Thomas 201612 US | Three-arm, parallel, unblinded RCT Participants recruited between winter 2013 and spring 2014 from Meals-on-Wheels waitlists at eight sites | Eligibility criteria None Exclusion criteria None N = 376 baseline characteristics Age (Mean) Waitlist = 75.7 years DDM= 77.4 years WDM = 76.2 years P > 0.05 Married (%) Waitlist = 31.5 DDM= 18.9 WDM = 21.9 P < 0.05 Participates in groups (%) Waitlist = 34.9 DDM = 22.5 WDM = 21.7 P < 0.05 Loneliness (Mean) Waitlist = 3.5 (2.9) DDM = 3.5 (2.7) WDM = 3.1 (2.6) P > 0.05 | Interventions: DDM 15 weeks of once daily (on weekdays) delivery of hot or chilled meals by program staff/volunteers WDM 15 weeks of once-weekly delivery of 5 frozen meals by program staff/volunteers Comparator: Waitlist Contact with Meals on Wheels staff or volunteers for T1 and T2 assessments. 15 weeks from T1 to follow-up call to schedule T2 assessment | Loneliness Assessed with the 3-item UCLA Scale, which is a subset of items from the Revised UCLA Loneliness scale. Responses range from 0 to 3, with higher numbers reflecting greater frequency of feeling lonely. Responses were summed. Potential scores range from 0 to 9 The 3-item scale had acceptable reliability, as reported by the study authors (α =0.72) Length of follow-up 15 weeks |
Denissen, 201711 The Netherlands | 2-arm, non-randomized, controlled trial Participants were recruited between November 2013 and December 2013 from home care organization Proteion | Eligibility criteria Clients of Proteion; Aged ≥70 years; Home-dwelling; “unable to prepare their own dinners due to functional impairment” (p.371); consented to eat ≥4 delivered dinners per week Exclusion criteria Partner able to prepare healthy meals; chewing problems; severe malnutrition based on BMI (<18.5 kg/m2), “cancer or other serious conditions” (p.371), life expectancy < 6 months N = 44 n = 25 intervention n = 19 comparator baseline characteristics Unclear if statistically analyzed Age (M years, (IQR)) MD = 83 (79, 89) Control = 84 (81, 88) Gender (n (%)) MD = female, 19 (76%); male, 6 (24%) Control = female, 15 (78.9%); male, 4 (21.05%) Partner (n (% yes)) MD = 7 (28.0%) Control = 3 (15.8%) Previous meal service (n (% yes) MD = 9 (36.0%) Control = 9 (47.4%) Home care (self-care, medical) assistance (hours/week), mean (SD) MD = 5.6 (3.6) Control (4.1 (3.0) Disability in, and instrumental activities of daily living; GARS-score, mean (SD) MD = 44.1 (10.6) Control = 40.6 (8.8) Higher scores reflect greater disability Scale range: 18-72 | Intervention: MD 3 months of once daily meal delivery on 4 to 7 days / week delivered by staff Comparator: Usual diet “Participants in the control group were invited for an observational trajectory within the context of a care improvement project of the home care organization, and sustained their usual diet, also when they already used a meal service.” (p.371) | HRQoL Assessed with the EQ-VAS subscale of the EQ-5D-3L Participants rate their current health state from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state) Measurement properties were not reported. GQoL Assessed with the overall valuation of life subscale of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Participants indicated how well they felt during the past week on a scale ranging from 0 (very bad) to 6 (very good). Scores were transformed to a 100-point scale. Higher scores reflected better GQoL. Measurement properties were not reported. Length of follow-up 3 months (T2) and 6 months (T3) |
Wright 201513 US | Single-arm pretest–posttest design Participants were recruited from Meals-on-Wheels enrollment list between January and April 2014 | Eligibility criteria Aged ≥55 years; Received ≥3 home-delivered meals / week; Spoke English; Telephone access; Able to consent and answer survey questions Exclusion criteria none N = 62 Baseline characteristics Age (years) Mean= 74.11 Gender (%)) female, 666; male, 34 Nutrition status (%) Normal = 8.1 At nutritional risk = 58.1 Malnourished = 33.9 | Intervention: 2 months of once / day, ≥ 4 times / week single meal delivery | Well-Being Assessed with the WHO-5 questionnaire. Participants recorded responses on a scale from 0 (at no time) to 5 (all the time). Summed scores ranged from 0 (worst possible) to 25 (good). Measurement properties were not reported. Loneliness and social isolation Assessed with the 3-Item Loneliness Scale. Participants recorded their feelings on a scale from 0 (never) to 3 (often). Summed scores range from 3 (no social isolation) to 12 (worst levels of loneliness). Measurement properties were not reported. Length of follow-up 2 months |
