ReviewNutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia2026
Exploring and understanding perceptions and definitions of foodservice quality in residential aged care: A scoping review.
Review in Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia, 2026. 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.
- Exploring and understanding perceptions and definitions of foodservice quality in residential aged care: A scoping review.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2026Review
- Food waste in residential aged care: A scoping review.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2026Review
- Food waste measurement in Australian hospitals and residential aged care homes.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimIdentify and describe research that explores interest-holder perceptions and definitions of foodservice quality in residential aged care.
methodsThis review follows the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews and was reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus were used to search for peer-reviewed literature. Grey literature was searched through Google and six Australian government sources. No restrictions were applied to methodology, year, or geographical location published. Findings were synthesised into distinct interest-holder and foodservice component groups using meta-synthesis.
resultsA total of 31 eligible texts, including peer-reviewed (n = 17) and grey literature (n = 14) were included in this review. Texts identifying perceptions (n = 23) were predominantly those of residents (n = 11) while definitions of quality (n = 13) were all described by researchers and experts. Despite some agreement that foodservice quality is associated with how acceptable food or meals are to residents, there is a lack of consensus on what defines quality, with none of the literature addressing quality across the whole foodservice system.
conclusionPublished research and reports that examine the perspectives of interest-holders in residential aged care provided no consensus on definitions or clear sets of indicators defining foodservice quality. Further research is required to understand the perceptions of foodservice quality in order to guide the development and implementation of specific measures to support assessment and evaluation.
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.