Nutritional composition and cost of home-prepared enteral tube feeding

To aid in dietary prescription and contribute to the promotion of food and nutritional safety of individuals, this study's objective was to compare the nutritional composition and cost of homemade preparations, blended preparations, and commercial enteral formula prescribed for adults and elder...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical nutrition ESPEN Vol. 42; pp. 393 - 399
Main Authors: Mezzomo, Thais Regina, Fiori, Lize Stangarlin, de Oliveira Reis, Letícia, Schieferdecker, Maria Eliana Madalozzo
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01-04-2021
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To aid in dietary prescription and contribute to the promotion of food and nutritional safety of individuals, this study's objective was to compare the nutritional composition and cost of homemade preparations, blended preparations, and commercial enteral formula prescribed for adults and elderly people at hospital discharge. All hospitals in a Brazilian city that prescribed the three types of enteral formulations provide information about enteral formulations prescribed for home use. Enteral formulations were estimated in relation to energy content, macronutrients, micronutrients, and cost. Homemade diets, blended and commercial enteral formulations showed, on average, normoproteic, normoglicidic and normolipidic features, with average daily costs (US$/2000 kcal) of US$ 29.77, 50.56 and 154.44, respectively. The cost was higher in the commercial enteral formulas (P < .001); vitamin and mineral content were poorer in homemade preparations. The homemade and blended enteral preparations cost less, but were generally lower in micronutrients, calling for more adequate dietary prescription.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:2405-4577
2405-4577
DOI:10.1016/j.clnesp.2020.12.016