Evidence Hub

Safety, resource use and nutritional content of home-blended diets in children who are gastrostomy fed: findings from ‘YourTube’ – a prospective cohort study

L. Fraser, Andre Bedendo, M. O'Neill, Jo Taylor, Julia Hackett, K. Horridge, J. Cade, Gerry Richardson et al.

Archives of Disease in Childhood, 2023

180 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

Objective To assess the risks, benefits and resource implications of using home-blended food in children with gastrostomy tubes compared with currently recommended formula feeds. Design This is a cohort study. Data were collected at months 0, 12 and 18 from parents and clinicians using standardised measures. Setting 32 sites across England: 28 National Health Service trusts and 4 children’s hospices. Patients Children aged 6 months–18 years who were gastrostomy fed. Main outcome measure The main outcome measure was the PedsQL Gastrointestinal Symptoms Scales score. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, sleep (child, parent), dietary intake, anthropometry, healthcare usage, safety outcomes and resource use. Results 180 children and families completed the baseline data collection, with 134 (74%) and 105 (58%) providing follow-up data at 12 and 18 months. There were fewer gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms at all time points in the home-blended diet group, but there was no difference in change over time within or between the groups. The nutritional intake of those on a home-blended diet had higher calories per kilogram and fibre, and both home-blended and formula-fed children have values above the dietary reference values for most micronutrients. Safety outcomes were similar between groups and over time. The total costs to the statutory sector were higher among children who were formula fed, but the costs of purchasing special equipment for home-blended food and the total…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 180 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free