Exploring and understanding perceptions and definitions of foodservice quality in residential aged care: A scoping review.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Jessica Zilujko, Karen Abbey, Sandra Capra
{"title":"Exploring and understanding perceptions and definitions of foodservice quality in residential aged care: A scoping review.","authors":"Jessica Zilujko, Karen Abbey, Sandra Capra","doi":"10.1111/1747-0080.70005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Identify and describe research that explores interest-holder perceptions and definitions of foodservice quality in residential aged care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Published 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":19368,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition & Dietetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition & Dietetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.70005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Identify and describe research that explores interest-holder perceptions and definitions of foodservice quality in residential aged care.

Methods: This 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.

Results: A 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.

Conclusion: Published 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.

目的:确定并描述探讨利益相关者对养老院餐饮服务质量的看法和定义的研究:本综述采用乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute)的方法框架进行范围界定综述,并使用 "系统综述和元分析首选报告项目"(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews)清单进行报告。使用 PubMed、Embase、CINAHL 和 Scopus 搜索同行评议文献。灰色文献则通过谷歌和六个澳大利亚政府资料来源进行搜索。对发表的方法、年份或地理位置没有限制。利用元综合法将研究结果归纳为不同的利益持有者和餐饮服务成分组:本综述共收录了 31 篇符合条件的文献,包括同行评审文献(17 篇)和灰色文献(14 篇)。确定看法的文献(n = 23)主要是居民的看法(n = 11),而质量的定义(n = 13)则全部由研究人员和专家描述。尽管大家都认为餐饮服务质量与居民对食品或膳食的接受程度有关,但对质量的定义却缺乏共识,没有一篇文献涉及整个餐饮服务系统的质量问题:结论:已发表的研究和报告对养老院利益相关者的观点进行了审查,但对餐饮服务质量的定义或明确的指标没有达成共识。需要进一步开展研究,以了解人们对餐饮服务质量的看法,从而指导具体措施的制定和实施,为评估和评价提供支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nutrition & Dietetics
Nutrition & Dietetics 医学-营养学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
16.10%
发文量
69
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nutrition & Dietetics is the official journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia. Covering all aspects of food, nutrition and dietetics, the Journal provides a forum for the reporting, discussion and development of scientifically credible knowledge related to human nutrition and dietetics. Widely respected in Australia and around the world, Nutrition & Dietetics publishes original research, methodology analyses, research reviews and much more. The Journal aims to keep health professionals abreast of current knowledge on human nutrition and diet, and accepts contributions from around the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信