The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Malnutrition self-screening by using MUST in hospital outpatients: validity, reliability, and ease of use

Malnutrition self-screening by using MUST in hospital outpatients: validity, reliability, and ease of use
Malnutrition self-screening by using MUST in hospital outpatients: validity, reliability, and ease of use
BACKGROUND: Although nutritional screening with a tool such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) is recommended for outpatients, staff are under pressure to undertake a variety of other tasks. Little attention has been paid to the validity of patient self-screening with MUST.

OBJECTIVE: This study in 205 outpatients with a mean (±SD) age of 55 ± 17 y (56% male) assessed the practicalities of self-screening, its agreement with screening undertaken by a trained health care professional (HCP), and its test-retest reliability.

DESIGN: After the participants provided consent, screening was undertaken by the patients themselves and then by a trained HCP who was unaware of the self-screening results. All patients completed an ease-of-use questionnaire. Test-retest reliability of self-screening was established in a subset of 60 patients.

RESULTS: A total of 19.6% of patients categorized themselves as "at risk" of malnutrition (9.8% medium, 9.8% high). For the 3-category classification of MUST (low, medium, high), agreement between self-screening and HCP screening was 90% (? = 0.70; SE = 0.058, P < 0.001). For the 2-category classification (low risk, medium + high risk), agreement was 93% (? = 0.78, SE = 0.057, P < 0.001). Disagreements were not systematically under- or overcategorized. Test-retest reliability was almost perfect (? = 0.94, P < 0.001). Most patients (71%) completed self-screening in <5 min. Patients found the tool easy or very easy to understand (96%) and complete (98%), with 94% reporting that they were happy to screen themselves.

CONCLUSION: Self-screening involving MUST in outpatients is acceptable to patients, user-friendly, reliable, and associated with good agreement with HCP screening.
0002-9165
1000-1007
Cawood, Abbie L.
4067d429-6ce8-4e50-b5f5-d8bf62aada79
Elia, Marinos
964bf436-e623-46d6-bc3f-5dd04c9ef4c1
Sharp, Sarah K.E.
5653ea62-0136-422d-aaa9-592c0b51ed4b
Stratton, Rebecca J.
c6a5ead1-3387-42e7-8bea-5ac7d969d87b
Cawood, Abbie L.
4067d429-6ce8-4e50-b5f5-d8bf62aada79
Elia, Marinos
964bf436-e623-46d6-bc3f-5dd04c9ef4c1
Sharp, Sarah K.E.
5653ea62-0136-422d-aaa9-592c0b51ed4b
Stratton, Rebecca J.
c6a5ead1-3387-42e7-8bea-5ac7d969d87b

Cawood, Abbie L., Elia, Marinos, Sharp, Sarah K.E. and Stratton, Rebecca J. (2012) Malnutrition self-screening by using MUST in hospital outpatients: validity, reliability, and ease of use. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 96 (5), 1000-1007. (doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.037853). (PMID:23034963)

Record type: Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although nutritional screening with a tool such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) is recommended for outpatients, staff are under pressure to undertake a variety of other tasks. Little attention has been paid to the validity of patient self-screening with MUST.

OBJECTIVE: This study in 205 outpatients with a mean (±SD) age of 55 ± 17 y (56% male) assessed the practicalities of self-screening, its agreement with screening undertaken by a trained health care professional (HCP), and its test-retest reliability.

DESIGN: After the participants provided consent, screening was undertaken by the patients themselves and then by a trained HCP who was unaware of the self-screening results. All patients completed an ease-of-use questionnaire. Test-retest reliability of self-screening was established in a subset of 60 patients.

RESULTS: A total of 19.6% of patients categorized themselves as "at risk" of malnutrition (9.8% medium, 9.8% high). For the 3-category classification of MUST (low, medium, high), agreement between self-screening and HCP screening was 90% (? = 0.70; SE = 0.058, P < 0.001). For the 2-category classification (low risk, medium + high risk), agreement was 93% (? = 0.78, SE = 0.057, P < 0.001). Disagreements were not systematically under- or overcategorized. Test-retest reliability was almost perfect (? = 0.94, P < 0.001). Most patients (71%) completed self-screening in <5 min. Patients found the tool easy or very easy to understand (96%) and complete (98%), with 94% reporting that they were happy to screen themselves.

CONCLUSION: Self-screening involving MUST in outpatients is acceptable to patients, user-friendly, reliable, and associated with good agreement with HCP screening.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: 3 October 2012
Published date: November 2012
Organisations: Clinical & Experimental Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 362510
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/362510
ISSN: 0002-9165
PURE UUID: ad588ce4-557b-45fb-800a-43b375087fdf

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 26 Feb 2014 10:11
Last modified: 18 Jul 2017 02:51

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×