Concordância entre dois Índices de Qualidade da Refeição adaptados para avaliar o consumo alimentar de idosos institucionalizados

GERMOGLIO, Rebecca Garcia; LIMA, Severina Carla Vieira Cunha; LIBERALINO, Laura Camila Pereira; CABRAL, Natália Louise de Araújo; LIMA, Kenio Costa de; LYRA, Clélia de Oliveira

Rebecca Garcia GERMOGLIO

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Nutrição.Natal, RN, Brasil.

CONTRIBUTORS RG Germoglio contributed with the conception, design, review and interpretation of the data, article writing and critical review of the intellectual content. LCP Liberalino and NLA Cabral contributed with the critical review of the intellectual content. KC Lima, SCVC Lima and CO Lyra contributed with data analysis and interpretation, article writing and critical review of the intellectual content. All the authors evaluated and approved the final version to be published.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1419-5139

Severina Carla Vieira Cunha LIMA

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Departamento de Nutrição. Av. Senador Salgado Filho, 3000, Campus Universitário, Lagoa Nova, 59078-970, Natal, RN, Brasil.

CONTRIBUTORS RG Germoglio contributed with the conception, design, review and interpretation of the data, article writing and critical review of the intellectual content. LCP Liberalino and NLA Cabral contributed with the critical review of the intellectual content. KC Lima, SCVC Lima and CO Lyra contributed with data analysis and interpretation, article writing and critical review of the intellectual content. All the authors evaluated and approved the final version to be published.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8268-1986

Laura Camila Pereira LIBERALINO

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Coletiva. Natal, RN, Brasil.

CONTRIBUTORS RG Germoglio contributed with the conception, design, review and interpretation of the data, article writing and critical review of the intellectual content. LCP Liberalino and NLA Cabral contributed with the critical review of the intellectual content. KC Lima, SCVC Lima and CO Lyra contributed with data analysis and interpretation, article writing and critical review of the intellectual content. All the authors evaluated and approved the final version to be published.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0349-0669

Natália Louise de Araújo CABRAL

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Coletiva. Natal, RN, Brasil.

CONTRIBUTORS RG Germoglio contributed with the conception, design, review and interpretation of the data, article writing and critical review of the intellectual content. LCP Liberalino and NLA Cabral contributed with the critical review of the intellectual content. KC Lima, SCVC Lima and CO Lyra contributed with data analysis and interpretation, article writing and critical review of the intellectual content. All the authors evaluated and approved the final version to be published.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9166-1917

Kenio Costa de LIMA

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Departamento de Odontologia. Natal, RN,Brasil.

CONTRIBUTORS RG Germoglio contributed with the conception, design, review and interpretation of the data, article writing and critical review of the intellectual content. LCP Liberalino and NLA Cabral contributed with the critical review of the intellectual content. KC Lima, SCVC Lima and CO Lyra contributed with data analysis and interpretation, article writing and critical review of the intellectual content. All the authors evaluated and approved the final version to be published.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5668-4398

Clélia de Oliveira LYRA Correspondence to: CO LYRA. E-mail:clelia_lyra@yahoo.com.br.

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Departamento de Nutrição. Av. Senador Salgado Filho, 3000, Campus Universitário, Lagoa Nova, 59078-970, Natal, RN, Brasil.

CONTRIBUTORS RG Germoglio contributed with the conception, design, review and interpretation of the data, article writing and critical review of the intellectual content. LCP Liberalino and NLA Cabral contributed with the critical review of the intellectual content. KC Lima, SCVC Lima and CO Lyra contributed with data analysis and interpretation, article writing and critical review of the intellectual content. All the authors evaluated and approved the final version to be published.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1474-3812

Correspondence to: CO LYRA. E-mail:clelia_lyra@yahoo.com.br.

CONTRIBUTORS

RG Germoglio contributed with the conception, design, review and interpretation of the data, article writing and critical review of the intellectual content. LCP Liberalino and NLA Cabral contributed with the critical review of the intellectual content. KC Lima, SCVC Lima and CO Lyra contributed with data analysis and interpretation, article writing and critical review of the intellectual content. All the authors evaluated and approved the final version to be published.

Indicator	Scores
Indicator	Minimum	Maximum
MQI^a a Bandoni & Jaime [16];
Fruits and vegetables consumption	Consumption =80g with score 0.	Consumption =160g with score 20.
Carbohydrates consumption^c c Recommendations of carbohydrates, total fat and saturated fat consumption were modified for the age group of the elderly population (≥60 years) (Faludi et al. [24]).	Consumption =40% or =75% with score 0.	Consumption between 50% and 60% with score 20.
Total fat consumption^c c Recommendations of carbohydrates, total fat and saturated fat consumption were modified for the age group of the elderly population (≥60 years) (Faludi et al. [24]).	Consumption =40% or =15% with score 0.	Consumption between 25% and 30% with score 20.
Saturated fat consumption^c c Recommendations of carbohydrates, total fat and saturated fat consumption were modified for the age group of the elderly population (≥60 years) (Faludi et al. [24]).	Consumption =10% with score 0.	Consumption =7% with score 20.
Meal variability	Meal with less than 4 food and 2 groups with score 0.	Meal with at least 11 different food and 5 different groups received score 20.
MMQI^b b Gorgulho et al. [19];
Fruits consumption	Consumption de 0g with score 0.	Consumption =80g with score 10.
Vegetables consumption	Consumption =80g with score 0.	Consumption =160g with score 10.
Animal protein/total protein	Ratio between animal protein and total protein consumption = 100% with score 0.	=80% with score 10.
Fiber	Consumption =7g with score 0.	Consumption =10g with score 10.
Carbohydrates consumption^c	Consumption =40% or =75% with score 0.	Consumption between 50% and 60% with score 10.
Total fat consumption^c c Recommendations of carbohydrates, total fat and saturated fat consumption were modified for the age group of the elderly population (≥60 years) (Faludi et al. [24]).	Consumption =40% or =15% with score 0.	Consumption between 25% and 30% calories with score 10.
Saturated fat consumption^c c Recommendations of carbohydrates, total fat and saturated fat consumption were modified for the age group of the elderly population (≥60 years) (Faludi et al. [24]).	Consumption =10% with score 0.	Consumption =7% with score 10.
Processed meat	Consumption of 1 or more portions with score 0.	No intake with score 10.
Desserts and sweetened drinks	Consumption of 1 or more portion with score 0.	No intake with score 10.
Energy Density	Meal energy density =1,65kcal/g with score 0.	Meal energy density =1,25kcal/g with score 10.

MQI	Score	% of total	MMQI	Score	% of total
Carbohydrates	8.26	14.93	Carbohydrates	4.13	7.85
Total fat	10.00	18.07	Total fat	5.00	9.51
Saturated fat	14.67	26.51	Saturated fat	7.34	13.96
Fruits, vegetables, greens	10.50	18.98	Fruits	5.00	9.51
Fruits, vegetables, greens	10.50	18.98	Vegetables	0.00	0.00
Meal variability	11.90	21.51	Desserts and sweetened drinks	10.00	19.01
			Processed meats	10.00	19.01
			Fiber	1.40	2.66
			Animal protein / total	9.72	18.49
			Energy density	0.00	0.00
Total	55.33	100.00	Total	52.59	100.00

Variables/Categories	Weighted Kappa	Exact agreement^a a Classification in the same quartile;		Exact agreement + adjacent^b b Classification in the same quartile and in adjacent quartiles;		Disagreement^c c Classification in opposing quartiles. LTCI: Long Term Care Institutions for the Elderly.
Variables/Categories	Weighted Kappa	n	%	n	%	n	%
Gender
Male	0.475	39	46.5	75	89.4	2	2.4
Female	0.437	118	49.6	201	84.5	9	3.8
Age Group
60-69 years	0.452	17	43.5	35	89.7	1	2.6
70-79 years	0.562	52	57.8	82	91.1	1	1.1
80 years or +	0.371	82	44.9	150	82.0	9	4.9
LTCI type
Non-profit	0.622	122	57.0	207	96.7	0	0.0
For-profit	0.074	35	32.5	69	63.9	11	10.2
Total	0.447	157	48.8	276	85.7	11	3.4

[1] Correspondence to: CO LYRA. E-mail:clelia_lyra@yahoo.com.br.

Brasil

Brasil

Concordância entre dois Índices de Qualidade da Refeição adaptados para avaliar o consumo alimentar de idosos institucionalizados

RESUMO

Objetivo

Métodos

Resultados

Conclusão