No abstract

Graphical abstract

Background Little is known about the risk to patients’ health when using home‐prepared enteral tube feeding. The objective of this study was to explore the differences in hygiene conditions and microbial load of different types of home‐prepared enteral tube feeding and explore associations between those differences and food handlers’ characteristics. Methods We evaluated 96 enteral formulations, considering 3 types used by adult patients: homemade enteral preparations (HEPs), blended enteral preparations (BEPs), and commercial enteral formulas (CEFs). Enteral formulations were collected from homes and microbiologically analyzed. Hygiene criteria were assessed using a checklist, applied during the handling stages. The profile of the food handler was reviewed using a questionnaire. Results 82.3% (79/96) exceeded acceptable bacterial counts, which was 10³ colony‐forming units per gram for aerobic mesophilic microorganisms and for total coliforms (35 °C), Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus sp, and Staphylococcus coagulase‐positive, if present in the enteral formulations. The number of inadequate samples was higher in HEPs and BEPs than in CEFs. Considering the hygiene criteria, the home‐prepared enteral tube feedings did not differ significantly. There was a significant difference among hygiene conditions considering the variables “monthly family income” and “food training.” Conclusion Regardless of the type of enteral formulations used by patients, when handled at home, there was a risk of contamination. However, contaminants present in enteral formulations can be easily controlled with improvements in hygiene measures as well as with greater guidance and control during the handling stages.

ABSTRACT Objective This investigation evaluated the use of food labels and consumers’ perception of the reliability of food labels nutritional information. Methods This is a transversal exploratory quantitative investigation, carried out in Curitiba, Brazil. A total of 536 students from a public institution participated in the survey answering a structured questionnaire. Descriptive analyses, Chi-Square test and Fisher’s exact test were performed considering a significance level of 5%. Results The participants’ mean age was 21.11±2.83 years, and 59.3% were female. It was noticed that 41.6% of consumers used the nutritional information sometimes and 14.7% always, mainly because they liked to know what they were buying and consuming (35.8%). Lack of patience (29.5%) and concern about the composition of the food purchased (34.2%) were the main reasons for not using the information provided. The most commonly used nutrition claim was “trans fat-free” (42.5%) and the type of food in which nutrition labeling was used most was milk and dairy products (42.0%). Frequent use of nutritional information was higher among women (p<0.01) and among those who practice physical activity (p=0.04). Many individuals relied on food labels nutritional information (61.9%), but out of these, 43.6% did not use that information at the time of purchase. There was no difference between respondents’ confidence in the information, sociodemographic and health data. Conclusion Many people still do not use the label nutrition information. Efforts should be made to change this scenario. Changes in nutrition labeling can help modify this situation, with the use of clearer label information, more easily understood, that does not raise any doubts in the consumers’ mind.

No abstract