口服营养补充剂的感官评价:患者和营养师偏好的比较。

L Diamond, E Soon
{"title":"口服营养补充剂的感官评价:患者和营养师偏好的比较。","authors":"L Diamond,&nbsp;E Soon","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The choice of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) is typically made by a formulary committee without patient input. The purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences arose in the following two areas: (1) in preference of ONS between patients and dietitians/dietetic interns; and (2) between ONS from different companies as detected by either patients or dietitian/dietetic interns. ONS in the 1.0 kcal/mL and 1.5 kcal/mL lactose-free category from five companies, in all flavors, were randomly evaluated by 392 patients and 34 dietitians/dietetic interns. Each product was evaluated using a seven-point hedonic scale. When more than one brand of the same flavor was present, products were than ranked in order of preference. There were significant differences between patients and dietitians/dietetic interns in their evaluation of 7 of the 13 product lines. Significant differences were also found between same-flavored products of equal caloric density produced by different companies. Since the patients typically rated the ONS as more acceptable when a difference did exist, it would appear unnecessary for formulary committees to test products on the patient population on a regular basis.</p>","PeriodicalId":79677,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Canadian Dietetic Association","volume":"55 2","pages":"85-90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sensory evaluation of oral nutritional supplements: a comparison of patient and dietitian preferences.\",\"authors\":\"L Diamond,&nbsp;E Soon\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The choice of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) is typically made by a formulary committee without patient input. The purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences arose in the following two areas: (1) in preference of ONS between patients and dietitians/dietetic interns; and (2) between ONS from different companies as detected by either patients or dietitian/dietetic interns. ONS in the 1.0 kcal/mL and 1.5 kcal/mL lactose-free category from five companies, in all flavors, were randomly evaluated by 392 patients and 34 dietitians/dietetic interns. Each product was evaluated using a seven-point hedonic scale. When more than one brand of the same flavor was present, products were than ranked in order of preference. There were significant differences between patients and dietitians/dietetic interns in their evaluation of 7 of the 13 product lines. Significant differences were also found between same-flavored products of equal caloric density produced by different companies. Since the patients typically rated the ONS as more acceptable when a difference did exist, it would appear unnecessary for formulary committees to test products on the patient population on a regular basis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79677,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Canadian Dietetic Association\",\"volume\":\"55 2\",\"pages\":\"85-90\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1994-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Canadian Dietetic Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Canadian Dietetic Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

口服营养补充剂(ONS)的选择通常由处方委员会在没有患者意见的情况下做出。本研究的目的是确定在以下两个方面是否存在显著差异:(1)患者和营养师/营养师实习生对ONS的偏好;(2)由患者或营养师/营养师实习生发现的来自不同公司的ONS之间的差异。392名患者和34名营养师/营养实习生随机评估了5家公司所有口味的无乳糖食品(1.0 kcal/mL和1.5 kcal/mL)。每个产品都用7分的快乐量表进行评估。当一个以上的品牌有相同的味道时,产品被按偏好顺序排列。患者和营养师/营养师实习生对13个产品线中7个的评价存在显著差异。不同公司生产的相同口味、相同热量密度的产品之间也存在显著差异。由于当差异确实存在时,患者通常认为国家统计局更容易接受,因此处方委员会似乎没有必要定期在患者群体中测试产品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sensory evaluation of oral nutritional supplements: a comparison of patient and dietitian preferences.

The choice of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) is typically made by a formulary committee without patient input. The purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences arose in the following two areas: (1) in preference of ONS between patients and dietitians/dietetic interns; and (2) between ONS from different companies as detected by either patients or dietitian/dietetic interns. ONS in the 1.0 kcal/mL and 1.5 kcal/mL lactose-free category from five companies, in all flavors, were randomly evaluated by 392 patients and 34 dietitians/dietetic interns. Each product was evaluated using a seven-point hedonic scale. When more than one brand of the same flavor was present, products were than ranked in order of preference. There were significant differences between patients and dietitians/dietetic interns in their evaluation of 7 of the 13 product lines. Significant differences were also found between same-flavored products of equal caloric density produced by different companies. Since the patients typically rated the ONS as more acceptable when a difference did exist, it would appear unnecessary for formulary committees to test products on the patient population on a regular basis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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