Food intake is associated with verbal interactions between nursing home staff and residents with dementia: A secondary analysis of videotaped observations.
Behavioral Coding
Dementia
Food Intake
Intake Episodes
Nursing Home
Verbal Interactions
Video
Journal
International journal of nursing studies
ISSN: 1873-491X
Titre abrégé: Int J Nurs Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0400675
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
18
03
2020
revised:
15
04
2020
accepted:
15
05
2020
pubmed:
15
6
2020
medline:
29
7
2021
entrez:
15
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Nursing home residents with dementia commonly experience low food intake, leading to negative functional and nutritional consequences. While the importance of staff-resident (dyadic) interactions during mealtime is acknowledged, little research has examined the role of dyadic verbal interactions on food intake. This study aimed to examine the relationship between food intake and dyadic verbal interactions. This study was a secondary analysis of 110 videotaped observations of mealtime care interactions among 25 residents with dementia and 29 staff (42 unique dyads) in 9 nursing homes. Staff positive utterances and resident positive and negative utterances (independent variables) and food intake (dependent variable) were coded from the videotaped observations using the Cue Utilization and Engagement in Dementia video coding scheme. A linear mixed model was fit to the data. The two-way interaction effects of food type and video duration with each independent variable as well as two-way interaction effects among the independent variables were tested. Covariates included in the model were the number of years staff worked as a caregiver, and resident age, gender, and eating function. The model included three significant interaction effects involving verbal variables: the interaction effect of staff positive utterances with resident positive utterances (p=.030), the interaction effect of staff positive utterances with food type (p=.027), and the interaction effect of resident negative utterances with video duration (p=0.002). Increased number of intakes of liquid food per minute was associated with increased number of staff positive utterances per minute when residents did not make positive utterances. Decreased number of intakes of solid food per minute was associated with increased number of staff positive utterances per minute, especially when residents made between 0 and 3 positive utterances per minute. As the duration of the videos increased, the number of intakes per minute increased for residents who made one or more negative utterances and decreased for residents who made no negative utterances in the videos. The number of intakes per minute was associated with resident gender in that male residents had increased number of intakes per minute compared with female residents (p=.017), and was not associated with other participant characteristics. Intake was associated with dyadic verbal interactions, and such relationship was complex in that it was moderated by food type and video duration. Findings support the significant role of dyadic verbal interactions on intake, and inform the development of effective, tailored mealtime care interventions to promote intake.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Nursing home residents with dementia commonly experience low food intake, leading to negative functional and nutritional consequences. While the importance of staff-resident (dyadic) interactions during mealtime is acknowledged, little research has examined the role of dyadic verbal interactions on food intake.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to examine the relationship between food intake and dyadic verbal interactions.
METHODS
METHODS
This study was a secondary analysis of 110 videotaped observations of mealtime care interactions among 25 residents with dementia and 29 staff (42 unique dyads) in 9 nursing homes. Staff positive utterances and resident positive and negative utterances (independent variables) and food intake (dependent variable) were coded from the videotaped observations using the Cue Utilization and Engagement in Dementia video coding scheme. A linear mixed model was fit to the data. The two-way interaction effects of food type and video duration with each independent variable as well as two-way interaction effects among the independent variables were tested. Covariates included in the model were the number of years staff worked as a caregiver, and resident age, gender, and eating function.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The model included three significant interaction effects involving verbal variables: the interaction effect of staff positive utterances with resident positive utterances (p=.030), the interaction effect of staff positive utterances with food type (p=.027), and the interaction effect of resident negative utterances with video duration (p=0.002). Increased number of intakes of liquid food per minute was associated with increased number of staff positive utterances per minute when residents did not make positive utterances. Decreased number of intakes of solid food per minute was associated with increased number of staff positive utterances per minute, especially when residents made between 0 and 3 positive utterances per minute. As the duration of the videos increased, the number of intakes per minute increased for residents who made one or more negative utterances and decreased for residents who made no negative utterances in the videos. The number of intakes per minute was associated with resident gender in that male residents had increased number of intakes per minute compared with female residents (p=.017), and was not associated with other participant characteristics.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Intake was associated with dyadic verbal interactions, and such relationship was complex in that it was moderated by food type and video duration. Findings support the significant role of dyadic verbal interactions on intake, and inform the development of effective, tailored mealtime care interventions to promote intake.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32535342
pii: S0020-7489(20)30138-3
doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103654
pmc: PMC7540727
mid: NIHMS1597255
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
103654Subventions
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : K23 AG066856
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINR NIH HHS
ID : R01 NR011455
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R03 AG063170
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest None.
Références
Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2015 Jun;48(4):318-24
pubmed: 25990006
Int J Nurs Stud. 2019 Aug;96:18-26
pubmed: 30660444
Clin Interv Aging. 2017 Jul 04;12:1055-1064
pubmed: 28740371
Int Psychogeriatr. 1992;4 Suppl 1:55-69
pubmed: 1504288
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Oct;61(10):1692-7
pubmed: 24083403
Nurs Manage. 1996 Sep;27(9):32JJ-LL, 32-PP
pubmed: 8850954
Gerontologist. 2008 Oct;48(5):603-11
pubmed: 18981277
J Nurs Meas. 1993 Spring;1(1):41-55
pubmed: 7828046
Gerontologist. 2005 Oct;45 Spec No 1(1):74-80
pubmed: 16230753
Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Apr;33(4):658-66
pubmed: 24711328
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014 Mar;15(3):158-161
pubmed: 24513225
Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2007 Oct-Nov;22(5):369-77
pubmed: 17959872
BMC Geriatr. 2016 Jan 22;16:26
pubmed: 26801619
J Nutr Elder. 2009 Oct;28(4):327-47
pubmed: 21184376
Int J Nurs Stud. 2014 Jan;51(1):14-27
pubmed: 23340328
J Nutr Health Aging. 2012 Mar;16(3):258-61
pubmed: 22456783
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82
pubmed: 23092060
J Clin Nurs. 2010 Jan;19(1-2):33-41
pubmed: 20500242
J Adv Nurs. 2004 Nov;48(4):397-405
pubmed: 15500534
Lancet Neurol. 2008 Apr;7(4):362-7
pubmed: 18339351
J Clin Nurs. 2010 Mar;19(5-6):621-31
pubmed: 20500303
J Nutr Health Aging. 2006 Nov-Dec;10(6):466-85; discussion 485-7
pubmed: 17183419
Eur J Public Health. 2018 Apr 1;28(2):275-283
pubmed: 29228152
Behav Ther. 2011 Mar;42(1):89-99
pubmed: 21292055
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Nov 1;18(11):941-947
pubmed: 28668663
J Clin Nurs. 2011 Aug;20(15-16):2153-61
pubmed: 21521391
Nurs Open. 2019 Mar 06;6(3):772-782
pubmed: 31367399
Gerontologist. 2017 Aug 1;57(4):707-718
pubmed: 27048705
Gerontologist. 2015 Jun;55 Suppl 1:S61-6
pubmed: 26055782
Dementia (London). 2020 Aug;19(6):2090-2113
pubmed: 30482090
J Clin Nurs. 2010 Jan;19(1-2):53-9
pubmed: 20500244
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2015 Aug;12(4):228-35
pubmed: 26122316
J Clin Nurs. 2008 Nov;17(21):2910-9
pubmed: 18624781
Geriatr Nurs. 2018 May - Jun;39(3):330-335
pubmed: 29310831
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2012 Jul;12(3):481-90
pubmed: 22233202
Int Psychogeriatr. 2016 Aug;28(8):1263-81
pubmed: 27082717
J Appl Gerontol. 2013 Sep;32(6):687-707
pubmed: 25474794
J Adv Nurs. 2016 Feb;72(2):348-60
pubmed: 26552367
Spec Care Dentist. 2019 Sep;39(5):497-504
pubmed: 31287185
Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2016 Dec;31(8):706-716
pubmed: 27756815
Int J Nurs Stud. 2017 Jun;71:70-79
pubmed: 28340390
Int J Nurs Stud. 1998 Feb-Apr;35(1-2):95-108
pubmed: 9695016
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004 Sep;59(9):M966-73
pubmed: 15472163
BMC Geriatr. 2016 May 04;16:89
pubmed: 27142469
Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2015 Jan;18(1):17-23
pubmed: 25394167
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 22;12(2):e0171770
pubmed: 28225776