↓ Skip to main content

Meal context and food preferences in cancer patients: results from a French self-report survey

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
Title
Meal context and food preferences in cancer patients: results from a French self-report survey
Published in
SpringerPlus, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2538-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Estelle Guerdoux-Ninot, Robert D. Kilgour, Chloé Janiszewski, Marta Jarlier, Jocelyne Meuric, Brigitte Poirée, Solange Buzzo, Grégory Ninot, Julie Courraud, Wendy Wismer, Simon Thezenas, Pierre Senesse

Abstract

The present study examined patient self-reports of descriptions, experiences and consequences of meal disturbances and food preferences within a cultural context (i.e., French meal traditions) in various treated cancer patients along their disease trajectory. Over 800 questionnaires were sent to 20 cancer treatment centres in France. During a 9-month period, 255 questionnaires were received from five centres. Inclusion criteria included those French patients over 18 years of age, could read and understand French, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score between 0 and 2, experienced treatment-induced nutrition changes and/or had decreased oral intake. Dietetic staff assessed clinical characteristics while patients completed a 17-item questionnaire. The majority of patients were diagnosed with breast, gastro-intestinal (GI) tract and head and neck cancers (62 %). Half of the patients (49 %) experienced weight loss >5 %. The main treatment-induced side effects were fatigue, nausea, dry mouth, hypersensitivity to odors and GI tract transit disorders. These discomforts affected eating and drinking in 83 % of patients, inducing appetite loss and selected food aversion. Food preference appeared heterogeneous. Food taste, odor and finally appearance stimulated appetite. Finally, dietary behaviors and satisfaction were driven by the extent to which food was enjoyed. During oncologic treatments, eating and drinking were affected in more than three-quarters of patients. As recommended by practice guidelines, nutritional assessment and follow-up are required. Personalized nutritional counseling should include the role of the family, patient's meal traditions, and food habits.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 19%
Student > Master 13 12%
Other 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 30 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 14%
Psychology 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 35 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,335,423
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,461
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305,545
of 353,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#192
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.