Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jun 21;19(6):e0304998. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304998

Malnutrition and its determinants among older adults living in foster families in Guadeloupe (French West Indies). A cross-sectional study

Denis Boucaud-Maitre 1,2,3,*, Nadine Simo-Tabue 4, Ludwig Mounsamy 3, Christine Rambhojan 3, Laurys Letchimy 4, Leila Rinaldo 3, Jean-François Dartigues 5, Hélène Amieva 5, Moustapha Dramé 2,4, Maturin Tabué-Teguo 2,4
Editor: Gudina Egata6
PMCID: PMC11192354  PMID: 38905295

Abstract

Background

Foster families may represent an alternative model for dependent older adults in many countries where nursing homes are insufficiently developed. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of malnutrition and its determinants in older adults living in foster families in Guadeloupe (French West Indies).

Methods

This cross-sectional study was gathered from the KASAF (Karukera Study of Ageing in Foster families) study (n = 107, 41M/66F, Mdn 81.8 years). Nutritional status was assessed with the Mini Nutritional Assessment Short‐Form (MNA‐SF). Clinical characteristics and scores on geriatric scales (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), Center for Epidemiologic Studies- Depression (CESD) and Questionnaire Quality of Life Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL-AD)) were extracted. Bivariate analysis and logistic models adjusted for age and gender were performed to test the association of nutritional status with socio-demographic variables and geriatric scales.

Results

Thirty (28.0%) older adults were malnourished (MNA-SF score ≤7). In bivariate analysis, malnutrition was associated with an increased prevalence of cardiovascular diseases (46.7% versus 19.5%, p = 0.004), the presence of hemiplegia (30.0% versus 6.5%, p = 0.003), a poorer cognitive status (MMSE score 4.7 ± 7.1versus 9.7 ± 10.7; p = 0.031), higher risk of depression (CESD score 27.3 ± 23.0 versus 13.5 ± 14.4; p = 0.035) and dependency (ADL score 1.9 ± 1.9 versus 2.3 ± 2.1; p<0.001). Malnutrition was also associated with lower caregivers’rating of QoL (QoL-AD score 21.8 ± 6.4 versus 26.0 ± 5.7; p = 0.001) but not by older adult’s rating (24.1 ± 11.2 versus 28.3 ± 7.7; p = 0.156). Similar associations were observed in logistic models adjusted for age and gender.

Conclusion

Malnutrition was common among foster families for older adults. Special attention towards the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older adults from cardiovascular diseases, cognitive impairment, dependency and depression is necessary in this model of dependency support.

Introduction

Although foster families exist in many countries, this model is not widespread [1]. Consequently, very few studies have described and assessed the effectiveness of this model on potential adverse health outcomes [2]. In Guadeloupe (French West Indies, Caribbean Island), the number of foster families has increased over the past three decades, due to the aging of the population and the limited availability of nursing home placements. Cultural factors may also contribute to this phenomenon. For instance, the importance of the family in Caribbean culture and the public’s reticence towards nursing homes may contribute to this phenomenon. Foster families assume responsibility for the care of one to three residents in their home, while a nurse, who visits the older adults on a daily basis, assumes paramedical care. Foster families are remunerated directly by the relevant public authorities. In a prospective observational study (KArukera Study of Ageing in Foster Families, KASAF), we observed that the profile of older adults in foster families was similar to that for older adults living in nursing homes in terms of co-morbidities, dementia and dependence [3]. Foster caregivers are responsible for the daily activities, including shopping, food preparation and the provision of meals. It is essential that these meals meet the nutritional needs of older adults.

Indeed, ensuring nutritional needs is fundamental to the care of older adults, particularly those who are dependent [4]. Ageing is associated with a change in body composition, a decrease in lean body mass and an increase in fat mass. Malnutrition predisposes older adults to an increased risk of adverse health outcomes such as frailty, osteoporosis, muscle wastage, mortality [4], a lack of energy [5], a decline in health and physical functions [6] or falls [7]. Malnultrition is frequently underestimated and neglected, as its manifestations are non-specific, particularly in the early stages. The following factors have been identified as increasing the risk of malnutrition: age over 85, low nutrient intake due to a loss of the ability to eat independently, difficulty swallowing, becoming bedridden, pressure ulcers, a history of hip fracture, dementia, depressive symptoms, and suffering from two or more chronic illnesses [8].

Malnutrition has been the subject of investigation in both nursing homes and the community. However, it has never been the subject of study in the context of foster families for older adults. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of malnutrition among older adults receiving caregiving in foster families and to investigate the factors associated with malnutrition using the baseline data of the KASAF cohort.

Methods

Study design

KASAF cohort is a prospective observational study of older adults (≥ 60 years old) living in foster families in Guadeloupe. The study protocol [9] and inclusion data has been published [3]. At inclusion, 6 months and 12 months, healthcare professionals (geriatricians or clinical research nurses) interviewed the participants and their professional caregivers. For this study, we performed a cross-sectional analysis of the baseline’s characteristics of participants. The KASAF study and was approved by the Sud Méditerranée III Ethics Committee on July 1, 2020 (number 2020.05.03 bis_ 20.04.01.59610).

Outcome measure

The nutritional status was evaluated using the Mini Nutritional Assessment Short‐Form (MNA‐SF) (Rubenstein) [10]. 15 The MNA‐SF comprises six items: reduced food intake, non‐volitional weight loss in the past 3 months, mobility, psychological stress or acute disease during the past 3 months, neuropsychological problems, and low body mass index (BMI). For adults whose BMI was missing, it was replaced by low calf circumference, as recommended in the MNA‐SF guidance [10]. The total MNA‐SF score ranges from 0 (indicating the most severe form of malnutrition) to 14 (indicating no sign of malnutrition). In particular, a score of 12–14 is indicative of a normal nutritional status, while a score of 0–7 and 8–11 identifies malnutrition or risk of malnutrition respectively.

Other measurements

The sociodemographic data and comorbidities were collected from the foster caregiver. The cognitive status was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) [11]. A score below 18 indicated the presence of major cognitive impairment. Functional status was evaluated using the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) scale [12] and the instrumental ADL scale (IADL) [13]. Physical function was assessed using the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) [14] and depression with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CESD) scale [15]. Quality of life of the participant was assessed using the QoL-AD (Questionnaire Quality of Life—Alzheimer’s Disease) [16], which was administered to the participant and the caregiver. Pain was quantified using a visual analogue scale (VAS), with scores ranging from 0 to 100.

Statistical analysis

Quantitative variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation, median and minimum and–maximum values. The qualitative variables were expressed as percentages. Chi‐square or Fisher test and t‐tests were used to describe the population according to their nutritional status. A Pearson correlation test was used to assess the correlation between the QOL-AD scores of patient and their respective caregiver. Logistic regression models, which were adjusted for age and gender, were conducted to examine the association between nutritional status (the independent variable) and each comorbidity and each geriatric scale. We reported odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). No imputation method was performed for missing data. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. All analyses were performed with R. 4.2.1.

Results

1. Frequency of malnutrition

A total of 107 older adults were included in the study. The mean age was 82.2 ± 11.6 years, and 38.3% of the participants were men. They had been living in foster care for 4.6 ± 4.8 years. The frequency of malnutrition (MNA-SF ≤ 7) was 28.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 20.9–39.1) (n = 30). Furthermore, 52 (48.6%, IC95%: 39.1–58.1) older adults were at risk of malnutrition (MNA-SF between 8 and 11 points). The prevalence of older adults with malnutrition or at risk of malnutrition was 76.6% (IC95%: 68.6–84.6).

2. Factors associated with sociodemographic status and comorbidities

In bivariate analysis, malnutrition (compared to normal nutritional status or at risk of malnutrition) was associated with cardiovascular diseases (46.7% versus 19.5%, p = 0.004) and hemiplegia (30.0% versus 6.5%, p = 0.003). Malnutrition was not associated with age, gender, length of stay in foster families, hypertension, diabetes, dementia and Parkinson’s disease listed by the caregiver (Table 1). In a model adjusted for age and gender, the OR were 3.94 (CI95%: 1.52–10.62) for cardiovascular disease and 11.36 (CI95%: 3.00–53.29) for hemiplegia.

Table 1. Sociodemographic factors and comorbidities associated with nutritional status in KASAF study.

Bivariate analysis Model adjusted on age and gender
Characteristics All (n = 107) Malnutrition yes (n = 30) Malnutrition no (n = 77) p OR (CI95%) p
Age 82.2 ± 11.6 84.7 ± 11.3 81.2 ± 11.2 0.156
<80 years old 44 (41.1%) 8 (18.2%) 36 (81.8%)
≥ 80 years 63 (58.9%) 22 (34.9%) 41 (65.1%) 0.057
Gender (men) 41 (38.3%) 8 (26.7%) 33 (42.9%) 0.122
Length of stay in foster families 4.6 ± 4.8 4.2 ± 3.7 4.8 ± 5.2 0.576 0.98 (0.88–1.07) 0.647
Hypertension 49 (45.8%) 14 (46.7%) 35 (45.4%) 0.910 1.02 (0.42–2.42) 0.959
Diabetes 26 (24.3%) 7 (23.3%) 19 (24.7%) 0.884 0.93 (0.32–2.51) 0.903
Hypercholesterolemia 11 (10.3%) 4 (13.3%) 7 (9.1%) 0.498 2.86 (0.59–13.63) 0.178
Cardiovascular diseases (cardiac failure, myocardial infarction, stroke) 29 (27.1%) 14 (46.7%) 15 (19.5%) 0.004 3.94 (1.52–10.62) 0.005i
Dementia 53 (49.5%) 19 (63.3%) 34 (44.2%) 0.075 1.75 (0.70–4.52) 0.237
Parkinson’s disease 13 (12.2%) 6 (20.0%) 7 (9.1%) 0.184 2.58 (0.75–8.80) 0.124
Hemiplegia 14 (13.1%) 9 (30.0%) 5 (6.5%) 0.003 11.36 (3.00–53.29) <0.001ii
Kidney disease 4 (3.7%) 3 (10.0%) 1 (1.3%) 0.066 6.84 (0.81 (144.09) 0.107
Cancer 1 (0.9%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.3%) -

i: McFadden’s Pseudo R2: 0.090

ii: McFadden’s Pseudo R2: 0.133

3. Association between MNA-SF score and geriatric scales

Malnutrition (compared to normal nutritional status or at risk of malnutrition) was associated with poorer cognitive status assessed by the MMSE score (4.7 ± 7.1 versus 9.7 ± 10.7, p = 0.031), especially among older adults with major cognitive disorders (MMSE score < 18) (92.3% versus 30.0%, p = 0.023). Among the 28 older adults with a MMSE score <18 who were not diagnosed with dementia by the caregiver, six were malnourished (21.4%). Malnutrition was also associated with a lower ADL score (1.9 ± 1.9 versus 2.3 ± 2.1, p<0.001). Malnutrition was highly associated with bedridden older adults (96.7% versus 67.5%, p = 0.001) and older adults totally dependent at meals (80.0% versus 42.9%, p<0.001) in terms of activities of daily living. Malnutrition was associated with the caregivers ‘estimation of QOL score (QoL-AD score 21.8 ± 6.4 versus 26.0 ± 5.7; p = 0.001) but not by the self-reported QoL score (24.1 ± 11.2 versus 28.3 ± 7.7; p = 0.156). The correlation coefficient between the QoL-AD score for older adult and their respective caregivers was 0.60 (p<0.001). Finally, the CESD score for depression was associated with malnutrition (27.3 ± 23.0 versus 13.5 ± 14.4; p = 0.035) (Table 2). The SPPB score (0.4 ± 1.3 versus 1.2 ± 2.2; p = 0.07) and VAS pain score (63.3 ± 2.6 versus 41.3 ± 36.4, p = 0.169) were not statistically associated with the MNA-SF score (Table 2).

Table 2. Associations between MNA-SF score and geriatric scales.

Bivariate analysis Model adjusted on age and gender
Scale All (n = 107) Malnutrition yes (n = 30) Malnutrition no (n = 77) p OR p
MMSE (n = 96) 8.3 ± 10.1 4.7 ± 7.1 9.7 ± 10.7 0.031 0.94 (0.89–0.99) 0.0451
MMSE≤18 (n = 96) 73 (76.0%) 24 (92.3%) 21 (30.0%) 0.023 4.92 (1.27–32.69) 0.043
ADL (n = 107) 1.5 ± 1.8 1.9 ± 1.9 2.3 ± 2.1 <0.001 0.51 (0.31–0.76) 0.0042
Full assistance for bathing 84 (78.5%) 28 (93.3%) 56 (72.7%) 0.020
Full assistance of dressing 88 (82.2%) 29 (96.7%) 59 (76.6%) 0.015
Full assistance for toileting 90 (84.1%) 29 (96.7%) 61 (79.2%) 0.015
Bedridden 81 (75.7%) 29 (96.7%) 52 (67.5%) 0.001
Incontinence 91 (85.0%) 29 (96.7%) 62 (80.5%) 0.035
Totally dependent at meals 57 (53.3%) 24 (80.0%) 33 (42.9%) <0.001
QOL-AD (n = 47) residents 27.2 ± 8.8 24.1 ± 11.2 28.3 ± 7.7 0.156 0.93 (0.83–1.01) 0.104
QOL-AD caregivers’estimation (n = 47) 24.8 ± 6.2 21.8 ± 6.4 26.0 ± 5.7 0.001 0.87 (0.79–0.95) 0.0033
VAS pain (n = 37) 44.9 ± 35.6 63.3 ± 2.6 41.3 ± 36.4 0.169 1.01 (0.99–1.04) 0.322
SPPB (n = 105) 1.0 ± 2.0 0.4 ± 1.3 1.2 ± 2.2 0.07 0.78 (0.52–1.03) 0.147
CESD (n = 39) 16.7 ± 17.4 27.3 ± 23.0 13.5 ± 14.4 0.035 1.05 (1.00–1.11) 0.0314

1: McFadden’s Pseudo R2: 0.178

2: McFadden’s Pseudo R2: 0.133

3: McFadden’s Pseudo R2: 0.110

4. McFadden’s Pseudo R2: 0.724

In model adjusted for age and gender, the OR for malnutrition was 4.92 (1.27–32.69) for a MMSE score of ≤18, 0.51 (0.31–0.76) for the ADL score, 0.87 (0.79–0.95) for QOL-AD caregivers ‘estimation and 1.05 (1.00–1.11) for the CESD score.

Discussion

This is the first study to assess malnutrition in foster families for dependent older adults. The results highlighted the high prevalence of malnutrition in this setting (28.0%). In community-dwelling older adults, the prevalence of malnutrition is between 3 to 6%, depending on the setting and assessment method [4, 17, 21]. In Guadeloupe, the prevalence of malnutrition or at-risk of malnutrition in older adults is 21.7% at home [18], which is a significantly lower than observed in our study (i.e. 76.6%). Foster families in Guadeloupe are considered an alternative to nursing homes. In the literature, the frequency of malnutrition in nursing homes, based on the MNA scale, is estimated at 13.8% [17]. In France, a study carried out in nursing homes found a frequency of 15.7% [19]. We observed a frequency of malnutrition of 92.3% in older adults with severe cognitive impairment, which appears to be higher than that reported in the literature. The estimated range is 6.8% to 75.6% [20] or 28.7% in another systematic review using only the MNA score [21]. In the model adjusted for age and gender, a MMSE score ≤18 was associated with malnutrition (OR: 4.92 (CI95%: 1.27–32.69)). The finding of the study indicated that dementia, as reported by the foster caregiver, was not associated with malnutrition. However, the MMSE score suggested that almost 20% of the older adults suffered from undetected severe cognitive impairment. Dementia, as well as undernutrition, seems to be underestimated by foster caregivers.

Malnutrition was particularly prevalent in older adults with a history of cardiovascular disease and hemiplegia. It is well established that malnutrition increases the risk of mortality and hospitalizations in patients with chronic heart failure [22]. Our study is consistent with several other studies conducted in nursing homes that have investigated the potential association between malnutrition and depression or poor physical function [23]. Furthermore, we observed a strong association between dependency and malnutrition, particularly for in patients who are bedridden or have difficulty eating. With regard to quality of life, we noted that malnutrition was associated with QoL score as perceived by caregivers, but not with that rated by older adults themselves. In nursing homes, malnutrition impacts quality of life [24, 25]. This result may be due to the low number of older adults who were able to answer to the QoL-AD scale, excluding older adults with severe dementia. Impaired cognition has been associated with reduced quality of life when the caregiver is the assessor [26]. Moreover, quality of life perceived by the older adult is generally rated higher than that perceived by the proxies’ rating [27, 28]. Higher prevalence of malnutrition have been observed in adults aged > 80 years and women [29]. Although the association was not statistically significant, the frequency of malnutrition was higher in adults aged > 80 years (34.9% versus 18.2%, p = 0.057) in our study.

Our study therefore provides important elements for the assessment of the foster family model for dependent older adults. One strength of our study is that it presents data from a population of Caribbean population, with a specific diet (especially in terms of fruit and vegetables) and probably specific dietary intake [30]. Foster families for older adults could provide a solution to the challenge of dependency in many countries, particularly in the Caribbean and Africa. Improving nutritional care represents an essential lever for developing this model. In terms of nutrition, the foster family presents both a strength and a weakness. It is easier to respect the food tastes and preferences of the older adult in a domestic setting than in a collective kitchen such as those found in nursing homes. Furthermore, the residents of nursing homes have less flexibility in their meal schedules. Nevertheless, the quantity and quality of home-cooked meals may not be optimal for malnourished older adults. Additional training and specialized dietetic care, including advice, food enrichment, anthropometric monitoring, consultations with nutritionists and dieticians and a food diary [4], could be provided if malnutrition is detected. An alternative solution could be the implementation of meal delivery services. Currently, in Guadeloupe, the authorization to work as a foster caregiver requires 54 hours of training, with only a few hours devoted to hygiene and nutrition. It is also noteworthy that weight was only available for 22 participants, despite the simplicity of the tool for detecting recent malnutrition. Paramedical staff could also provide training and screening for malnutrition, given that all foster care residents benefit from a daily visit from a nurse.

Our study has a number of limitations. Firstly, there were no data concerning the precariousness of family caregivers and the budget allocated to buying meals for the older people. This socio-economic data could have been interesting to explore. Secondly, due to the low sample size and the limit number of outcomes events for CESD scale or QOL-AD scale, no multivariate model taking into account all the covariates associated with malnutrition was performed. This is a cross-sectional study suggesting associations. The one-year longitudinal follow-up of our study will enable us to identify risk factors for nutritional deterioration, including hospitalizations and ADL.

Conclusion

Malnutrition was common among older adults living in foster families. The prevalence of malnutrition was higher in older adults with dependency, depression, cardiovascular diseases, hemiplegia and cognitive impairment. The findings of this study indicate that there is a need for greater focus on the nutritional requirements of older adults and the training of foster caregivers in this area.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. Human participants research checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0304998.s001.docx (53.9KB, docx)
S1 Dataset

(CSV)

pone.0304998.s002.csv (10.4KB, csv)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by a grant from the Conseil Départemental de la Guadeloupe, ARS de la Guadeloupe, Saint-Martin, and Saint-Barthélemy (grant 2020/DPAPH/DRM). The funding body had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Boucaud-Maitre D, Cesari M, Tabue-Teguo M. Foster families to support older people with dependency: a neglected strategy. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2023. Jan;4(1):e10. doi: 10.1016/S2666-7568(22)00288-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Young C, Hall AM, Gonçalves-Bradley DC, Quinn TJ, Hooft L, van Munster BC, et al. Home or foster home care versus institutional long-term care for functionally dependent older people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. Apr 3;4(4):CD009844. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009844.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Boucaud-Maitre D, Villeneuve R, Rambhojan C, Simo-Tabué N, Thibault N, Rinaldo L, et al. Clinical characteristics of older adults living in foster families in Guadeloupe (French West Indies): baseline screening of the KASAF Cohort. Innov in Aging (under review). [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Dent E, Wright ORL, Woo J, Hoogendijk EO. Malnutrition in older adults. Lancet. 2023. Mar 18;401(10380):951–966. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02612-5 Epub 2023 Jan 27. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lilamand M, Kelaiditi E, Demougeot L, Rolland Y, Vellas B, Cesari M. The Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form and mortality in nursing home residents—results from the INCUR study. J Nutr Health Aging. 2015. Apr;19(4):383–8. doi: 10.1007/s12603-014-0533-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Vivanti A, Ward N, Haines T. Nutritional status and associations with falls, balance, mobility, and functionality during hospital admission. J Nutr Health Aging. 2011;15(5):388–391. doi: 10.1007/s12603-010-0302-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Johnson CS. The association between nutritional risk and falls among frail elderly. J Nutr Health Aging. 2003;7(4):247–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mugica-Errazquin I, Zarrazquin I, Seco-Calvo J, Gil-Goikouria J, Rodriguez-Larrad A, Virgala J, et al. The Nutritional Status of Long-Term Institutionalized Older Adults Is Associated with Functional Status, Physical Performance and Activity, and Frailty. Nutrients. 2021. Oct 22;13(11):3716. doi: 10.3390/nu13113716 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Boucaud-Maitre D, Villeneuve R, Simo-Tabué N, Dartigues JF, Amieva H, Tabué-Teguo M. The Health Care Trajectories of Older People in Foster Families: Protocol for an Observational Study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2023. Feb 8;12:e40604. doi: 10.2196/40604 ; PMCID: PMC9947762. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rubenstein LZ, Harker JO, Salvà A, Guigoz Y, Vellas B. Screening for undernutrition in geriatric practice developing the short‐form mini‐nutritional assessment (MNA‐SF). J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56:M366‐M372. doi: 10.1093/gerona/56.6.m366 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975. Nov;12(3):189–98. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW. Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA. 1963;185:914–919. doi: 10.1001/jama.1963.03060120024016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9(3):179–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF, Leveille SG, Markides KS, Ostir GV, et al. Lower extremity function and subsequent disability: consistency across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed alone compared with the short physical performance battery. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000. Apr;55(4):M221–31. doi: 10.1093/gerona/55.4.m221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 2016;1(3):385–401. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Logsdon RG, Gibbons LE, McCurry SM, Teri L. Quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease: patient and caregiver reports. J Ment Health Aging. 1999;5(1):21–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kaiser MJ, Bauer JM, Rämsch C, Uter W, Guigoz Y, Cederholm T, et al. Frequency of malnutrition in older adults: a multinational perspective using the mini nutritional assessment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010. Sep;58(9):1734–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03016.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Simo-Tabue N, Boucaud-Maitre D, Letchimy L, Guilhem-Decleon J, Helene-Pelage J, Duval GT, et al. Correlates of Undernutrition in Older People in Guadeloupe (French West Indies): Results from the KASADS Study. Nutrients. 2023. Jun 29;15(13):2950. doi: 10.3390/nu15132950 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Azzolino D, Marzetti E, Proietti M, Calvani R, de Souto Barreto P, Rolland Y, et al. Lack of energy is associated with malnutrition in nursing home residents: Results from the INCUR study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021. Nov;69(11):3242–3248. doi: 10.1111/jgs.17393 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Perry E, Walton K, Lambert K. Prevalence of Malnutrition in People with Dementia in Long-Term Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients. 2023. Jun 28;15(13):2927. doi: 10.3390/nu15132927 ; PMCID: PMC10343750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cereda E, Pedrolli C, Klersy C, Bonardi C, Quarleri L, Cappello S, et al. Nutritional status in older persons according to healthcare setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence data using MNA®. Clin Nutr. 2016. Dec;35(6):1282–1290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wawrzeńczyk A, Anaszewicz M, Wawrzeńczyk A, Budzyński J. Clinical significance of nutritional status in patients with chronic heart failure-a systematic review. Heart Fail Rev. 2019. Sep;24(5):671–700. doi: 10.1007/s10741-019-09793-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.O’Keeffe M, Kelly M, O’Herlihy E, O’Toole PW, Kearney PM, Timmons S, et al. Potentially modifiable determinants of malnutrition in older adults: A systematic review. Clin Nutr. 2019. Dec;38(6):2477–2498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Şimşek H, Uçar A. Nutritional status and quality of life are associated with risk of sarcopenia in nursing home residents: a cross-sectional study. Nutr Res. 2022. May;101:14–22. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2022.02.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Salminen KS, Suominen MH, Soini H, Kautiainen H, Savikko N, Saarela RKT, et al. Associations between Nutritional Status and Health-Related Quality of Life among Long-Term Care Residents in Helsinki. J Nutr Health Aging. 2019;23(5):474–478. doi: 10.1007/s12603-019-1182-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Beer C, Flicker L, Horner B, Bretland N, Scherer S, Lautenschlager NT, et al. Factors associated with self and informant ratings of the quality of life of people with dementia living in care facilities: a cross sectional study. PLoS One. 2010. Dec 13;5(12):e15621. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015621 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Crespo M, Bernaldo de Quirós M, Gómez MM, Hornillos C. Quality of life of nursing home residents with dementia: a comparison of perspectives of residents, family, and staff. Gerontologist. 2012. Feb;52(1):56–65. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnr080 Epub 2011 Sep 7. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Orgeta V, Orrell M, Hounsome B, Woods B; REMCARE team. Self and carer perspectives of quality of life in dementia using the QoL-AD. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2015. Jan;30(1):97–104. doi: 10.1002/gps.4130 Epub 2014 May 2. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Leij-Halfwerk S, Verwijs MH, van Houdt S, Borkent JW, Guaitoli PR, Pelgrim T, et al. Prevalence of protein-energy malnutrition risk in European older adults in community, residential and hospital settings, according to 22 malnutrition screening tools validated for use in adults ≥65 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Maturitas. 2019. Aug;126:80–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Vearing RM, Hart KH, Darling AL, Probst Y, Olayinka AS, Mendis J, et al. Global Perspective of the Vitamin D Status of African-Caribbean Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2022. Apr;76(4):516–526. doi: 10.1038/s41430-021-00980-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gudina Egata

18 Mar 2024

PONE-D-24-00892Malnutrition and its determinants among older adults living in foster families in Guadeloupe (French West Indies): A cross-sectional study.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Boucaud-Maitre,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.  Though  the  manuscript has scientific merit , it  requires major revision before being considered for publication . Therefore , please submit your revised manuscript by May 02 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gudina Egata, PhD in Public Health

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

3. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Firstly, I want to thank the authors for bringing out the issue of nutrition and health among older adults residing in foster care homes. Studies on institutionalized and community-based nutritional survey among older adults have been many, however the current study is a unique in that it presents data on older adults living in foster families, which is an important issue. In below points, I have advised important comments and constructive feedback on the manuscript.

Abstract:

please modify and rewrite conclusion statements as they are not what the findings show.

Introduction:

Line num 62- I think the authors meant “prevalence of malnutrition among older adults receiving caregiving in foster families”.

Methods:

Line num 72- please correct the grammatical mistake in the sentence.

Line num 76- "15"...?

Statistical analysis:

Line num 102- please mention in full which version of R studio and all R packages that were used.

Results:

Please report the prevalence data on all three groups.

Did you check for the confounders? If yes, which procedure did you use to do it? Please explain this in the method section. Which variables were used for multivariate analysis and what was the criteria for this? Why did the authors adjust for age and gender?

Please also mention the adjusted R2 values for each of the variables that had statistically significant association with the dependent variable.

Discussion:

Line num 146- please use the term "prevalence" instead of "frequency".

Line num 147- please add more references.

Conclusion:

As mentioned in the above comment, please modify the conclusion statements. The conclusion has not been specifically written based on the findings. The findings show association between predictors(CVD events, hemiplegia) and nutritional status and the authors have not presented any data on the assessment of knowledge, attitude, training, education of the caregivers. This will limit the authors from saying that "training of caregivers are needed". Had the authors presented data on caregiver's level of knowledge or training, this could have led authors recommend training of caregivers although training might be an important factor that impacts older adults' health and life.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Man Kumar Tamang

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jun 21;19(6):e0304998. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304998.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 May 2024

Reviewer #1: Firstly, I want to thank the authors for bringing out the issue of nutrition and health among older adults residing in foster care homes. Studies on institutionalized and community-based nutritional survey among older adults have been many, however the current study is a unique in that it presents data on older adults living in foster families, which is an important issue. In below points, I have advised important comments and constructive feedback on the manuscript.

Authors comment: We thank the reviewer for her/his encouraging comments and its interest in this model of accommodation/care for older adults.

Abstract:

1. Please modify and rewrite conclusion statements as they are not what the findings show.

Authors Response: We agree with the reviewer’s comment. We propose the following conclusion: “Special attention towards the prevention and treatment of malnutrition in older adults from cardiovascular diseases, cognitive impairment, dependency and depression is necessary in this model of dependency support.”

Introduction:

2. Line num 62- I think the authors meant “prevalence of malnutrition among older adults receiving caregiving in foster families”.

Authors Response: We agree with the reviewer’s comment. We have changed the sentence as proposed by the reviewer.

Methods:

3.Line num 72- please correct the grammatical mistake in the sentence.

Authors Response: We rewrote the sentence as requested.

4.Line num 76- "15"...?

Authors Response: The number authorization is well 2020.05.03 bis_ 20.04.01.59610

Statistical analysis:

5.Line num 102- please mention in full which version of R studio and all R packages that were used.

Authors Response: The full version of R was R. 4.2.1 (added to the manuscript). No specific package was used.

Results:

6.Please report the prevalence data on all three groups.

Authors Response: Agree, see manuscript.

7. Did you check for the confounders? If yes, which procedure did you use to do it? Please explain this in the method section. Which variables were used for multivariate analysis and what was the criteria for this? Why did the authors adjust for age and gender?

Authors Response: We did not perform multivariate analysis with all the variables associated with malnutrition in bivariate analysis (p<0.2) or with a stepwise/backward selection for example. Indeed, we consider that the number of participants was too low to perform multivariate analysis with several covariables. Half of participants (i.e. older adults with major cognitive impairment) were unable to answer to CESD scale or quality of life scale. Consequently, a multivariate analysis including for example MMSE score, ADL score, age, sex, cardiovascular disease, hemiplegia, SPPB and CESD (variables associated with malnutrition in bivariate analysis with p<0.2) would have include less than half the participants (n=37). In statistics, to carry out a linear or logistic regression, it is recommended to have at least 10 observations per covariate (Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Kemper, E., Holford, T. R. & Feinstein, A. R. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 49, 1373–1379 (1996). We could perform multivariate analysis without CESD, but depression being strongly associated with malnutrition, we consider that this will be not relevant to exclude depression in a multivariate analysis. It is why we decided to perform only logistic regression models adjusted on age and sex for each variable. We have better explained the methodology section and added this point as a limit of our study (see manuscript).

8.Please also mention the adjusted R2 values for each of the variables that had statistically significant association with the dependent variable.

Authors Response: We have mentioned McFadden's Pseudo R2 as requested.

Discussion:

9. Line num 146- please use the term "prevalence" instead of "frequency".

Authors Response: Agree

10. Line num 147- please add more references.

Authors Response: Agree, we have added cross-reference to a recent review (2023) published by the Lancet: Dent E, Wright ORL, Woo J, Hoogendijk EO. Malnutrition in older adults. Lancet. 2023 Mar 18;401(10380):951-966

and another systematic review of malnutrition using the MNA scale: Cereda E, Pedrolli C, Klersy C, Bonardi C, Quarleri L, Cappello S, Turri A, Rondanelli M, Caccialanza R. Nutritional status in older persons according to healthcare setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence data using MNA®. Clin Nutr. 2016 Dec;35(6):1282-1290.

Conclusion:

11. As mentioned in the above comment, please modify the conclusion statements. The conclusion has not been specifically written based on the findings. The findings show association between predictors(CVD events, hemiplegia) and nutritional status and the authors have not presented any data on the assessment of knowledge, attitude, training, education of the caregivers. This will limit the authors from saying that "training of caregivers are needed". Had the authors presented data on caregiver's level of knowledge or training, this could have led authors recommend training of caregivers although training might be an important factor that impacts older adults' health and life.

Authors Response: We fully agree with the reviewer. Our conclusion should more reflected the results of our study and not our perspective of work! Indeed, we project to perform a one-year randomized clinical trial in foster families to assess the efficacy of a training of caregivers by a nutritionist compared to no intervention. We have changed the conclusion as requested.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer comment.docx

pone.0304998.s003.docx (16.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Gudina Egata

22 May 2024

Malnutrition and its determinants among older adults living in foster families in Guadeloupe (French West Indies): A cross-sectional study.

PONE-D-24-00892R1

Dear  Denis Boucaud-Maitre,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Gudina Egata, PhD in Public Health

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Gudina Egata

27 May 2024

PONE-D-24-00892R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Boucaud-Maitre,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Gudina Egata

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. Human participants research checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0304998.s001.docx (53.9KB, docx)
    S1 Dataset

    (CSV)

    pone.0304998.s002.csv (10.4KB, csv)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewer comment.docx

    pone.0304998.s003.docx (16.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES