We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The aim of the current study is to compare Seniors in the Community: Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition, version II (SCREEN II) and Mini Nutritional Assessment – Short Form (MNA-SF), where each is used to identify nutritional risk prevalence among community-dwelling people aged 65 years and above in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Design:
A cross-sectional study. Nutritional risk assessed using the nutritionist’s risk rating, anthropometric measurements, functional indicators, cognitive parameters, SCREEN II and MNA-SF.
Setting:
The municipalities of Foca, East Sarajevo and Bijeljina, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Participants:
Eight hundred twenty-one community-dwelling individuals aged ≥65 years.
Results:
The prevalence of high nutritional risk per nutritionist’s risk rating, SCREEN II and MNA-SF was 26, 60, and 7 %, respectively. With the nutritionist’s rating score ≥5 as the criterion, the MNA-SF cut-off point of ≤11 (indicating any possible risk) had poor sensitivity (55·7 %), specificity (46·6 %) and AUC (0·563; P = 0·024). When the criterion of >7 was applied, good sensitivity (95·3 %) and specificity (88·9 %) were obtained for the MNA-SF cut-off score of ≤7. AUC for this comparison was 0·742 (considered fair). Cut-off points of <54 (AUC = 0·816) and <50 (AUC = 0·881) for SCREEN II (indicating moderate to high risk) corresponded with good sensitivity (82·2 %; 80·9 %) and fair specificity (72·1 %; 75·0 %).
Conclusion:
MNA-SF may have a limited role in nutritional risk screening among community-dwelling seniors in Bosnia and Herzegovina. SCREEN II has promising results in regard to validity, but further studies are warranted.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.