COMPARISON AND IDENTIFICATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING THE FLAVORS OF ENTERAL NUTRITION AGENTS
Objective:The flavor of an enteral nutrition formula affects medication adherence as well as patient's nutritional status and therapeutic efficiency on the major pathology. Therefore, it is important for medical professionals to understand the flavors of enteral nutrition formulas. This study aimed to evaluate the flavors of enteral nutrition formulas and examine the factors influencing these flavors.Â
Methods:A total of 304 students in a pharmaceutical department were subjected to a semantic differential sensory evaluation in which they compared the flavors of digestion and semi-digestion enteral nutrition formulas using a five-point scale. In addition, factors related to good flavor were extracted via factor analyses, and subjected to a covariance structure analysis.
Results:In the flavor comparison between digestion and semi-digestion nutrition formulas, semi-digestion nutrition agents scored significantly higher than digestion nutrition formulas did (Welch's t test, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.69â€“0.99). The factor analyses extracted three subscales of factors related to good flavor: impression of taking, feeling of presence and sense of richness. In a path analysis model to determine the influence of these factor subscales on flavor, impression of taking feeling of presence were found to have significant influences (index of goodness of fit: Ï‡2 = 474.883, df = 62, P < 0.001, GFI = 0.938, AGFI = 0.909, RMSEA = 0.079).
Conclusion:Flavor affects medication adherence to enteral nutrition. Therefore, it is important for medical professionals to understand the factors that influence flavor and thus provide patients with better nutrition formulas.
2. Yamamoto K, Kanetani S, Higashiguchi T, editors. NST Perfect Guide.
Fig. 3: Multiple group structural equation modeling according to enteral nutrition type. Each value is listed from top to bottom in the order of ElentalÂ®, PepuchinoÂ®, EnsureÂ® H, Meibalance miniÂ®, RacolÂ® NF and MeibalanceÂ®Tokyo: Shorinsha; 2009. p. 161-5.
3. Elia M, Ceriello A, Laube H, Sinclair AJ, Engfer M, Stratton RJ. Enteral nutritional support and use of diabetes-specific formulas for patients with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2005;28(9):2267-79.
4. Heyland DK, Novak F, Drover JW, Jain M, Su X, Suchner U. Should immunonutrition become routine in critically ill patients? A systematic review of the evidence. JAMA 2001;286(8):944-53.
5. Vijayakumar A, Ganesh B. A cross sectional study on patients with enteral nutrition. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2013;5(4):101-3.
6. Hanane G, Wafaa D, Hadria G, Benmhel B, Djamel S, Omar K. Symbiotic enhances gut mucosa recovery rate and reduces overgrowth of bacteria in experimental protein malnutrition. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2015;7(5):96-100.
7. Osgood EC, Suci GJ, Tannenbaum PH. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press; 1957.
8. Mukai J, Ishizaka T, Asaka K, Tokuyama E, Tsuji E, Uchida T. Quantitative taste evaluation of semi elemental diets. Jpn J Pharm Health Care Sci 2006;32:383-91.
9. Mukai J, Miyanaga Y, Ishizaka T, Asaka K, Nakai Y, Tsuji E, et al. Quantitative taste evaluation of total enteral nutrients. Chem Pharm Bull (Tokyo) 2004;52(12):1416-21.
10. Sharma V, Chopra H. Role of taste and taste masking of bitter drugs in pharmaceutical industries an overview. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2010;2:14-8.
11. Sharma D, Chopra H, Bedi N. Development and evaluation of paracetamol taste masked orally disintegrating tablets using polymer coating technique. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2012;4:129-34.
The publication is licensed under CC By and is open access. Copyright is with author and allowed to retain publishing rights without restrictions.