Submitted:
19 January 2024
Posted:
19 January 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- -
- Exclusive offering of water, ad libitum, at lunch and dinner.
- -
- Offering of bread at lunch and dinner, preferably whole grain or mixed grain.
- -
- Absence of repeated dishes within one month.
- -
- Offering of non-vegetable preparations instead of soup, maximum once a week (e.g., chicken soup, fish soup, or meat soup).
- -
- Presence of fatty fish at least twice a week.
- -
- Offering of soup with legumes (either as a base or not) at least three times a week.
- -
- Repetition of soups no more than four times a week, never on the same day or consecutive days.
- -
- Presence of eggs as a single or main protein source, 1-2 times a week.
- -
- Offering of white meats at least three times a week.
- -
- Offering of red meats a maximum of two times a week.
- -
- Offering of legumes on the plate at least two times a week, as a complement or substitution for the carbohydrate source.
- -
- Offering of cooked fruit without added sugar, a maximum of three times a week.
- -
- Presence of processed meat products up to one time a week.
- -
- Repetition of the same legume (on the plate or whole in the soup) more than twice a week.
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ruthsatz, M.; Candeias, V. Non-communicable disease prevention, nutrition and aging. Acta bio-medica:Atenei Parmensis 2020, 91(2), 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bernstein, M.; Munoz, N. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: food and nutrition for older adults: promoting health and wellness. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2012, 112(8), 1255–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izawa, S.; Kuzuya, M.; Okada, K.; Enoki, H.; Koike, T.; Kanda, S.; Iguchi, A. The nutritional status of frail elderly with care needs according to the mini-nutritional assessment. Clinical nutrition 2006, 25(6), 962–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volpini, M.M.; Frangella, V.S. Avaliação nutricional de idosos institucionalizados. Einstein 2013, 11(1), 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jerez-Roig, J.; Sousa, D.L.B.; Andrade, F.L.J.P.; Lima Filho, B.F.; Medeiros, R.J.; Oliveira, N.P.D.; Neto, S.M.C.; Lima, K.C. Autopercepção da saúde em idosos institucionalizados. Ciênc. saúde coletiva 2016, 21(11), 3367–3375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Norman, K.; Haß, U.; Pirlich, M. Malnutrition in Older Adults—Recent Advances and Remaining Challenges. Nutrients 2021, 13, 2764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fonseca, S.; Carvalho, S.; Afonso, C.; Teixeira Santos, M.C. Evaluación del riesgo nutricional en ancianos institucionalizados en una Institución Privada de Solidaridad Social del municipio de Vila Real, Portugal. Nutrición Clínica Y Dietética Hospitalaria 2022, 42(8), 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, A.; Gregório, M.; Santos, C.; Graça, P. Proposta de ferramenta de avaliação qualitativa de ementas destinadas a idosos; Programa Nacional para a Promoção da Alimentação Saudável, Direção-Geral da Saúde: Lisboa, 2017; Available online: https://nutrimento.pt/activeapp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Proposta-de-ferramenta-de-avaliacao-qualitativa-de-ementas-destinadas-a-idosos.pdf.
- Lima, R.M. Orientações sobre ementas e refeitórios escolares. Direção Geral da Educação. 2018. Available online: http://www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/Esaude/oere.pdf.
- Guerra, I.; Rocha, A. Avaliação Qualitativa e Quantitativa das Ementas de um Jardim-de- Infância em Coimbra. Rev Alimentação Humana 2011, 17, 24–36. [Google Scholar]
- Cardoso, E.I.M. Avaliação do estado nutricional de idosos institucionalizados: estudo de caso - avaliação de intervenção: trabalho de investigação, Porto. 2007. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10216/54636.
- Lopes, S.; Rocha, A. Avaliação qualitativa de ementas dos jardins-de-infância e escolas do primeiro ciclo de Pombal. Rev Alimentação Humana 2010, 16(1), 44–58. [Google Scholar]
- Candeias, V.; Nunes, E.; Morais, C.; Cabral, M.; Silva, P.R.D. Princípios para uma Alimentação. Saudável, Lisboa, Direção Geral da Saúde. 2005. Available online: http://yourpel.ipsantarem.pt/admin/Docs/id1006_Gloss%C3%A1riosobrealimenta%C3%A7%C3%A3o.pdf.
- McGuire, S. Institute of Medicine. 2009. School meals: building blocks for healthy children. Washington, DC: the National Academies Press. Advances in nutrition 2011, 2(1), 64–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reis, C.; Figueiredo, M.; Ávila, M.H. Avaliação Nutricional das Refeições Servidas a Crianças e Idosos em Duas Unidades de Restauração Colectiva. Revista Nutrícias 2012, 15, 08–12. Available online: http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2182-72302012000400003&lng=pt&tlng=pt.
- Gregório, M.J.; Santos, M.C.T.; Ferreira, S.; Graça, P. Alimentação Inteligente: coma melhor, poupe mais. Alimentação Inteligente: coma melhor, poupe mais. 2012, pp. 5–86. Available online: https://alimentacaosaudavel.dgs.pt/theme/alimentacao-saudavel-e-dieta-mediterranica/#Alimenta%C3%A7%C3%A3o-inteligente-Coma-melhor-poupe-mais.pdf.
- Lima, J.; Rocha, A. Avaliação da Qualidade das Ementas em Instituições Particulares de Solidariedade Social do Concelho de Águeda. Revista Nutrícias 2013, (17), 16–19. Available online: http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2182-72302013000200004&lng=pt&tlng=pt.
- Marques, M.I.S. Os macro e micronutrientes do pescado: recomendações, consumo e benefícios aliados à dieta mediterrânica. Dissertação de Mestrado em Qualidade e Tecnologia Alimentar. Escola Superior Agrária de Viseu. 2018. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.19/5081.
- Layé, S. What do you eat? Dietary omega 3 can help to slow the aging process. Brain, behavior, and immunity 2013, 28, 14–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Candeias, A.; Rego, M. Análise qualitativa das ementas servidas pelas escolas do concelho de Loulé: estudo comparativo. Rev Alimentação Humana 2005, 11(2), 53–63. [Google Scholar]
- Dhalaria, R.; Verma, R.; Kumar, D.; Puri, S.; Tapwal, A.; Kumar, V.; Nepovimova, E.; Kuca, K. Bioactive Compounds of Edible Fruits with Their Anti-Aging Properties: A Comprehensive Review to Prolong Human Life. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, Y.-J.; Gan, R.-Y.; Li, S.; Zhou, Y.; Li, A.-N.; Xu, D.-P.; Li, H.-B. Antioxidant Phytochemicals for the Prevention and Treatment of Chronic Diseases. Molecules 2015, 20, 21138–21156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guimarães, A.C.F. Ementas dos jardins-de-infância da rede pública e instituições privadas de solidariedade social da freguesia de Matosinhos: avaliação qualitativa e intervenção no âmbito da Nutrição Comunitária; Faculdade de Ciências da Nutrição e Alimentação da Universidade do Porto: Porto, 2003; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10216/54435.
| Domain | Item | Menu 1 | Menu 2 | Menu 3 | Menu 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General Items | 1.1 A menu consisting of 5 daily meals. | NC | NC | NC | NC | |
| 1.2 Exclusive offer of water, self-service, during lunch and dinner. | NC | NC | NC | NC | ||
| 1.3 Absence of monochromatic meals. | C | C | C | C | ||
| 1.4 Offer of products from regional or national production. | NC | NC | NC | NC | ||
| 1.5 Absence of dishes with similar consistency components. | C | C | C | C | ||
| 1.6 Equitable offering among various cooking methods (except frying). | C | C | C | C | ||
| 1.7 Offer of one unit of bread for lunch and dinner. | NC | NC | NC | NC | ||
| 1.8 Offer of one unit of whole grain or mixed cereal bread for lunch and dinner. | NC | NC | NC | NC | ||
| 1.9 Absence of repeated dishes within a month. | NC | NC | NC | NC | ||
| 1.10 Presence of charcuterie products up to 1 time per week. | C | C | C | C | ||
| 1.11 Absence of fried and sweets on the same day. | C | C | C | NC | ||
| 1.12 Offer of fried foods, at most, 1 time per week. | C | C | C | C | ||
| 1.13 Absence of fried foods for dinner. | C | C | C | C | ||
| 1.14 Repetition of the same legume (in the dish or whole in the soup) not exceeding twice per week. | NC | C | C | C | ||
| 1.15 The dish composed of: protein supplier, carbohydrate supplier, and vegetable accompaniment. | C | C | C | C | ||
| 1.16 Existence of technical sheets for meals. | NC | NC | NC | NC | ||
| 1.17 Use of raw potatoes in the soup preparation. | C | C | C | C | ||
| 1.18 Removal of visible skins and fats from protein suppliers before cooking. | C | C | C | C | ||
| 1.19 Offer of cooked fruit, without added sugar, a maximum of 3 times per week. | C | C | NC | C | ||
| 1.2NC Daily offer of at least 3 servings of fruit (1 serving ≈ 1 medium-sized fruit). | NC | NC | NC | NC | ||
| 1.21 Absence of repeated fruit on the same day or on consecutive days. | NC | C | C | C | ||
| 1.22 Offer of at least two daily servings of milk or yogurt, preferably semi-skimmed (1 serving ≈ 24NCml) in intermediate meals. | C | C | C | C | ||
| 1.23 Offer of foods from the cereal and derivatives group in all intermediate meals (1 bread or 6-8 biscuits or a cup of low-sugar cereal). | C | C | C | C | ||
| 1.24 Cereal or derivative foods present in intermediate meals (1 bread or 6-8 biscuits or a cup of low-sugar cereal) are preferably whole. | NC | NC | NC | NC | ||
| 1.25 Equitable distribution of offerings regarding different bread accompaniments in intermediate meals. | C | C | C | C | ||
| 1.26 Inclusion of nuts with a minimum frequency of once a week (quantity equivalent to 1/3 cup of walnuts or almonds or hazelnuts or peanuts or pine nuts or 2 tablespoons of seeds), preferably for dessert or integrated into intermediate meals. | NC | NC | NC | NC | ||
| Total | Compliance | 14 | 16 | 15 | 15 | |
| Non-compliance | 12 | 10 | 11 | 11 | ||
| Item score | 35 | 39 | 38 | 37 | ||
| Soup | 2.1 Offer of soup for lunch and dinner. | C | C | C | C | |
| 2.2 Offer of dishes without vegetables, in place of soup, a maximum of once a week (broth, fish or meat soup). | C | C | NC | C | ||
| 2.3 Offer of soup with legumes (either as a base or not) at least 3 times a week. | NC | C | C | C | ||
| 2.4 Repetition of soups up to 3 times per week, at most, and never on the same day or on consecutive days. | NC | NC | NC | C | ||
| Total | Compliance | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | |
| Non-compliance | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | ||
| Item score | 4 | 6 | 5 | 8 | ||
| Protein Suppliers | 3.1 Number of fish meals equal to or greater than meat meals. | C | C | C | C | |
| 3.2 Presence of eggs as the sole or main protein source, 1 to 2 times per week. | NC | C | NC | C | ||
| 3.3 Offer of white meats, at least 3 times per week. | C | C | C | C | ||
| 3.4 Offer of red meats a maximum of 2 times per week. | C | C | C | C | ||
| 3.5 Presence of fatty fish at least twice per week. | C | NC | C | C | ||
| Total | Compliance | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | |
| Non-compliance | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
| Item score | 12 | 11 | 12 | 14 | ||
| Carbohydrate Suppliers | 4.1 Equitable offering among the main carbohydrate suppliers (rice, potatoes, and pasta). | C | C | C | C | |
| 4.2 Offering carbohydrate suppliers, with a preference for whole grains, in main meals. | NC | NC | NC | NC | ||
| 4.3 Offering legumes on the plate at least 2 times per week, as a complement or substitution for the carbohydrate source. | C | C | NC | C | ||
| Total | Compliance | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
| Non-compliance | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Item score | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | ||
| Vegetable Suppliers | 5.1 Equitable offering between cooked and raw vegetables. | C | C | C | C | |
| 5.2 Equitable offering among seasonal vegetables. | NC | NC | NC | NC | ||
| Total | Compliance | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Non-compliance | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Item score | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||
| Dessert | 6.1 Sweet dessert or fruit in syrup, a maximum of 1 time per week. | C | C | NC | C | |
| 6.2 Offering fresh fruit in all main meals (lunch and dinner). | NC | NC | NC | NC | ||
| 6.3 Offering fruit with a preference for seasonality. | C | C | C | C | ||
| Total | Compliance | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
| Non-compliance | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Item score | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4 | ||
| Final evaluation | Quantitative (%) | 60,73 | 68,84 | 62,31 | 63,95 | |
| Qualitative | Acceptable | Acceptable | Acceptable | Acceptable | ||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
