SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Scoping Review of Available Culinary Nutrition Interventions for People with Neurological Conditions.

Nutrients · 2024-02-05

DOI: 10.3390/nu16030462PMID: 38337746

Open accessScoping Review; review-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

People with neurological conditions may face barriers to meal preparation. Culinary nutrition interventions aim to facilitate the building of knowledge and skills for meal preparation. This scoping review aims to map the available evidence for culinary nutrition interventions for people with neurological conditions and evaluate the quality of these interventions based on program design, delivery and evaluation. After a systematic search of online databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and Proquest) and reference lists, a total of ten publications describing nine interventions were included. Most interventions were designed for people with stroke and/or Transient Ischemic Attack (n = 3) and Multiple Sclerosis (n = 3); others were for traumatic brain injury (n = 1), mild dementia (n = 1) and Parkinson's Disease (n = 1). Overall, the included culinary nutrition interventions had good program delivery (inclusion of motivational experiences, delivered by appropriate health providers) but needed improvements in program design (lack of consumer engagement and neurological symptom accommodations) and evaluation (lack of complete process, outcome and impact evaluations). In conclusion, the evidence base for culinary nutrition interventions for people with neurological conditions remains sparse. To bridge the gap between theory and practice, it is important to consider the following aspects in culinary nutrition intervention planning/improvement: (I) the involvement of consumers; (II) the accommodation/tailoring for post-condition effects; and (III) the coverage of all disease-specific culinary nutrition aspects.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.