Costa, Ana Isabel Almeida

Cunningham-Sabo, Leslie

Horst, Klazine van der

Simão, Cláudia

Wolfson, Julia

English

Repositório Institucional da Universidade Católica Portuguesa

PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviews A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of adults’ participation in home cookinginterventions on their cooking skills, food habits, diet and health CitationAna Isabel Almeida Costa, Julia Wolfson, Cláudia Simão, Klazine van der Horst, Leslie Cunningham-Sabo. A systematicreview and meta-analysis of the effects of adults’ participation in home cooking interventions on their cooking skills,food habits, diet and health. PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018084648 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018084648 Review question  [1 change]1) What are the effects of adults’ participation in home cooking interventions on their:a) domestic cooking skills, knowledge, confidence, attitudes and behavior;b) food habits, diet quality and dietary intake;  c) weight and health status, particularly in what these relate to the prevention of lifestyle-associated chronic illnesses?2) To what extent are effects moderated by the design, frequency and duration of interventions, in particular of thecomponents specifically intending to improve domestic cooking skills?3) What is the quality of the scientific evidence regarding effects and moderators, particularly in what respects thedefinition, scope and measures of domestic cooking skills? SearchesGuidelines for searching studies (Chapter 6, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions) anddeveloping search strategies (McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D. M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C.(2016), PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,75, 40-46) were followed. EndNote was used to archive and manage citations, abstracts and publication files.Review team expertise and a manual search in Google Scholar identified several reviews of interventions with a homecooking component, including two systematic reviews covering the period between 2011 and 2016. Literature search wasthus initially restricted to review-type articles – peer-reviewed papers, grey literature and postgraduate thesis in English,or with English version -, published between 2000-18. The following electronic bibliographic databases were searched inApril 2018: MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, PsycArticles, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, ERIC,OpenDissertations (EBSCOhost), DARE/CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Web of Science, EThOS (British Library-Doctoral Theses), OATD/NDLTD (Dissertations). Details of the search strategy are provided in the enclosed file.The title and abstract of unique reviews retrieved were screened against the corresponding eligibility criteria; reviewsmeeting them were deemed included and retrieved for full screening. All unique citations of individual study reports(included and excluded) were manually searched, and their title and abstract screened against the correspondingeligibility criteria; publications meeting them were deemed included and retrieved for full screening.Individual study reports published between 2015-18 were searched in July 2018 following a similar search process. Theirtitle and abstract will be screened against the corresponding eligibility criteria; publications meeting them will be deemedincluded and retrieved for full screening. All citations of new individual study reports will be manually searched andscreened according to the process described. Key authors will be contacted and asked to provide information aboutunpublished and on-going studies.                               Page: 1 / 7PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviews Types of study to be includedPolicy, programs, interventions, experiments and other initiatives intending primarily to promote home cooking amongadults and entailing at least one component or treatment aiming to increase their domestic cooking/food preparationskills, as well as specific measures to assess this (e.g., self-reported cooking knowledge, self-efficacy/self-confidence incooking meals from scratch, externally assessed ability to prepare fresh ingredients for cooking (McGowan, L., Caraher,M., Raats, et al. (2017). Domestic cooking and food skills: a review. CRFSN, 57(11), 2412-31).Excluded are studies: • Where the promotion of home cooking is a primary outcome but that do not entail a treatment or component aiming toincrease domestic cooking/food preparation skills• Where the promotion of home cooking or domestic cooking/food preparation skills among adults are secondary orunintended outcomes• Studies without a pre- and post-test, quantitative assessment of adults’ domestic cooking/food preparation skills• Studies without a control or comparison group. Condition or domain being studied  [1 change]The last two decades witnessed the proliferation of policy, programs, interventions, experiments and other types ofinitiatives promoting home cooking and domestic cooking skills among adults, with ultimate goal of improving their dietand health. Their outcomes up to 2016 have been reviewed in several papers and grey literature reports. Nevertheless, nodefinitive conclusions about their impact have been yet drawn, on the grounds of there being limited, high-qualityevidence of results.This review takes new stock of such initiatives and their results up to 2018, systematically assesses their quality and meta-analyses findings whenever appropriate in order to estimate the size and significance of any positive effects on intendeddiet and health outcomes. Importantly, it clarifies the role of domestic cooking skills as an important mediator betweenpromoting home cooking and achieving actual behavior and dietary changes. Lastly, it also identifies the characteristicsthat determine the effectiveness of initiatives.A better understanding of the substantive outcomes of adult participation in home cooking initiatives that focus onraising domestic cooking skills makes a relevant contribution to the development and support of more effective publichealth interventions, particularly those targeting vulnerable populations at disproportionate risk of poor diet and diet-related diseases. Participants/populationAll adults (18 years of age or older), irrespective of their physical and mental health status. Excluded: Adults whom, by way of their professional occupation (e.g., chefs, food service staff, nutritionists anddietitians), are required or expected to have (or to acquire through formal education and/or training), extensiveknowledge and/or experience in culinary arts; adults with severe mental or physical disability. Intervention(s), exposure(s)Policy, programs, interventions, experiments and other types of initiatives intending primarily to promote home cookingamong adults and entailing at least one component or treatment explicitly intended to increase their domestic cooking orfood preparation skills, as described in "Hollywood, L., Surgenor, D., Reicks et al. (2017). Identification of behaviorchange techniques applied in interventions to improve cooking skills and food skills among adults. CRFSN, 1-14" and"Reicks, M., Kocher, M., & Reeder, J. (2018). Impact of Cooking and Home Food Preparation Interventions Among                               Page: 2 / 7PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewsAdults: A Systematic Review (2011–2016). Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 50(2), 148-172."Examples: cooking demonstrations, hands-on cooking classes, food literacy programs, nutrition education sessions,community kitchens, community gardens with a food preparation component, cooking skills training videos, weight losscamps, cooking courses. Comparator(s)/controlControl group in the same population (i.e., adults entering the study but not exposed to the intervention, or at least not atthe same time as those in the treatment group). Comparison group in a similar population (e.g., adults entering the study, but exposed to an intervention or treatment thatdoes not intend to primarily promote home cooking, or to one that intends to primarily promote home cooking, but bymeans other than increasing adults’ domestic cooking or food preparation skills). Context  [1 change]There are no restrictions as to the setting of the initiatives included.Studies where the promotion of home cooking is a primary outcome but that do not entail a treatment or componentexplicitly intended to increase domestic cooking or food preparation skills (e.g., interventions promoting home cookingonly through the provision of information about the potential positive diet and health outcomes of this behavior) areexcluded.Studies where the promotion of home cooking or the increase of domestic cooking or food preparation skills amongadults are secondary or unintended outcomes are excluded. Examples are interventions involving food or cooking skills’training with the main purpose of improving the cognitive and motor abilities of adults with mental or physical disability;interventions promoting home cooking among adults with the main aim of improving their mental health status or socialbehavior; clinical trials providing limited or very basic home cooking or cooking skills’ advise as part of a larger set ofmedical recommendations aiming to improve the diet quality and health status of patients with preventable chronicdiseases. Main outcome(s)  [1 change]• Enhancement of the domestic cooking skills of adults participating in initiatives promoting home cooking.• Improvement of diet quality, dietary intake and weight status.• Prevention of diet-related chronic illnesses and associated risk factors.Measures of effect• Enhancement of adults' domestic cooking skills from baseline to last available follow-up. There is currently no single,fully validated and widely accepted or employed measure of these skills. Hence, measures to be considered are self-reported level of cooking knowledge, level of self-efficacy or self-confidence to cook a meal from basic ingredients, orexternally assessed ability to prepare fresh ingredients for cooking (as reviewed by McGowan, L., Caraher, M., Raats, etal. (2017). Domestic cooking and food skills: a review. CRFSN, 57(11), 2412-31). This outcome is part of the inclusioncriteria.• Improvement in diet quality, dietary intake and weight status from baseline to last available follow-up, assessed through                               Page: 3 / 7PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewsstandard measures of fruit and vegetable consumption, total calorie intake, healthy eating (e.g., diet scores based on FoodFrequency Questionnaires or 24-h dietary recalls, the Healthy Eating Index), BMI, weigth loss and abdominal obesity.• Decrease in risk factors for diet-related chronic illnesses from baseline to last available follow-up, assessed throughstandard measures for CVD (e.g., serum lipid concentrations, HDL level, blood pressure) and type 2 Diabetes (e.g.,glycated hemoglobin (GHb), fasting blood sugar, insulin resistance).These outcomes were not specifically targeted by the search strategy and are not part of the inclusion criteria. Additional outcome(s)  [1 change]• Increase in the frequency of home cooking or domestic food preparation, particularly from fresh or unprocessed foods,and improvement of the attitudes and intentions held towards these behaviors.• Decrease in the frequency of consumption of away-from-home meals and convenience foods.Measures of effect• Increase in the frequency of home cooking or domestic food preparation (particularly of fresh or unprocessed foods),and improvement of the attitudes and intentions held towards these behaviors from baseline to last available follow-up.Standard behavior frequency and attitude measures will be considered, as well as those specific to the domestic cookingand food domains (as reviewed by McGowan, L., Caraher, M., Raats, et al. (2017). Domestic cooking and food skills: areview. CRFSN, 57(11), 2412-31). These outcomes are not part of the review inclusion criteria.• Decrease in the frequency of consumption of away-from-home meals and convenience foods from baseline to lastavailable follow-up. Standard frequency of food consumption measures will be considered. These outcomes are not partof the review inclusion criteria. Data extraction (selection and coding)Titles and/or abstracts of studies retrieved using the search strategy and those from additional sources will be screenedindependently by two review authors to identify studies that potentially meet the inclusion criteria outlined above. Thefull text of these potentially eligible studies will be retrieved and independently assessed for eligibility by two reviewteam members. Any disagreement between them over the eligibility of particular studies will be resolved throughdiscussion with a third reviewer.A standardized, pre-piloted form will be used to extract data from the eligible studies for assessment of study quality andevidence synthesis. Extracted information will include: study setting, study population (participant demographics andbaseline characteristics), details of the intervention and control conditions, study methodology (recruitment and studycompletion rates), outcomes (forms and times of measurement), indicators of acceptability to users, suggestedmechanisms of intervention action and information for study quality assessment. Two review authors will extract dataindependently. Any discrepancies between them will be identified and resolved through discussion with a third reviewauthor. Missing data will be requested from study authors. Risk of bias (quality) assessmentAn extant, validated tool for the quality assessment of the types of studies deemed eligible will be selected by the reviewteam. Two review authors will independently assess the quality of included studies by considering the followingcharacteristics: the overall quality of the study, external validity, study bias, confounding and selection bias, andstatistical power of the study. Any discrepancies between them will be identified and resolved through discussion with athird review author.                                Page: 4 / 7PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewsStrategy for data synthesisWe will first provide a narrative synthesis of the findings from the eligible studies, structured around the type ofintervention, target population characteristics, type of outcome and intervention content, including summaries ofintervention effects for each study and study quality assessment.Results from eligible, high-quality studies, using the same type of intervention and comparator, and the same orequivalent outcome measures, will be pooled using a random-effects meta-analytical model. Based on this model,estimates of standardized mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for binary outcomes, as well as 95%confidence intervals and two sided P values for each outcome will be provided. In studies where the effects of clusteringhave not been taken into account, we will adjust the standard deviations for the design effect. At this time, publicationbias will also be statistically assessed and reported.Heterogeneity between the studies in effect measures will also be assessed using both the χ² test and the I² statistic. Wewill consider an I² value greater than 50% indicative of substantial heterogeneity. We will further conduct sensitivityanalyses based on study quality. Finally, we will use stratified meta-analyses to explore heterogeneity in effect estimatesaccording to: study quality, study populations, the logistics of intervention provision and intervention content. Analysis of subgroups or subsetsData from randomized and non-randomized studies will be analyzed and presented separately. Sub-group analysis will bedone by type of intervention, or more specifically, by type of intervention component or treatment intended to increasethe domestic cooking skills of participants. Contact details for further informationAna Isabel de Almeida Costaanacosta@clsbe.lisboa.ucp.pt Organisational affiliation of the reviewNone Review team members and their organisational affiliations  [1 change]Dr Ana Isabel Almeida Costa. Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Católica-Lisbon School of Business and EconomicsAssistant/Associate Professor Julia Wolfson. University of Michigan, School of Public HealthDr Cláudia Simão. Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Católica-Lisbon School of Business and EconomicsDr Klazine van der Horst. Bern University of Applied Sciences, Department of Health ProfessionsAssistant/Associate Professor Leslie Cunningham-Sabo. Colorado State University, Department of Food Science andHuman Nutrition CollaboratorsMiss Filipa Almeida. Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Católica-Lisbon School of Business and EconomicsMr Christian Mackey. University of Michigan, School of Public HealthMr Andrew Stratford. Colorado State University, Department of Food Science and Human NutritionMiss Samantha E. Smith. Colorado State University, Department of Food Science and Human NutritionDr Xavier Allirot. Independent Researcher                                Page: 5 / 7PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewsType and method of reviewIntervention, Meta-analysis, Narrative synthesis, Systematic review Anticipated or actual start date01 March 2018 Anticipated completion date28 February 2019 Funding sources/sponsorsFCT – Portuguese Foundation of Science and Technology, under the project E-PRIMEMEAL(LISBOA-01-0145-FEDER-032169)FCT – Portuguese Foundation of Science and Technology, under the project PRIMEMEAL (PTDC/IIM-GES/5979/2014)FCT – Portuguese Foundation of Science and Technology, under CUBE/UCP (UID/GES/00407/2013)University of Michigan Momentum Center Pilot and Feasibility GrantNational Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture (2012-68001-19603)  Conflicts of interest LanguageEnglish CountryPortugal, Switzerland, United States of America Stage of reviewReview Ongoing Subject index terms statusSubject indexing assigned by CRD Subject index termsAdult; Cooking; Diet; Feeding Behavior; Humans Date of registration in PROSPERO31 August 2018                                Page: 6 / 7PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewsDate of first submission30 July 2018 Details of any existing review of the same topic by the same authors Stage of review at time of this submission Stage Started CompletedPreliminary searches Yes YesPiloting of the study selection process Yes YesFormal screening of search results against eligibility criteria Yes NoData extraction No NoRisk of bias (quality) assessment No NoData analysis No NoThe record owner confirms that the information they have supplied for this submission is accurate and complete and theyunderstand that deliberate provision of inaccurate information or omission of data may be construed as scientificmisconduct.The record owner confirms that they will update the status of the review when it is completed and will add publicationdetails in due course. Versions31 August 201827 November 2018Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)                               Page: 7 / 7

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of adults’ participation in home cooking interventions on their cooking skills, food habits, diet and health

https://repositorio.ucp.pt/bitstream/10400.14/42907/1/52459907.pdf

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of adults’ participation in home cooking interventions on their cooking skills, food habits, diet and health

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repositório Institucional da Universidade Católica Portuguesa