'Self-screening' for malnutrition with an electronic version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ('MUST') in hospital outpatients: concurrent validity, preference and ease of use
'Self-screening' for malnutrition with an electronic version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ('MUST') in hospital outpatients: concurrent validity, preference and ease of use
Self-screening using an electronic version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ('MUST') has been developed but its implementation requires investigation. A total of 100 outpatients (mean age 50 (sd 16) years; 57 % male) self-screened with an electronic version of 'MUST' and were then screened by a healthcare professional (HCP) to assess concurrent validity. Ease of use, time to self-screen and prevalence of malnutrition were also assessed. A further twenty outpatients (mean age 54 (sd 15) years; 55 % male) examined preference between self-screening with paper and electronic versions of 'MUST'. For the three-category classification of 'MUST' (low, medium and high risk), agreement between electronic self-screening and HCP screening was 94 % (κ=0·74, se 0·092; P<0·001). For the two-category classification (low risk; medium+high risk) agreement was 96 % (κ=0·82, se 0·085; P<0·001), comparable with the previously reported paper-based self-screening. In all, 15 % of patients categorised themselves 'at risk' of malnutrition (5 % medium, 10 % high). Electronic self-screening took 3 min (sd 1·2 min), 40 % faster than previously reported for the paper-based version. Patients found the tool easy or very easy to understand (99 %) and complete (98 %). Patients that assessed both tools found the electronic tool easier to complete (65 %) and preferred it (55 %) to the paper version. Electronic self-screening using 'MUST' in a heterogeneous group of hospital outpatients is acceptable, user-friendly and has 'substantial to almost-perfect' agreement with HCP screening. The electronic format appears to be as agreeable and often the preferred format when compared with the validated paper-based 'MUST' self-screening tool.
Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool, Preference, Self-screening, Validity
528-536
Cawood, Abbie L.
4067d429-6ce8-4e50-b5f5-d8bf62aada79
Walters, Emily R.
adff1f66-e7f4-48b3-8412-440ac7474ab9
Sharp, Sarah K.E.
5653ea62-0136-422d-aaa9-592c0b51ed4b
Elia, Marinos
964bf436-e623-46d6-bc3f-5dd04c9ef4c1
Stratton, Rebecca J.
c6a5ead1-3387-42e7-8bea-5ac7d969d87b
14 September 2018
Cawood, Abbie L.
4067d429-6ce8-4e50-b5f5-d8bf62aada79
Walters, Emily R.
adff1f66-e7f4-48b3-8412-440ac7474ab9
Sharp, Sarah K.E.
5653ea62-0136-422d-aaa9-592c0b51ed4b
Elia, Marinos
964bf436-e623-46d6-bc3f-5dd04c9ef4c1
Stratton, Rebecca J.
c6a5ead1-3387-42e7-8bea-5ac7d969d87b
Cawood, Abbie L., Walters, Emily R., Sharp, Sarah K.E., Elia, Marinos and Stratton, Rebecca J.
(2018)
'Self-screening' for malnutrition with an electronic version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ('MUST') in hospital outpatients: concurrent validity, preference and ease of use.
British Journal of Nutrition, 120 (5), .
(doi:10.1017/S000711451800185X).
Abstract
Self-screening using an electronic version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ('MUST') has been developed but its implementation requires investigation. A total of 100 outpatients (mean age 50 (sd 16) years; 57 % male) self-screened with an electronic version of 'MUST' and were then screened by a healthcare professional (HCP) to assess concurrent validity. Ease of use, time to self-screen and prevalence of malnutrition were also assessed. A further twenty outpatients (mean age 54 (sd 15) years; 55 % male) examined preference between self-screening with paper and electronic versions of 'MUST'. For the three-category classification of 'MUST' (low, medium and high risk), agreement between electronic self-screening and HCP screening was 94 % (κ=0·74, se 0·092; P<0·001). For the two-category classification (low risk; medium+high risk) agreement was 96 % (κ=0·82, se 0·085; P<0·001), comparable with the previously reported paper-based self-screening. In all, 15 % of patients categorised themselves 'at risk' of malnutrition (5 % medium, 10 % high). Electronic self-screening took 3 min (sd 1·2 min), 40 % faster than previously reported for the paper-based version. Patients found the tool easy or very easy to understand (99 %) and complete (98 %). Patients that assessed both tools found the electronic tool easier to complete (65 %) and preferred it (55 %) to the paper version. Electronic self-screening using 'MUST' in a heterogeneous group of hospital outpatients is acceptable, user-friendly and has 'substantial to almost-perfect' agreement with HCP screening. The electronic format appears to be as agreeable and often the preferred format when compared with the validated paper-based 'MUST' self-screening tool.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 14 June 2018
e-pub ahead of print date: 30 July 2018
Published date: 14 September 2018
Keywords:
Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool, Preference, Self-screening, Validity
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 425778
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/425778
ISSN: 0007-1145
PURE UUID: 4e175f31-378c-4d03-854f-5d37b79c4975
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 02 Nov 2018 17:30
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 21:36
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Abbie L. Cawood
Author:
Emily R. Walters
Author:
Sarah K.E. Sharp
Author:
Rebecca J. Stratton
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