EAL

H/A: Foodborne Illness (2009)

Citation:

Study Design:

Class:

- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.

Quality Rating:

Research Purpose:

To explore the emergence of not-for-profit, community-based, home-delivered meal programs for homebound individuals with HIV/AIDS and discuss aspects of meal-program development that must be considered when formulating meal-program standards that meet the specialized nutritional needs of individuals with HIV/AIDS.

Inclusion Criteria:

Article inclusion criteria not described.

Exclusion Criteria:

Article exclusion criteria not described.

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment: Article selection methods not described

Design: Narrative review

Statistical Analysis: Not done.

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements: Not applicable

Dependent Variables: Not applicable

Independent Variables: Not applicable

Control Variables: Not applicable.

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N: 34 references cited

Attrition (final N): 34

Age: Not mentioned

Ethnicity: Not mentioned

Location: All home-delivered meal programs reviewed were based in the United States.

Summary of Results:

Agency	Number of Meals Served per Day	Number of Clients Served per Day	Nutrition Counseling
Project Open Hand	1,500	750	No
Moveable Feast	330	110	Yes
Community Servings	250	250	No
Open Hand Chicago	800	400	No
Food and Friends	1,050	350	Yes
Project Angel Heart, Denver Center for Living	100	136	No
Project Angel Food	520	520	Yes
Cure AIDS Now	860	800	Yes
Open Arms of Minnesota	80	80	No
Caring Cuisine, AIDS Project New Haven	45	15	No
Food for Friends	400	200	No
God's Love We Deliver	1,600	800	Yes
Metropolitan AIDS Neighborhood Nutrition Alliance	120	120-150	No
Food Outreach, Inc	220	110	No
Mama's Kitchen	300	240	Yes
Project Open Hand	1,800	1,800	Yes
Chicken Soup Brigade	875	175	Yes

Other Findings

The Task Force on Nutrition Support in AIDS, the Physicians Association for AIDS Care and The American Dietetic Association's Position Paper on the nutrition management of HIV disease have established that the course of HIV disease is complicated by symptoms such as anorexia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, malabsorption and hypermetabolism.

The adherence to food safety guidelines in the preparation and delivery of meals to homebound persons with HIV/AIDS is of utmost importance.

Persons with HIV/AIDS are at greater risk for contracting foodborne infections from organisms such as Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes and Campylobacter jejuni.

People with CD4 cell counts below 150 cells per cubic millimeter are at greater risk for contracting protozoal infection from Cryptosporidium parvum through unwashed food and unfiltered water.

Meal programs need strict food-handling procedures, particularly when training volunteers to assist with meal preparation.

Temperature studies are needed to ensure that the hot meals received by homebound clients are within an acceptable range.

Author Conclusion:

People living with HIV/AIDS may need the services of home-delivered meal programs throughout the course of HIV disease. Clinical dietitians and public health nutritionists should become familiar with existing programs and refer clients to services as needed.

Funding Source:

Reviewer Comments:

Article inclusion/exclusion criteria and selection methods not described.

Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
Relevance Questions
	1.	Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients?	Yes
	2.	Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about?	Yes
	3.	Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice?	Yes
	4.	Will the information, if true, require a change in practice?	Yes

Validity Questions
	1.	Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate?	Yes
	2.	Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described?	No
	3.	Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased?	No
	4.	Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible?	No
	5.	Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined?	Yes
	6.	Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered?	Yes
	7.	Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described?	No
	8.	Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included?	Yes
	9.	Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed?	Yes
	10.	Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely?	Yes