ABSTRACT
In Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), management of diet is important in prevention of disease progression and symptom management, however evidence on nutrition prescription is limited. Recent international CKD guidelines and literature was reviewed to address the following question "What is the appropriate nutrition prescription to achieve positive outcomes in adult patients with chronic kidney disease?" Databases included in the search were Medline and CINAHL using EBSCOhost search engine, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published from 2000 to 2009. International guidelines pertaining to nutrition prescription in CKD were also reviewed from 2000 to 2013. Three hundred and eleven papers and eight guidelines were reviewed by three reviewers. Evidence was graded as per the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia criteria. The evidence from thirty six papers was tabulated under the following headings: protein, weight loss, enteral support, vitamin D, sodium, fat, fibre, oral nutrition supplements, nutrition counselling, including protein and phosphate, nutrients in peritoneal dialysis solution and intradialytic parenteral nutrition, and was compared to international guidelines. While more evidence based studies are warranted, the customary nutrition prescription remains satisfactory with the exception of Vitamin D and phosphate. In these two areas, additional research is urgently needed given the potential of adverse outcomes for the CKD patient.
Subject(s)
Nutritional Requirements , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/diet therapy , Dialysis , Dietary Proteins/administration & dosage , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Micronutrients/administration & dosage , Observational Studies as Topic , Phosphates/administration & dosage , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome , Vitamin D/administration & dosageABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To explore whether area-level socio-economic position or the form of retail stream (conventional v. farmers' market) is associated with differences in the price, availability, variety and quality of a range of fresh fruit and vegetables. DESIGN: A multi-site cross-sectional pilot study of farmers' markets, supermarkets and independent fruit and vegetable retailers. Each was surveyed to assess the price, availability, variety and quality of fifteen fruit and eighteen vegetable items. SETTING: Retail outlets were located in south-east Queensland. SUBJECTS: Fifteen retail outlets were surveyed (five of each retail stream). RESULTS: Average basket prices were not significantly different across the socio-economic spectrum, but prices in low socio-economic areas were cheapest. Availability, variety and quality did not differ significantly across levels of socio-economic position; however, the areas with the most socio-economic disadvantage scored poorest for quality and variety. Supermarkets had significantly better fruit and vegetable availability than farmers' markets, although price, variety and quality scores were not different across retail streams. Results demonstrate a trend to fruit and vegetable prices being more expensive at farmers' markets, with the price of the fruit basket being significantly greater at the organic farmers' market compared with the non-organic farmers' markets. CONCLUSIONS: Neither area-level socio-economic position nor the form of retail stream was significantly associated with differences in the availability, price, variety and quality of fruit and vegetables, except for availability which was higher in supermarkets than farmers' markets. Further research is needed to determine what role farmers' markets can play in affecting fruit and vegetable intake.
