Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

SCREEN III: working towards a condensed screening tool to detect nutrition risk in community-dwelling older adults using CLSA data

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 73, pages 1260–1269 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background/Objectives

Screening for nutrition risk in community-dwelling older adults increases the likelihood of early intervention to improve nutritional status, with short screening tools preferred. SCREEN-II-AB is a valid 8-item tool. The current study determines whether SCREEN-III, a proposed 3-item version, adequately classifies nutrition risk in comparison.

Subjects/Methods

Baseline data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging were used. Seventy-two percent (n = 24,456) of eligible participants (>55 years, complete SCREEN-II-AB) were included. Sensitivity and specificity of various SCREEN-III values compared with SCREEN-II-AB risk determined a nutrition risk cut-point and the proportion misclassified (False[−]) was calculated. Construct validity was tested against a composite variable summarizing outcomes associated with nutrition risk (e.g., self-reported health, hospitalization) using logistic regression adjusted for individual factors (e.g., marital status).

Results

A SCREEN-III cut-point of <22 performed best on sensitivity (0.83 [95% CI = 0.82, 0.84]) and specificity (0.73 [95% CI = 0.72, 0.74]) compared to SCREEN-II-AB (Cramer’s V = 0.53). Of those at-risk using SCREEN-II-AB, 16.7% were misclassified as False(−) by SCREEN-III. The False(−) group did not differ significantly from the True(−) group. Based on SCREEN-III, 45.3% of individuals were at nutrition risk, 44% of whom reported the outcome composite. SCREEN-III nutrition risk was associated with greater odds of the outcome composite compared to those not at-risk (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.33, 1.48, P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The proposed version of SCREEN-III demonstrated construct validity, but misclassification of risk may be problematic; further validation of a 3-item version is recommended.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

SCREEN-II, SCREEN-II-AB and other versions are freely available to researchers and clinicians.

References

  1. Bernstein M, Munoz N. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: food and nutrition for older adults: promoting health and wellness. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012;112:1255–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahmed T, Haboubi N. Assessment and management of nutrition in older people and its importance to health. Clin Interv Aging. 2010;5:207–16.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Keller HH, Østbye T, Goy R. Nutritional risk predicts quality of life in elderly community-living Canadians. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004;59:68–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Keller HH, Østbye T. Nutritional risk and time to death; predictive validity of SCREEN (Seniors in the Community Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition). J Nutr Health Aging. 2003;7:274–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hays JC, Keller HH, Østbye T. The effects of nutrition-related factors on four-year mortality among a biracial sample of community-dwelling elders in the North Carolina piedmont. J Nutr Elder. 2005;25:41–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ramage-Morin PL, Garriguet D. Nutritional risk among older Canadians. Health Rep. 2013;24:3–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Donini LM, Scardella P, Piombo L, Neri B, Asprino R, Proietti AR, et al. Malnutrition in elderly: social and economic determinants. J Nutr Health Aging. 2013;17:9–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wright L, Vance L, Sudduth C, Epps JB. The impact of a home-delivered meal program on nutritional risk, dietary intake, food security, loneliness, and social well-being. J Nutr Gerontol Geriatr. 2015;34:218–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Munk T, Tolstrup U, Beck AM, Holst M, Rasmussen HH, Hovhannisyan K, et al. Individualised dietary counselling for nutritionally at-risk older patients following discharge from acute hospital to home: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2016;29:196–208.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Keller HH. Promoting food intake in older adults living in the community: a review. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2007;32:991–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Laur CV, Keller HH. Making the case for nutrition screening in older adults in primary care. Nutr Today. 2017;52:129–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Keller HH, Hedley MR, Wong Brownlee S. The development of Seniors in the Community: Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition (SCREEN). Can J Diet Pract Res. 2000;61:67–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Keller HH, Goy R, Kane SL. Validity and reliability of SCREEN II (Seniors in the community: risk evaluation for eating and nutrition, Version II). Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005;59:1149–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Keller HH, McKenzie JD, Goy RE. Construct validation and test-retest reliability of the seniors in the community: risk evaluation for eating and nutrition questionnaire. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56:M552–M558.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ramage-Morin PL, Gilmour H, Rotermann M. Nutritional risk, hospitalization and mortality among community-dwelling Canadians aged 65 or older. Health Rep. 2017;28:17–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Power L, Mullally D, Gibney ER, Clarke M, Visser M, Volkert D, et al. A review of the validity of malnutrition screening tools used in older adults in community and healthcare settings - a MaNuEL study. Clin Nutr Espen. 2018;24:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Akhtar U, Keller HH, Tate RB, Lengyel CO. Construct validation of three nutrition questions using health and diet ratings in older Canadian males living in the community. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2015;76:194–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Raina PS, Wolfson C, Kirkland SA, Griffith LE, Oremus M, Patterson C, et al. The Canadian longitudinal study on aging (CLSA). Can J Aging. 2009;28:221–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Diener EF, Emmons RA, Larsen R, Griffin SJ. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49:71–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Cederholm T, Bosaeus I, Barazzoni R, Bauer J, Van Gossum A, Klek S, et al. Diagnostic criteria for malnutrition—an ESPEN consensus statement. Clin Nutr. 2015;34:335–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. George LK, Fillenbaum GG. OARS methodology: a decade of experience in geriatric assessment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1985;33:607–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Irwin A, Artin KH, Oxman MN. Screening for depression in the older adult: criterion validity of the 10-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:1701–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sullivan GM, Feinn R. Using effect size–or why the P value is not enough. J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4:279–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jones JM. Development of a nutritional screening or assessment tool using a multivariate technique. Nutrition. 2004;20:298–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Public Health England. England: Crown. 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-review-criteria-national-screening-programmes/criteria-for-appraising-the-viability-effectiveness-and-appropriateness-of-a-screening-programme. Accessed July 2018.

  26. Hengeveld LM, Wijnhoven HA, Olthof MR, Brouwer IA, Harris TB, Kritchevsky B, et al. Prospective associations of poor diet quality with long-term incidence of protein-energy malnutrition in community-dwelling older adults: the Health, Aging, and Body Composition (Health ABC) study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018;107:155–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rosa CB, Garces SB, Hansen D, Brunelli AV, Bianchi PD, Coser J, et al. Malnutrition risk and hospitalization in elderly assisted in. Prim Care. 2017;22:575–82.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chien MH, Guo HR. Nutritional status and falls in community-dwelling older people: a longitudinal study of a population-based random sample. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e91044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. van der Pols-Vijlbrief R, Wijnhoven HA, Schaap LA, Terwee CB, Visser M. Determinants of protein-energy malnutrition in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review of observational studies. Ageing Res. 2014;18:112–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was made possible using the data/biospecimens collected by the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA). Funding for the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) is provided by the Government of Canada through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) under grant reference: LSA 9447 and the Canada Foundation for Innovation. This research has been conducted using the CLSA dataset Baseline Tracking Dataset version 3.3, Baseline Comprehensive Dataset version 3.2, under Application Number 170602. The CLSA is led by Drs. Parminder Raina, Christina Wolfson, and Susan Kirkland

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    Jill M. Morrison & Heather H. Keller

  2. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    Celia V. Laur

  3. Schlegel-UW Research Institute for Aging, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    Heather H. Keller

Authors
  1. Jill M. Morrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Celia V. Laur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heather H. Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill M. Morrison.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morrison, J.M., Laur, C.V. & Keller, H.H. SCREEN III: working towards a condensed screening tool to detect nutrition risk in community-dwelling older adults using CLSA data. Eur J Clin Nutr 73, 1260–1269 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-019-0411-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-019-0411-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links