Trial reportAppetite2022
Supporting family meal frequency: Screening Phase results from the Simply Dinner Study.
Trial report in Appetite, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 2 to 4 years old.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- The Impact of a Community Health Worker-Led Lifestyle-Social Determinants Program on Pacific Islander Cardiometabolic Health.American journal of preventive medicine · 2026Trial
- Designing a childhood obesity preventive intervention using the multiphase optimization strategy: The Healthy Bodies Project.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2023Trial
- Rethinking public health in the digital food era.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026Article
- From preschool to policy: A scoping review of recommended interventions for a systems approach to improve dietary intake in early childhood.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025Article
- Mapping the behaviour change potential of meal kits to positively influence parental food literacy.Public health nutrition · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We aimed to test main, additive, interactive effects, and feasibility of all possible combinations of six intervention components implemented for 8 weeks (Cooking/Serving Resources; Meal Delivery; Ingredient Delivery; Community Kitchen; Nutrition Education; Cooking Demonstrations). Primary outcomes were family meal frequency and preschoolers' dietary quality; secondary outcomes included family meal preparation type, meal preparation barriers, family functioning, and kitchen inventory adequacy. All possible intervention combinations were tested using a randomized factorial trial design in the first phase of a Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST). Feasibility was assessed via attendance, delivery logs, and satisfaction. Parent-reported data collection included: socio-demographics, frequency and type of family meals; preschooler dietary intake; perceived barriers to meal planning and preparation; assessment of family functioning; and a kitchen inventory of materials generally needed for meal preparation. Participants (n = 499) were recruited at two Head Start agencies in mid-Michigan with data collection and delivery of some intervention components in participants' homes. Promising intervention bundles were identified by evaluating pre-to post-intervention effect sizes. The combination of Cooking/Serving Resources and Meal Delivery increased family meal frequency (Cohen's d = 0.17), cooking dinner from scratch (d = 0.21), prioritization of family meals (d = 0.23), and kitchen inventory (d = 0.46) and decreased use/consumption of ready-made (d = -0.18) and fast foods (d = -0.23). Effects on diet quality were in the expected direction but effect sizes were negligible. Community Kitchen, Nutrition Education, and Cooking Demonstration showed poor feasibility due to low attendance while Ingredient Delivery was infeasible due to staffing challenges related to its labor intensity. Additionally, although not one of our pre-specified outcomes, Cooking/Serving Resources (RR = 0.74) and Meal Delivery (RR = 0.73) each decreased food insecurity. Cooking/Serving Resources combined with Meal Delivery showed promise as a strategy for increasing family meal frequency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.