Diagnostic performance of the Minimal Eating Observation and Nutrition Form - Version II (MEONF-II) and Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002) among hospital inpatients - a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The usefulness of the nutritional screening tool Minimal Eating Observation and Nutrition Form - Version II (MEONF-II) relative to Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002) remains untested. Here we attempted to fill this gap by testing the diagnostic performance and user-friendliness of the MEONF-II and the NRS 2002 in relation to the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) among hospital inpatients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eighty seven hospital inpatients were assessed for nutritional status with the 18-item MNA (considered as the gold standard), and screened with the NRS 2002 and the MEONF-II.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The MEONF-II sensitivity (0.61), specificity (0.79), and accuracy (0.68) were acceptable. The corresponding figures for NRS 2002 were 0.37, 0.82 and 0.55, respectively. MEONF-II and NRS 2002 took five minutes each to complete. Assessors considered MEONF-II instructions and items to be easy to understand and complete (96-99%), and the items to be relevant (87%). For NRS 2002, the corresponding figures were 75-93% and 79%, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The MEONF-II is an easy to use, relatively quick and sensitive screening tool to assess risk of undernutrition among hospital inpatients. With respect to user-friendliness and sensitivity the MEONF-II seems to perform better than the NRS 2002, although larger studies are needed for firm conclusions. The different scoring systems for undernutrition appear to identify overlapping but not identical patient groups. A potential limitation with the study is that the MNA was used as gold standard among patients younger than 65 years.</p

Developing cartoons for long-term condition self-management information

Background: Advocating the need to adopt more self-management policies has brought with it an increasing demand for information about living with and making decisions about long-term conditions, with a significant potential for using cartoons. However, the purposeful use of cartoons is notably absent in many areas of health care as is evidence of their acceptability to patients and lay others. This paper outlines the process used to develop and evaluate cartoons and their acceptability for a series of self-management guidebooks for people with inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods: Principles for a process to develop information and cartoons were developed. Cartoon topics were created using qualitative research methods to obtain lay views and experiences. The CKD guidebook was used to provide a detailed exemplar of the process. Focus group and trial participants were recruited from primary care CKD registers. The book was part of a trial intervention; selected participants evaluated the cartoons during in-depth interviews which incorporated think-aloud methods. Results: In general, the cartoons developed by this process depict patient experiences, common situations, daily management dilemmas, making decisions and choices and the uncertainties associated with conditions. CKD cartoons were developed following two focus groups around the themes of getting a diagnosis; understanding the problem; feeling that facts were being withheld; and setting priorities. Think-aloud interviews with 27 trial participants found the CKD cartoons invoked amusement, recognition and reflection but were sometimes difficult to interpret. Conclusion: Humour is frequently utilised by people with long-term conditions to help adjustment and coping. Cartoons can help provide clarity and understanding and could address concerns related to health literacy. Using cartoons to engage and motivate people is a consideration untapped by conventional theories with the potential to improve information to support self-management

Process evaluation of a peer-led antenatal breastfeeding class for fathers: perceptions of facilitators and participants

Background: The Parent Infant Feeding Initiative (PIFI) was a factorial, randomised controlled trial that aimed to prolong exclusive breastfeeding by targeting expecting fathers. One of the intervention strategies evaluated was a father-focused breastfeeding class facilitated by a male peer facilitator. The aim of this mixed-methods descriptive study was to 1) evaluate the feedback provided from participants of the class and 2) explore the motivations and experiences of volunteer male peer facilitators trained to deliver the class. Methods: Father-focused breastfeeding antenatal (FFAB) classes were conducted in six Western Australian hospitals between August 2015 and December 2016. Following each peer facilitated FFAB class, expecting father participants completed an evaluation form to assess their satisfaction with the format, facilitation and content, in addition to whether their expectations and confidence to manage breastfeeding problems had changed. Feedback to open-ended questions was analysed using content analysis to identify learnings and suggestions for improvements. At the completion of PIFI, individual telephone interviews were undertaken with 14 peer facilitators to gain insight into their motivations for volunteering and experiences of conducting the classes. Transcripts from interviews were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s six phases for thematic analysis. Results: Participant evaluation forms were completed by 678 of the 697 father participants (98%). Overall satisfaction with class format, facilitation and content was high with 90% or more of fathers either strongly agreeing or agreeing with each positively-phrased evaluation item. Class participants enjoyed interacting with other fathers, appreciated validation of their role, were not always aware of the importance of breastfeeding or potential difficulties, valued the anticipatory guidance around what to expect in the early weeks of parenting and appreciated learning practical breastfeeding support strategies. Peer facilitators indicated they felt well prepared and supported to conduct FFAB classes. Analysis of interview transcripts revealed common experiences of the peer facilitators incorporating four themes: ‘Highlights of being a facilitator’, ‘Challenges’, ‘Mourning the project completion’ and ‘Satisfaction with training and support’. Conclusion: Father-focused breastfeeding classes supported by volunteer male peer facilitators are a feasible and acceptable way of engaging fathers as breastfeeding supporters. Trial registration: ACTRN12614000605695. Registered 6 June 2014