Evaluation of Enteral NutrientFlavor and Rating due toDifferences in Form

Nobuyuki Wakui, Yurika Ashizawa, N. Ikarashi, Y. Machida
{"title":"Evaluation of Enteral NutrientFlavor and Rating due toDifferences in Form","authors":"Nobuyuki Wakui, Yurika Ashizawa, N. Ikarashi, Y. Machida","doi":"10.4172/2324-9323.1000236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: It is necessary for medical staff to fully understand disparities in the comprehensive evaluation of enteral nutrients due to differences in their physical form. In this study, we compared the overall rating of each enteral nutrient with respect to form and examined the factors that influence their overall evaluation. Methods: Sensory tests were conducted on 261 pharmaceutical students using the Sematic Differential method. Comparison of comprehensive evaluations for each form of enteral nutrient was carried out for liquids (room temperature, warm, cold), jelly (solid), and mousse (semi-solid) forms. Additionally, factors influencing the comprehensive evaluation of enteral nutrients were investigated using covariance structure analysis. Results: Overall evaluation of each enteral nutrient form showed the jelly was rated highest (2.57 ± 1.49), followed by the warm liquid (2.53 ± 1.29), cold liquid (2.42 ± 1.20), room temperature liquid (2.26 ± 1.20), and the mousse (1.93 ± 1.07). From the result of factor analysis, four factors (flavor, richness, presence, and texture) were extracted. Covariance structure analysis of factors affecting the overall rating revealed that flavor had a significant influence (fitness index: GFI=0.908, AGFI=0.878, RMSEA=0.074, AIC=912.742). Conclusion: Differences in the form of enteral nutrients affected the overall satisfaction of patients. It is important for medical staff, including pharmacists, to deepen their understanding of factors related to the overall rating of enteral nutrients in order to meet the needs of patients.","PeriodicalId":417095,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food and Nutritional Disorders","volume":"38 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Food and Nutritional Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2324-9323.1000236","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: It is necessary for medical staff to fully understand disparities in the comprehensive evaluation of enteral nutrients due to differences in their physical form. In this study, we compared the overall rating of each enteral nutrient with respect to form and examined the factors that influence their overall evaluation. Methods: Sensory tests were conducted on 261 pharmaceutical students using the Sematic Differential method. Comparison of comprehensive evaluations for each form of enteral nutrient was carried out for liquids (room temperature, warm, cold), jelly (solid), and mousse (semi-solid) forms. Additionally, factors influencing the comprehensive evaluation of enteral nutrients were investigated using covariance structure analysis. Results: Overall evaluation of each enteral nutrient form showed the jelly was rated highest (2.57 ± 1.49), followed by the warm liquid (2.53 ± 1.29), cold liquid (2.42 ± 1.20), room temperature liquid (2.26 ± 1.20), and the mousse (1.93 ± 1.07). From the result of factor analysis, four factors (flavor, richness, presence, and texture) were extracted. Covariance structure analysis of factors affecting the overall rating revealed that flavor had a significant influence (fitness index: GFI=0.908, AGFI=0.878, RMSEA=0.074, AIC=912.742). Conclusion: Differences in the form of enteral nutrients affected the overall satisfaction of patients. It is important for medical staff, including pharmacists, to deepen their understanding of factors related to the overall rating of enteral nutrients in order to meet the needs of patients.
肠内营养风味的评价及形式差异的评级
目的:医务人员有必要充分认识肠内营养物质因物理形态差异而在综合评价中存在的差异。在这项研究中,我们比较了每种肠内营养物质的总体评级,并检查了影响其总体评估的因素。方法:采用语义微分法对261名药学专业学生进行感官测试。对液体(室温、温、冷)、果冻(固体)和慕斯(半固体)形式的肠内营养物质进行综合评价比较。此外,采用协方差结构分析探讨影响肠内营养物质综合评价的因素。结果:各肠内营养物质形态的综合评价显示,果冻的评分最高(2.57±1.49),其次是温液(2.53±1.29)、冷液(2.42±1.20)、常温液(2.26±1.20)和慕斯(1.93±1.07)。从因子分析结果中提取出风味、丰富度、存在感和质地四个因子。协方差结构分析表明,风味对整体评分有显著影响(适应度指数:GFI=0.908, AGFI=0.878, RMSEA=0.074, AIC=912.742)。结论:肠内营养物质形式的差异影响了患者的整体满意度。对于包括药师在内的医务人员来说,加深对肠内营养物质总体评级相关因素的理解,以满足患者的需求是很重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信