ArticlePloS one2025
Grocery shopping as an outcome measure: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- How does it feel to be helped using minimal cognitive assistance following a traumatic brain injury?Australian occupational therapy journal · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundGrocery shopping is a complex Instrumental Activity of Daily Living (IADL) requiring cognitive and physical components that can be used to assess functional performance. Real-world physical and cognitive demands of grocery shopping occur simultaneously; however, many existing outcome measures only include a single domain or subtask. The objective of this review is to examine how grocery shopping as a whole, or multiple simultaneous subtasks of grocery shopping, has been used as a functional outcomes measure.
methodsPeer-reviewed manuscripts in the English language were retrieved from PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane published on or before December 20, 2024. Articles were included if an outcome measure included multiple subtasks of grocery shopping and excluded if an outcome was related to only a single subtask of grocery shopping. Extracted data included Author(s), Publication Title, Publication Year, Study Location, Study population, Grocery Setting (Virtual, Real-World, Simulated, or Patient Reported Answers), Grocery-specific measure, and Grocery-Specific outcome results.
resultsFifty-eight studies were included from 15 different countries. The most common populations studied were healthy adults (15) and psychiatric disorders (15). Common methods of assessment included patient-reported outcome measures (22), virtual reality (17), and physically simulated or real grocery shopping (20). Only three studies examined naturalistic, free-living grocery shopping. Outcomes were related to cognitive functioning (28), physical or motor impairments (23), or behavioral aspects of shopping (9).
conclusionsThis review provides critical insights into how grocery shopping has been adopted as a performance outcome measure across populations and testing environments. Despite the growing recognition of grocery shopping as a useful measure, gaps remain in the literature, especially related to a lack of studies that integrate cognitive and physical domains or explore its use in populations with combined cognitive and physical impairments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.