and prevailing mental health on the odds of being physically active during the early COVID-19 pandemic response. METHODS: A total of 4819 adults (2474/4819, 51.3%, female) from the US population with a median age of 46 (IQR 35-59) completed an online survey during the early pandemic response (April-June 2020). The survey included questions on adherence to 11 SD behaviors, and validated questionnaires which assessed self-reported physical activity, depression, anxiety, and mental well-being. Respondents were categorized into 2 physical activity groups: inactive (0-599 metabolic equivalent of task [MET]-minutes/week) and active (≥600 MET-minutes/week). A logistic generalized additive model (GAM) was used to determine which SD factors and mental health outcomes were associated with physical activity level. RESULTS: The GAM analysis revealed that wearing a facemask in public (odds ratio [OR] 1.46, 95% CI 1.14-1.79; P=.003), limiting the use of public transport (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.19-1.83; P=.001), and restricting travel outside the house (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.19-2.05; P=.002) were SD behaviors associated with higher odds of being more physically active. Conversely, avoiding physical activity outside the house was associated with higher odds of being inactive (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.46-0.63;

Perceived public health threat a key factor for willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine in Australia

BACKGROUND: Vaccination rollout against COVID-19 is underway across multiple countries worldwide. Although the vaccine is free, rollout might still be compromised by hesitancy or concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: We conducted two online surveys of Australian adults in April (during national lockdown; convenience cross-sectional sample) and November (very few cases of COVID-19; nationally representative sample) 2020, prior to vaccine rollout. We asked about intentions to have a potential COVID-19 vaccine (If a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, I will get it) and free-text responses (November only). RESULTS: After adjustment for differences in sample demographics, the estimated proportion agreeing to a COVID-19 vaccine if it became available in April (n=1146) was 76.3%. In November (n=1941) this was estimated at 71.5% of the sample; additional analyses identified that the variation was driven by differences in perceived public health threat between April and November. Across both surveys, female gender, being younger, having inadequate health literacy and lower education were associated with reluctance to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Lower perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, belief that data on the efficacy of vaccines is 'largely made up', having lower confidence in government, and lower perception of COVID-19 as a public health threat, were also associated with reluctance to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The top three reasons for agreeing to vaccinate (November only) were to protect myself and others, moral responsibility, and having no reason not to get it. For those who were indifferent or disagreeing to vaccinate, safety concerns were the top reason, followed by indecision and lack of trust in the vaccine respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight some factors related to willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine prior to one being available in Australia. Now that the vaccine is being offered, this study identifies key issues that can inform public health messaging to address vaccine hesitancy