Guiding framework for clinical nutrition research
Carliene van Dronkelaar, Maarten Soeters, Philipp Schuetz, Carla Prado, Nicole Kiss, Michael Tieland, Hinke Kruizenga. A holistic perspective on malnutrition in older adults: towards an integrated clinical nutrition research guiding framework. Clinical Nutrition, 2026Complexity of malnutrition and research
Malnutrition arises from an interplay of factors: reduced dietary intake, impaired nutrient absorption, increased requirements due to illness, and psychosocial and functional problems. Direct causes include, for example, chewing difficulties, poor appetite, swallowing problems, and malabsorption. Indirect factors include loneliness, pain, cognitive decline, and limited mobility. This complexity makes the development of effective interventions and the conduct of robust research challenging.
Traditional malnutrition research is often limited by:
Unidimensional interventions (e.g. nutrition supplements only)
Heterogeneous study designs
Variable outcome measures
Limited feasibility of classical RCTs in everyday clinical practice
Experience and lessons learned consolidated into a research framework
Carliene van Dronkelaar conducted the ProIntens study: a large-scale clinical trial investigating the effectiveness of a combined nutrition and physical activity intervention, carried out in five hospitals in Amsterdam. During the implementation of this study, several barriers were encountered, including the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. These challenges were not unique to ProIntens but are recognizable across many large-scale clinical nutrition studies.
Therefore, as the final chapter of her PhD thesis, she co-authored a perspective paper together with international experts experienced in large-scale clinical nutrition research. In this paper, the lessons learned were translated into a framework for future clinical nutrition research. This framework aims to improve the development, implementation, and evaluation of interventions, and to facilitate their translation into clinical practice.
The framework is based on insights from a range of large and smaller studies. Key lessons include:
- Multidisciplinary, personalized nutrition care improves outcomes, but implementation is challenging.
- Early and structured involvement of all stakeholders is essential.
- Flexible study designs and digital tools can enhance feasibility and relevance.
- Long-term follow-up is needed to assess sustainable effects.
Future directions, recommendations, and conclusion
The authors advocate an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to malnutrition in older adults, with attention to both effectiveness and real-world feasibility. The proposed framework provides practical guidance for future research and has the potential to contribute to improved care and outcomes for vulnerable patients.
By applying this framework, researchers, healthcare professionals, and policymakers can work together to develop more effective and more easily implementable nutrition interventions for older adults and other vulnerable populations. This may lead to improved quality of life, greater independence, and lower healthcare costs.
Authors of this article


dr.ir. Hinke Kruizenga
Associate professor Nutrition & Dietetics
Amsterdam UMC, ProIntens study, Cochrane review

dr. Maarten Soeters
internist-endocrinologist
Amsterdam UMC

Prof. dr. Philip Schuetz
Head of the University Medical Clinic & Department Head of Medicine and Endocrinology
Kantonsspital Aarau, Switserland, EFFORT study

Prof.dr. Carla Prado
Professor in Nutrition, Body composition and Energy metabolism
University of Alberta, Canada PRIMe study

Prof. dr. Nicole Kiss
Professor in Dietetics
Deakin University, Australia, Pilot in 2016 en PREDICT study

dr. Michael Tieland
Associate professor Nutrition Sciences
Deakin university, Australia, ProIntens study
Studies underpinning this framework
The development of this framework is based on multiple studies and on the research experience of the authors involved in these studies. The table below provides an overview of the main characteristics and findings that underpin the framework. A detailed description of the contribution of each study can be found in the appendix of the article.
Taken together, these studies illustrate the opportunities and challenges of nutrition research, particularly in clinically vulnerable patients and older adults, and highlight why a structured yet flexible approach is necessary.
Study | Population | Design | Key contribution | Link to framework |
94 RCTs (10,284 patients) | Systematic Review | Showed that most trials were small, heterogeneous, with diverse interventions and outcomes; advocated for stratification, core outcome sets, longer follow-up, and digital tools for adherence | Step 1 (design) Step 3 (outcomes) | |
Hospitalized older patients at risk of malnutrition | Multicentre RCT | Experienced recruitment difficulties and attrition; rigid RCT design limited flexibility; behavioural change targeted patients more than environment or staff; limited multidisciplinary involvement due to funding constraints | Step 1 (design) Step 2 (treatment delivery) Step 3 (outcomes) | |
2088 hospitalized older patients | Pragmatic RCT | Demonstrated possibilities of pragmatic trials with a treatment algorithm, large sample size and composite outcome | Step 1 (design) Step 2 (treatment delivery) Step 3 (outcomes) | |
652 older patients with malnutrition | Double-blind, placebo-controlled RCT | Clear delivery but high exclusion (≈60%) due to comorbidities, limiting generalizability and flexibility to patient needs | Step 1 (design) Step 2 (delivery)
| |
Colorectal patients undergoing chemotherapy | Open-label pilot RCT | Recruitment challenges and high attrition; rigid RCT design and high patient burden limited feasibility; late involvement of stakeholders | Start (co-design) Step 1 (design) Step 2 (treatment delivery) | |
Lung cancer patients undergoing (chemo)radiotherapy | Pilot RCT | Individualised counselling feasible and valued by patients but recruitment difficult (timing at diagnosis, high palliative proportion, 37% attrition) | Start (co-design) Step 1 (design) Step 3 (outcomes)
| |
Lung cancer patients undergoing (chemo)radiotherapy | Observational | Recruitment <50% of planned sample due to COVID; high burden of measurements led to non-adherence; highlighted feasibility challenges in real-world data collection | Step 1 (design) Step 3 (outcomes) |

