Ashworth Ann
Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel St., London WC1E 7HT, UK.
Food Nutr Bull. 2006 Sep;27(3 Suppl):S24-48. doi: 10.1177/15648265060273S303.
There is a long tradition of community-based rehabilitation for treatment of severe malnutrition: the question is whether it is effective and whether it should be advised for routine health systems.
To examine the effectiveness of rehabilitating severely malnourished children in the community in nonemergency situations.
A literature search was conducted of community-based rehabilitation programs delivered by day-care nutrition centers, residential nutrition centers, primary health clinics, and domiciliary care with or without provision of food, for the period 1980-2005. Effectiveness was defined as mortality of less than 5% and an average weight gain of at least 5 g/kg/day.
Thirty-three studies of community-based rehabilitation were examined and summarized. Eleven (33%) programs were considered effective. Of the sub-sample of programs reported since 1995, 8 of 13 (62%) were effective. None of the programs operating within routine health systems without external assistance was effective.
With careful planning and resources, all four delivery systems can be effective. It is unlikely that a single delivery system would suit all situations worldwide. The choice of a system depends on local factors. High energy intakes (> 150 kcal/kg/day), high protein intakes (4-6 g/kg/day), and provision of micronutrients are essential for success. When done well, rehabilitation at home with family foods is more cost-effective than inpatient care, but the cost effectiveness of ready-to-use therapeutic foods (RUTF) versus family foods has not been studied. Where children have access to a functioning primary health-care system and can be monitored, the rehabilitation phase of treatment of severe malnutrition should take place in the community rather than in the hospital but only if caregivers can make energy- and protein-dense food mixtures or are given RUTF. For routine health services, the cost of RUTF, logistics of procurement and distribution, and sustainability need to be carefully considered.
基于社区的康复治疗严重营养不良有着悠久的传统:问题在于其是否有效以及是否应推荐用于常规卫生系统。
研究在非紧急情况下社区中重度营养不良儿童康复治疗的有效性。
检索了1980年至2005年期间由日托营养中心、寄宿营养中心、初级卫生诊所及家庭护理(无论是否提供食物)开展的基于社区的康复项目。有效性定义为死亡率低于5%且平均体重增加至少5克/千克/天。
对33项基于社区的康复研究进行了审查和总结。11项(33%)项目被认为有效。在1995年以来报告的项目子样本中,13项中有8项(62%)有效。没有外部援助在常规卫生系统内运行的项目均无效。
通过精心规划和资源投入,所有四种提供系统都可以有效。单一的提供系统不太可能适用于全球所有情况。系统的选择取决于当地因素。高能量摄入(>150千卡/千克/天)、高蛋白质摄入(4 - 6克/千克/天)以及提供微量营养素是成功的关键。如果做得好,使用家庭食物在家中进行康复比住院治疗更具成本效益,但即食治疗性食品(RUTF)与家庭食物的成本效益尚未得到研究。在儿童能够获得运转良好的初级卫生保健系统并能得到监测的地方,严重营养不良治疗的康复阶段应在社区而非医院进行,但前提是照料者能够制作能量和蛋白质密集的食物混合物或获得RUTF。对于常规卫生服务,需要仔细考虑RUTF的成本、采购和分发的后勤以及可持续性。