Cited by 55Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyNutrition and Health in AgingDysphagia Assessment and Management

Food for patients at nutritional risk: A model of food sensory quality to promote intake

Sorensen, Janice, Holm, Lotte, Frøst, Michael Bom, Kondrup, Jens·2012·Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background & aims The aim was to investigate food sensory quality as experienced and perceived by patients at nutritional risk within the context of establishing a framework to develop foods to develop foods to promote intake. Methods Patients at nutritional risk (NRS-2002; food intake ≤ 75% of requirements) were observed at meals in hospital (food choice, hunger/fullness/appetite scores). This was followed by a semi-structured interview based on the observations and focusing on food sensory perception and eating ability as related to food quality. Two weeks post-discharge, a 3-day food record was taken and interviews were repeated by phone. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analysed thematically. Results Patients (N = 22) from departments of gastrointestinal surgery, oncology, infectious medicine, cardiology, and hepatology were interviewed at meals (N = 65) in hospital (82%) and post-discharge (18%). Food sensory perception and eating ability dictated specific food sensory needs (i.e., appearance, aroma, taste, texture, temperature, and variety defining food sensory quality to promote intake) within the context of motivation to eat including: pleasure, comfort, and survival. Patients exhibited large inter- and intra-individual variability in their food sensory needs. Conclusions The study generated a model for optimising food sensory quality and developing user-driven, innovative foods to promote intake in patients at nutritional risk.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clnu.2012.01.004

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Qualitative studies took account of patients' perception of meals or motivation to eat.

    “Qualitative studies took 676 account of patients' perception of meals [57, 58] or motivation to eat [59].”

    From ESPEN guideline on hospital nutrition (2021) · cites this paper as [58]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sorensen, J., Holm, L., Frøst, M. B., & Kondrup, J.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Sorensen, Janice
Venue
Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-10
Volume
31
Issue
5
Pages
637-646
ISSN
0261-5614 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2079274679
Cited by
55
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Rigshospitalet
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
Keywords
nutritional risk, dietary intake, eating ability, food choice, hunger and fullness, appetite, hospital food service, cancer patients, food texture and taste
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Appetite, Energy Intake, Eating, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Hunger, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Smell, Taste, Malnutrition, Young Adult, Meals, Food Quality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review