Samenvatting

Background: Over the last decade, different screening tools for malnutrition have been developed. Within these tools, a distinction can be made between tools that assess nutritional risk and tools that assess protein energy malnutrition. Insights in differences in characteristics of participants at risk and in differences in prevalence rates will aid in deciding which tool(s) to use in daily practice. Methods: Dutch community-dwelling older adults (n = 200, 78.2 +/- 6.9 years), not known to have specific nutrition problems, were recruited to participate in this cross-sectional study. SNAQ(65+) (low risk vs moderate/high risk) was used to assess risk of protein energy malnutrition and SCREEN II was used to assess nutrition risk (score <54 out of 64). Chi-square tests were used to test associations between demographic, health, physical and social factors and outcome of SNAQ(65+) and SCREEN II. Results: Of all participants 69.0% were at nutrition risk (SCREEN II), while 13.5% were at risk of protein energy malnutrition (SNAQ(65+)). Agreement between the two tools was poor (kappa < 0.20). Gender, BMI, living status, income, activity level and protein/energy intake were associated with SCREEN II; age, BMI, comorbidities, medication use, help at home, activity level and low basic mobility were associated with SNAQ(65+). Conclusion: SCREEN II and SNAQ(65+) measure different concepts of malnutrition and therefore identify different persons at risk. SCREEN II is more inclusive and comprises both undernutrition and overnutrition as well as different determinants that can impact on food intake, while SNAQ(65+) is solely focused on protein-energy malnutrition. (C) 2020 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.