Meals-on-wheels improves energy and nutrient intake in a frail free-living elderly population.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the increasing life expectancy and associated health care cost in the elderly population, it is fundamental to study and improve interventions that help older persons to have a better and healthier life in their home for a longer period. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the effect of Meals-on-Wheels (MOW) on dietary intakes of frail elderly. DESIGN: An untreated control group quasi-experimental design with pretest and post-test was used to compare users (n = 20) and non-users (n = 31) of MOW. Descriptive and dietary data were compared at pretest and 8 weeks later. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to control for initial differences between groups. RESULTS: Both groups were similar at pretest except for weight (p = 0.028) and weekly number of meals eaten outside the home (p = 0.008). In both groups, dietary intakes at pretest were below Estimated Average Requirements (EAR) for the same nutrients. At post-test, intake of most nutrients increased in the Experimental group in comparison with the Control group. After controlling with the ANCOVA model, increases were significant for energy (p = 0.050), protein (p = 0.030), lipid (p = 0.034) and thiamin (p = 0.035). Provision of MOW did not permit to achieve a low risk of nutrient inadequacy in the Experimental group. CONCLUSIONS: MOW programs improve dietary intakes of recipients. However, a more intensive intervention is needed to prevent nutrient deficiencies in this group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".