SynthesisCancer medicine2025
Dietary Quality and Intake of Cancer Caregivers: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies and Recommendations for Future Research.
Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Food assistance strategies for patients of an infusion clinic: a pilot randomized controlled trial (protocol number: STU-2023-0387).Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Trial
- Dyadic Associations of Physical Activity, Diet Quality, and Body Mass Index in Black Prostate Cancer Survivors and their Spouses: An Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Analysis.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsAs more people live with and beyond a cancer diagnosis, the role of informal caregivers becomes increasingly vital. Despite emotional, physical, and financial challenges, the impact of caregiving on health behaviors, including diet, has been largely overlooked. This systematic review synthesized quantitative evidence on dietary quality and intake among cancer caregivers.
methodsFive databases (CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science) were searched in February 2024 using keywords including cancer, caregiver, and diet. Articles published since 2013 that quantitatively assessed the dietary quality or intake of cancer caregivers were eligible. Articles were independently screened in Rayaan by two authors, with discrepancies resolved by a third author. Data on study design, aims, methods, sample characteristics, and results were extracted and summarized using descriptive analyses. One author performed data extraction, with a second author reviewing results for accuracy.
resultsOf 12,584 records identified, 22 met eligibility criteria. Most studies were conducted in the United States (68%), were cross-sectional (77%), and included caregivers who were partners (68%) of people with cancer. Four (18%) studies reported on energy or nutrient intakes, 13 (59%) reported on food or food group intakes, and 10 (45%) reported on diet quality or dietary patterns. Results varied widely due to differences in assessment methods used. Dietary changes due to caregiving were described in 8 (36%) studies, mostly using retrospective self-reported data. Negative, positive, and no dietary changes were reported in 7 (32%), 5 (23%), and 4 (18%) studies, respectively. Two (9%) studies did not specify the direction of change. Eight (36%) studies assessed adherence to dietary recommendations, with mixed results.
conclusionsEvidence of the dietary quality and intake of cancer caregivers is inconclusive. Larger, longitudinal studies using validated measures, repeated observations, and comparison to dietary guidelines are needed to better understand the impacts of caregiving on diet.
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.