Scheufele Pia, Horner Katy, Corish Clare, Visser Marjolein, Rappl Anja, Mullen Brian, Quinn Anna, Gonnelli Federica, Bozzato Matteo, Volkert Dorothee
Institute for Biomedicine of Ageing, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany.
School of Public Health Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, 4, Ireland; Institute for Food and Health, University College Dublin, Dublin, 4, Ireland; Institute for Sport and Health, University College Dublin, Dublin, 4, Ireland.
Appetite. 2025 Apr 1;208:107909. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2025.107909. Epub 2025 Feb 13.
Poor appetite is an important health concern in older adults. Numerous methods exist for appetite assessment, without a consensual gold standard. This study aims to compare Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire (SNAQ) and two single-item appetite questions with appetite ratings from visual analogue scales (VAS) and energy intake (EI). In 126 community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years from the APPETITE trial, appetite was assessed using SNAQ, SNAQ 1st item, Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale (CES-D) 2nd item and using VAS appetite ratings (fasting, 0, 30, 60, 120, 180 min post-breakfast, post-lunch) and EI (ad libitum lunch) in a test meal setting. Spearman correlations were calculated between SNAQ, single-items, VAS-fasting, and EI. Differences in VAS-fasting and EI between normal and poor appetite groups (based on SNAQ, single-items) were examined using Mann-Whitney-U-test. Repeated measures Generalized Linear Models were used to compare all VAS ratings across the test morning and post-breakfast response ratings with VAS-fasting as a covariate between appetite groups. SNAQ score was correlated with VAS-fasting (r = 0.26, p < 0.001) and EI (r = 0.22, p < 0.05). VAS-fasting was lower in the SNAQ-based poor appetite group (p = 0.01). Time/group interaction effects (SNAQ, η = 0.02; CES-D-item, η = 0.02) for all VAS ratings, and group (SNAQ-item, η = 0.04) and interaction effects (CES-D-item, η = 0.03) for post-breakfast ratings were observed (p < 0.05, respectively). SNAQ identified differences in VAS-fasting, possibly reflecting processes related to the drive to eat, while the two single-items identified appetite differences in response to a standardised breakfast. Different methods appear to capture different aspects of appetite, which should be considered when choosing an assessment method.
食欲不佳是老年人一项重要的健康问题。存在多种食欲评估方法,但尚无公认的金标准。本研究旨在比较简化营养食欲问卷(SNAQ)和两个单项目食欲问题与视觉模拟量表(VAS)的食欲评分以及能量摄入(EI)。在APPETITE试验中,对126名年龄≥65岁的社区居住成年人进行研究,在一次测试餐环境中,使用SNAQ、SNAQ第一项、流行病学研究中心抑郁量表(CES-D)第二项以及VAS食欲评分(空腹、早餐后0、30、60、120、180分钟、午餐后)和EI(随意午餐)来评估食欲。计算SNAQ、单项目、VAS空腹评分和EI之间的Spearman相关性。使用Mann-Whitney-U检验检查正常食欲组和食欲不佳组(基于SNAQ、单项目)之间VAS空腹评分和EI的差异。使用重复测量广义线性模型,以VAS空腹评分为协变量,比较食欲组之间整个测试上午的所有VAS评分以及早餐后反应评分与VAS空腹评分。SNAQ评分与VAS空腹评分(r = 0.26,p < 0.001)和EI(r = 0.22,p < 0.05)相关。基于SNAQ的食欲不佳组中VAS空腹评分较低(p = 0.01)。观察到所有VAS评分的时间/组交互效应(SNAQ,η = 0.02;CES-D项目,η = 0.02),以及早餐后评分的组效应(SNAQ项目,η = 0.04)和交互效应(CES-D项目,η = 0.03)(分别为p < 0.05)。SNAQ识别出VAS空腹评分的差异,可能反映了与进食驱动力相关的过程,而两个单项目识别出对标准化早餐的食欲差异。不同的方法似乎捕捉到了食欲的不同方面,在选择评估方法时应予以考虑。