Correlates of Protein Intake among Community Dwelling Older Adults

This article was originally published by the Undergraduate Research Journal for the Human SciencesNutritional recommendations, BMI, and quality of life may be uniquely related in a population of older adults. The current recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for dietary protein in older adults is 0.8 g/ kg of body weight per day, but controversy exists as to whether this amount is adequate. Research findings suggest that the protein turnover rate decreases by the age of 70, resulting in a greater need for protein by older adults. In addition, nutritional studies have suggested a lower mortality rate is associated with overweight BMI ranges in older adults. Last, a relationship between nutritional risk and quality of life has been found in community living elderly adults. To date no studies have been found investigating the relationship between protein intake and various physical and mental health correlates, such as quality of life among community dwelling older adults. Using data collected from a convenience sample of this population, who indicated protein intake of 0.8 -1.6 g/kg and BMIs of 25 and over, we investigated the relationship between protein intake, self-rated physical health, and life regard; analyses controlled for age, sex, and marital status. Results from a hierarchical regression analysis showed that a measure of life regard significantly and positively contributed to Protein Intake. This final model explained 49 percent of the variance

Researching Complex and Multi-Level Workplace Factors Affecting Disability and Prolonged Sickness Absence

This paper was also co-written by The Hopkinton Conference Working Group on Workplace Disability Prevention includes Benjamin C. Amick III, Johannes R. Anema, Elyssa Besen, Peter Blanck, Cécile R.L. Boot, Ute Bültmann, Chetwyn C.H. Chan, George L. Delclos, Kerstin Ekberg, Mark G. Ehrhart, Jean-Baptiste Fassier, Michael Feuerstein, David Gimeno, Vicki L. Kristman, Steven J. Linton, Chris J. Main, Fehmidah Munir, Michael K. Nicholas, Glenn Pransky, William S. Shaw, Michael J. Sullivan, Lois E. Tetrick, Torill H. Tveito, Eira Viikari-Juntura, Kelly Williams-Whitt, and Amanda E. Young. This is an Open Access Article. It is published by Springer under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY). Full details of this licence are available at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Purpose There is growing research evidence that workplace factors influence disability outcomes, but these variables reflect a variety of stakeholder perspectives, measurement tools, and methodologies. The goal of this article is to summarize existing research of workplace factors in relation to disability, compare this with employer discourse in the grey literature, and recommend future research priorities. Methods The authors participated in a year-long collaboration that ultimately led to an invited 3-day conference, “Improving Research of Employer Practices to Prevent Disability, held October 14–16, 2015, in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, USA. The collaboration included a topical review of the literature, group conference calls to identify key areas and challenges, drafting of initial documents, review of industry publications, and a conference presentation that included feedback from peer researchers and a question/answer session with a special panel of knowledge experts with direct employer experience. Results Predominant factors in the scientific literature were categorized as physical or psychosocial job demands, work organization and support, and workplace beliefs and attitudes. Employees experiencing musculoskeletal disorders in large organizations were the most frequently studied population. Research varied with respect to the basic unit of assessment (e.g., worker, supervisor, policy level) and whether assessments should be based on worker perceptions, written policies, or observable practices. The grey literature suggested that employers focus primarily on defining roles and responsibilities, standardizing management tools and procedures, being prompt and proactive, and attending to the individualized needs of workers. Industry publications reflected a high reliance of employers on a strict biomedical model in contrast to the more psychosocial framework that appears to guide research designs. Conclusion Assessing workplace factors at multiple levels, within small and medium-sized organizations, and at a more granular level may help to clarify generalizable concepts of organizational support that can be translated to specific employer strategies involving personnel, tools, and practices