Food provision in Australian aged care homes does not meet protein needs of residents: A call for reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Malnutrition is common in older adults in aged care homes, partly due to inadequate protein intake. Menu planning guidelines are available however, adherence to guidelines is unknown. This study aimed to determine; (i) what are the average serving sizes of menu items provided and do they meet recommended portion sizes? (ii) does consumption from a 'typical' menu provide sufficient protein? and (iii) can substituting a 'typical' menu with high-protein options enable residents to achieve protein adequacy? METHODS: This study involved 572 residents (73% female; aged 86.4 ± 7.3 years) from 60 aged-care homes in Australia involved in a 2-year cluster-randomised trial. During the trial, food intake was recorded quarterly using visual estimation of plate-waste and 42 061 foods analysed. As part of a secondary analysis of these data, portion sizes of foods were compared to guidelines by calculating the mean (95% confidence interval). Items were deemed inadequate if the upper 95% confidence interval remained below recommended portion sizes. RESULTS: On average 47% of breakfast and 80% of lunch/dinner items were below recommended portion sizes. Relative protein intakes, from a typical menu (most consumed foods), was 0.9 g and 0.8 g/kg body weight/day for females and males; both below recommendations. Substituting regular items with higher protein equivalents increased protein intake to 1.3 g and 1.2 g/kg body weight/day, for females and males, respectively. CONCLUSION: Aged care homes in Australia are not meeting menu planning guidelines resulting in insufficient protein being provided. Reform to menu guidelines including provision of high-protein foods, will ensure protein adequacy in older adults in aged-care homes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.067 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".