Enteral nutrition practices among very preterm infants in neonatal units: a cross-country comparative study

Wesam Alyahya, Rayhana AlSharfa, Noor Alduhbaki, Batool Al-Zahir, Marwa Alqalaf, Jumanah S Alawfi, Hussah Altwejri, Hanoof Alessa, Tunny S. Purayidathil, R. Khattab
{"title":"Enteral nutrition practices among very preterm infants in neonatal units: a cross-country comparative study","authors":"Wesam Alyahya, Rayhana AlSharfa, Noor Alduhbaki, Batool Al-Zahir, Marwa Alqalaf, Jumanah S Alawfi, Hussah Altwejri, Hanoof Alessa, Tunny S. Purayidathil, R. Khattab","doi":"10.1108/nfs-02-2024-0045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe objective of this study was to delineate and compare enteral nutrition (EN) practices among neonatal units across the Arabian Gulf countries.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA cross-sectional study was conducted by recruiting 255 clinicians working in neonatal units in the Arabian Gulf countries.\n\n\nFindings\nOut of 255 invited clinicians, 73 (29%) participated in the survey. Neonatal units used varied EN strategies, where feeding practices exhibited variability. The majority (74%) of units had a local standard feeding protocol, while 18% followed international protocols, and 8% did not adhere to a specific protocol. When maternal milk was not used, the main alternatives were preterm formula (67%) and predigested formula (14%). The age at which the first EN was commenced and the reported advancement rate showed significant variations among different units (p < 0.001). The initiation of fortification was primarily driven by reaching a specific enteral volume (commonly reported as 100 mL/kg/day) and addressing poor postnatal growth. Fortification practices did not differ significantly among professions, except for the initial fortification strength, where none of the dietitians and only 8.3% of neonatologists preferred full strength, compared to 28.6% and 21.4% of medical residents and nurses, respectively (p = 0.033).\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study marks the first exploration of EN practices in neonatal units, examining their local and cross-country variations. It provides valuable insights to guide local trials and foster global collaboration among neonatal units to establish a unified knowledge base, standardized practices and promote research and innovation, ultimately contributing to optimal feeding practices for very preterm infants.\n","PeriodicalId":509279,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition &amp; Food Science","volume":" 0","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition &amp; Food Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/nfs-02-2024-0045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose The objective of this study was to delineate and compare enteral nutrition (EN) practices among neonatal units across the Arabian Gulf countries. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional study was conducted by recruiting 255 clinicians working in neonatal units in the Arabian Gulf countries. Findings Out of 255 invited clinicians, 73 (29%) participated in the survey. Neonatal units used varied EN strategies, where feeding practices exhibited variability. The majority (74%) of units had a local standard feeding protocol, while 18% followed international protocols, and 8% did not adhere to a specific protocol. When maternal milk was not used, the main alternatives were preterm formula (67%) and predigested formula (14%). The age at which the first EN was commenced and the reported advancement rate showed significant variations among different units (p < 0.001). The initiation of fortification was primarily driven by reaching a specific enteral volume (commonly reported as 100 mL/kg/day) and addressing poor postnatal growth. Fortification practices did not differ significantly among professions, except for the initial fortification strength, where none of the dietitians and only 8.3% of neonatologists preferred full strength, compared to 28.6% and 21.4% of medical residents and nurses, respectively (p = 0.033). Originality/value This study marks the first exploration of EN practices in neonatal units, examining their local and cross-country variations. It provides valuable insights to guide local trials and foster global collaboration among neonatal units to establish a unified knowledge base, standardized practices and promote research and innovation, ultimately contributing to optimal feeding practices for very preterm infants.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新生儿科早产儿肠内营养做法:跨国比较研究
本研究的目的是对阿拉伯海湾国家新生儿科室的肠内营养(EN)实践进行界定和比较。研究结果在 255 名受邀临床医生中,73 人(29%)参与了调查。新生儿科室采用了不同的 EN 策略,喂养方法也各不相同。大多数单位(74%)制定了当地的标准喂养方案,18%遵循国际方案,8%未遵循特定方案。不使用母乳时,主要的替代品是早产儿配方奶粉(67%)和预消化配方奶粉(14%)。开始首次强化营养的年龄和报告的推进率在不同单位之间存在显著差异(p < 0.001)。开始添加营养强化剂的主要原因是达到特定的肠内容量(通常报告为 100 毫升/千克/天)和解决产后发育不良的问题。营养师和新生儿科医生中没有人选择全强化,仅有 8.3% 的人选择全强化,而住院医生和护士中分别有 28.6% 和 21.4% 的人选择全强化(p = 0.033)。它为指导当地试验和促进新生儿科室之间的全球合作提供了宝贵的见解,以建立统一的知识库、标准化实践并促进研究和创新,最终为早产儿的最佳喂养实践做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Probiotic soy beverages: a functional beverage on lipid profile, oxidative stress and kidney function: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials Probiotic soy beverages: a functional beverage on lipid profile, oxidative stress and kidney function: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials Pharmacological properties and stability of natural–colored foods: a literature review Ashwagandha: botanic occurrence, conventional uses, and significance in heart, metabolic, renal and hepatic disorder Evaluating women’s knowledge about dietary supplement use during pregnancy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1