Validation of Self-application-based Malnutrition and Limited Mobility Screening Tools Compared with Standard Diagnostic Tools in Older Adults
2
Issued Date
2025-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
22288082
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85215440248
Journal Title
Siriraj Medical Journal
Volume
77
Issue
1
Start Page
29
End Page
38
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Siriraj Medical Journal Vol.77 No.1 (2025) , 29-38
Suggested Citation
Tanaviboon P., Muangpaisan W., Jongsawadipatana A., Siritipakorn P., Intalapaporn S. Validation of Self-application-based Malnutrition and Limited Mobility Screening Tools Compared with Standard Diagnostic Tools in Older Adults. Siriraj Medical Journal Vol.77 No.1 (2025) , 29-38. 38. doi:10.33192/smj.v77i1.271719 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/103078
Title
Validation of Self-application-based Malnutrition and Limited Mobility Screening Tools Compared with Standard Diagnostic Tools in Older Adults
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Objective: To validate application screening tools against face-to-face standard tools (the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and Short Physical Performance Battery test (SPPB)) in older adults. Materials and Methods: A mobile or tablet application was developed based on user interfaces and experiences. Outpatients aged 60 years and over were tested with this tool. We used 2 questions from the WHO-ICOPE algorithm and 3 questions from the STEADI algorithm to screen for at-risk malnutrition and limited mobility, respectively. The MNA and SPPB were used to detect malnutrition and limited mobility, respectively, to test their validity. Results: The study involved 187 participants, 16% of whom were diagnosed with at-risk malnutrition by the MNA and 18.7% of whom had limited mobility according to the SPPB. The sensitivity and specificity of the malnutrition application tool were 66.6% and 96.1%, respectively. When BMI < 18.5 was combined in the application, the sensitivity and specificity were 90% and 91%, respectively. For limited mobility, the sensitivity and specificity of the application were 94.2% and 76.3%, respectively. The majority of participants rated the application for easy understanding as «excellent» (65%) and rated their confidence in their ability to use the application by themselves as “excellent” (70%). Conclusion: The application is an age-friendly, time-saving tool that can be used when face-to-face screening is difficult with good validity.