Table 1.
Study Characteristics of Included Papers
| Study; country | Recruitment | Participant | Study design | Shared meal program | Tools used for data collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kohrs et al., 1980; United States | All persons eating at one of the five selected meal sites 2+ times per week invited to attend, random sample drawn from participants who had eaten at the site <2 times per week | N = 547 (59–99 y/o, 69% female) | Cross-sectional | OAA Title III CMS | Interview-administered survey (1-day food record, 24 hr recall, food frequency questionnaire), medical history, clinical examination, blood and hair samples, anthropometry |
| Van Zandt & Fox, 1986; United States | Subjects present on days researcher visited meal sites were recruited | N = 170 (60–90 y/o, 65% female) | Cross-sectional | OAA Title III CMS | Interview-administered survey |
| Neyman et al., 1996; United States | Recruited from “senior” centers during the congregate lunch meal, and from organization meetings held at centers |
N = 135 (60–89 y/o, 67% female) Participants, n = 70 Non-participants, n = 65 |
Cross-sectional | OAA Title III CMS | Self-administered survey, blood test |
| Neyman et al., 1998; United States | From “senior” centers and other “senior” organizations |
N = 80 (60–93 y/o, 76% female) CMS, n = 40 HDM, n = 40 |
Cross-sectional | OAA Title III CMS | Interview-administered survey (24 hr dietary recall) |
| Vailas et al., 1998; United States | Participants recruited through meal program employees |
N = 155 (71–86 y/o, 73% female) CMS, n = 108 HDM, n = 47 |
Cross-sectional | OAA Title III CMS and HDM | Interview-administered survey (range of tools), anthropometry |
| Dichieria et al., 2002; United States | Random sample of national participants who access the service recruited through Area Agencies on Aging (provide client lists) | N = 51 (51–94 y/o, 72% female) | Cross-sectional | OAA Title III CMS | Interview-administered survey |
| ACL, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2011–2019; United States | Random sample of national participants who access the service recruited through Area Agencies on Aging (provide client lists) | N = 473–1,072 (60–85+ y/o, 61%–73% female) | Cross-sectional | OAA Title III CMS | Interview-administered NSOAAP |
| Keller, 2006; Canada | Through agencies providing services to the older adults | N = 267 (70–86 y/o, 76.4% female) | Cohort | Home care services, including congregate meal programs (CMS), Meals on Wheels | Interview-administered survey (SCREEN) |
| Heuberger & Wong, 2014; United States | Word of mouth, advertisement, flyers, community organizations | N = 1,065 (60–103 y/o, 65% female) | Cross-sectional | Congregate meals as part of the Elderly Nutrition Program | Interview-administered survey |
| Porter et al., 2016; United States | From 12 selected congregate meal sites | N = 256 (66–82 y/o, 66% female) | Cross-sectional | OAA Title III CMS (heterosexual vs. lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender individuals) | Self-administered survey |
| Thomas & Emond, 2017; United Kingdom | Recruitment following presentation at selected lunch clubs | N = 10 (60–80 y/o, 50% female) | Qualitative | Lunch clubs specifically for older people | Food diaries, interview |
| Huffman et al., 2017; United States | Sampling of the 2015 Tenth Annual NSOAAP | N = 901 (60–>75 y/o, 68% female) | Cross-sectional secondary analysis | OAA Title III CMS | Interview-administered survey (2015 Tenth Annual NSOAPP Congregate Meals) |
| Ye et al., 2017; China | Random sampling from older adults’ “senior” center services utilization survey 2011 | N = 320 (65–83 y/o, 57% female) | Cross-sectional | Community diners at Shanghai’s “senior” centers | Interview administered survey (Shanghai “senior” center service utilization survey) |
| Beasley et al., 2018; United States | Sampling from 2015 Tenth Annual NSOAPP, recruitment via convenience sampling from two New York City “senior” centers through flyers and announcements at lunches | National survey data, N = 901 (60–85+ y/o, 66.2% female) Local data, n = 22 (60–84 y/o, 68.2% female) |
Cross-sectional secondary analysis | OAA Title III CMS | Over the phone survey (2015 Tenth Annual NSOAPP, Montreal cognitive assessment), 4-day food record, RAND 36, Short Physical Performance Battery, Jamar hand-held dynamometer |
| Sheppard et al., 2018; Canada | Recruited from urban “senior” center | N = 9 (average age 72 y/o, 78% female) | Qualitative process evaluation | “Let’s Do Lunch” program | Focus groups |
| Tsofliou et al., 2020; United Kingdom | Convenience sampling at the five selected lunch clubs | N = 39 (73–90 y/o, 56.4% female, 64.1% living alone) | Cross-sectional | Lunch clubs with for those ≥ 65 y/o | Self-administered survey (24-hr dietary recall), anthropometry |
| Choi et al., 2021; South Korea | Secondary analysis of national survey data, participants over 65 y/o who had eaten at an IF meal, or a home-made or purchased meal (non-IF) at a social leisure services facility were sampled |
N = 390 (65–75+ y/o, 66.3% female, 27.7% living alone) IF, n = 129 Non-IF, n = 261 |
Cross-sectional | Institutional Food Service meals provided at Social Leisure Services facilities in South Korea | Sixth and seventh Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey |
| Schultz et al., 2021; United States | Convenience sample through research team announcements to those present at the time |
N = 136 (traditional and innovation group combined) (<60–85+ y/o, 60.3% female, 56.2% living alone) Lunch program, n = 26 Comparison group, n = 21 |
Cross-sectional | Encore Café innovative congregate nutrition program (innovation group), compared with traditional congregate nutrition programs (traditional group), and no lunch program (comparison group) | Survey (administration unclear) |
Note: CMS = congregate meal services; HDM = home-delivered meals; IF = institutional food service; NSOAAP = National Survey of Older Americans Act Participants; OAA = Older Americans Act; Nutrition Services Program ; SCREEN = Seniors in the Community: Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition©; y/o = years old.