Should we implement mealtime assistance in the hospital setting? A systematic literature review with meta‐analyses
Open accessAbstract
Aims and objectives This review aimed to determine the effect of mealtime assistance provided to hospitalised patients (≥65 years) by nurses, trained staff or volunteers on nutritional and anthropometric outcomes. Background Malnutrition is a critical issue in hospitals with a reported prevalence of 20-50%. Nutritional supplementation has been associated with increased weight gain, improved function and decreased mortality; however, other system approaches including mealtime assistance may also contribute to improving nutritional intake. Design A systematic literature review. Methods Six electronic databases (CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, Scopus, PsycINFO and MEDLINE) were searched from their inception to August 2014. Inclusion criteria were hospitalised patients ≥65 years, provided mealtime assistance by nurses, volunteers or trained staff. Studies were examined for quality and risk of bias. Outcome data were combined narratively and by meta-analyses. Results From 5458 publications, five studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were rated neutral and positive according to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Checklist. Adherence to study protocols was not always reported. Meta-analyses demonstrated significantly greater daily energy and protein intake where mealtime assistance was provided. Anthropometric outcomes generally did not differ significantly with mealtime assistance. Observation and sampling bias were noted…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A meta-analysis of four of five included studies, including one RCT, found significantly improved daily energy and protein intake in patients with mealtime assistance.
“A meta-analysis of four of the five studies included (including one RCT) resulted J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f in significantly improved daily energy and protein intake in patients with mealtime assistance.”
From ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics (2022) · cites this paper as [68]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 33 · Cited by 57
- Authors
- Tassone, E. C., Tovey, J. A., Paciepnik, J. E., Keeton, I. M., Khoo, A. Y., Van Veenendaal, N. G., & Porter, J.
- Affiliations
- Monash University (AU)
- Monash University
- Eastern Health (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Tassone, Eliza C
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-08-02
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 19-20
- Pages
- 2710-2721
- ISSN
- 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2702
- OpenAlex
- W1504688372
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 0.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Nursing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
- Keywords
- feeding assistance, hospitalized older adults, malnutrition, nutritional intake, energy intake, protein intake, anthropometric outcomes, nurses, volunteers, dietary supplementation
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Health Services for the Aged, Hospitalization, Humans, Nursing Assistants, Nutritional Requirements, Volunteers, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Nurse's Role, Meals
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
