Grocery shopping as an outcome measure: A scoping review

Keith R. Cole; Sophie Minick; Leslie F. Davidson

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0324711

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 21, 2025
21 Jan 2025 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324711.r001
11 Apr 2025 Decision Letter - Rae Yule Kim, Editor PONE-D-25-03026Grocery shopping as an outcome measure: a scoping reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Cole, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 26 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Rae Yule Kim Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Please find the attached reviews. The majority of reviewers are favorable and agree that the paper makes a meaningful contribution, warranting publication in PLOS ONE pending minor revisions, most of which can be addressed through copyediting. In my assessment, the manuscript offers a valuable discussion on the potential of grocery shopping behavior as an indicator of cognitive impairment and related health conditions. Please address each of the reviewers' comments and submit the revised manuscript within one month. With your revision, please attach the original, high-resolution file for Figure 2 to ensure improved image quality in the final publication. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript titled :Grocery Shopping as an Outcome Measure: A Scoping Review. Your study presents a well-structured and comprehensive review of how grocery shopping has been used as a functional outcome measure across different populations and testing environments. I provide my detailed feedback on the manuscript, addressing its strengths and areas that require improvement. The study follows a scoping review methodology, ensuring a transparent and replicable research process.The review includes 58 studies from 15 different countries, covering a wide range of populations.The study highlights the cognitive and physical complexity of grocery shopping, reinforcing its potential as a functional assessment tool.The conclusions are largely supported by the reviewed literature, particularly regarding the relationship between cognitive decline, psychiatric disorders, and functional independence. Areas for Improvement: 1.The studies reviewed vary significantly in methodology, population, and assessment tools, making direct comparisons difficult. While this is a limitation of scoping reviews, it should be explicitly acknowledged. 2. The study does not conduct a meta-analysis or any quantitative synthesis, which limits the ability to draw strong numerical conclusions about trends across studies. Including a summary of key findings in percentages would enhance readability. 3.The Data Availability Statement confirms that all relevant data are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Supplemental Table 1 provides extracted study data, ensuring transparency. If possible, include a table summarizing key study findings numerically to improve data interpretation. Reviewer #2: This great scoping review describes the current literature that uses multiple subtasks of grocery shopping as an outcome measure. The authors adequately searched the major databases and selected 58 studies to characterize the study population, describe assessment delivery methods, and describe study outcomes. Major issues In the results, I couldn´t find references to the studies of Ogourtsova et al., 2018; Kizony et al., 2010 and Chang et al., 2022. in the study population section (lines 158-172). In the assessment delivery method section, I couldn´t find references to the studies of McGuire et al., 2006 and Bosley et al., 2004. Since these papers meet the inclusion criteria and were described in the country of origin section I think they should be described and cited in all other results sections. Minor issues In the introduction, the sentence "Both the SF-36 and PROMIS measures have been validated across a wide range of populations, including those experiencing aging, schizophrenia, and neurodegenerative diseases.[5, 6]" (lines 68-70) refers to the '36-Item Short Form Health Survey questionnaire' as SF-36, I think it is best to use the full name in this first reference and maintain the acronym in the next ones. In this same sentence, the author mentions populations experiencing aging, schizophrenia, and neurodegenerative diseases, however, the work of Hill et al., 2001 and Shields et al., 2008 (references 5 and 6) describes patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and adults with Down syndrome, respectively. I think it would be better if the authors could add references to populations experiencing aging, schizophrenia, and neurodegenerative diseases. Also, in line 70, and several other lines, the reference number is placed after the comma, the authors should carefully scan the paper to uniform this. In the introduction, the sentence "Verbal memory tests such as these have 79 been shown to be sensitive in the ability to detect differences in cognitive function in 80 conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease[9] and mild traumatic brain injury [9]." (lines 78-80) mention populations experiencing Alzheimer’s disease and mild traumatic brain injury, but the work of Leitner et al., 2019 describes a heterogeneous sample of people with traumatic brain injury. It would be better if the authors could add a reference directly related to populations experiencing Alzheimer’s too. The introduction section has excellent content, but, if the authors can group the related concepts and cut some words, it will be even better. In the discussion, the sentence "Of these 15 studies, nine emphasized the relationship between cognitive function and grocery shopping ability and how cognitive functioning in this population relates to being able to function independently in complex real-world tasks.[34-38, 41, 42, 56, 57]" (lines 221-224), I understand that by "these 15 studies" the authors mean the studies with individuals with psychiatric disorders. However, since the number 15 was used to refer to these studies only in the results section, maybe it's best to repeat something like "studies with individuals with psychiatric disorders" to make it clear. Don't forget to place the reference number before the comma. I found the sentence "These studies provide evidence that mobility devices (e.g., scooters) increase a person’s independence in grocery shopping and reported grocery shopping ability at baseline and two months following total hip arthroplasty is related to pain and one-year functional outcomes." (lines 284-287) a little bit hard to understand. I think it will be better If it can be divided into two small sentences. The sentence "Finally, and most markedly, there is a lack of ecologically valid functional assessments for people on the spectrum of ADRD, even though the definition of dementia includes the loss of ability to perform ADLs/IADLs." (lines 322-324) Maybe the authors should use 'Alzheimer's disease and related dementias' before using ADRD to make the paper more readable to people who are not from the field. Reviewer #3: In Figure 2, in the study population, instead of adult, write healthy adult. In the discussion, line 213, I think the correct word is neurocognitive instead of neurodevelopmental. In the study population, line 165 mentions a study that uses only a population with schizophrenia; but, in the discussion, line 221 mentions schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, it is not clear since they are two different disorders. In figure 2, the study population includes a study with people who have suffered a stroke, however, this is not mentioned in the results or in the discussion. For a better understanding of the graphs in figure 2, it would be good to include the number of studies within the graph. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Daniella F P C A Durço Reviewer #3: Yes: MARIA JOSE IRIAS ESCHER ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324711.r002
Revision 1
16 Apr 2025 Author Response Response to Reviewers We thank the reviewers and editor for your thoughtful appraisal and comments. Each reviewer-suggested change is listed and immediately followed by our response. Reviewer #1: 1. The studies reviewed vary significantly in methodology, population, and assessment tools, making direct comparisons difficult. While this is a limitation of scoping reviews, it should be explicitly acknowledged. The study does not conduct a meta-analysis or any quantitative synthesis, which limits the ability to draw strong numerical conclusions about trends across studies. We completely agree with your statement. We stated in the Study outcomes section previously “Although the heterogeneous nature of the studies included in this scoping review did not allow for meta-analysis, we did investigate the themes of the major findings of each study” We acknowledge that this is not a complete assessment of the limitations. We have now added the following sentence to the limitations section. “The studies reviewed varied significantly in methodology, population, and assessment tools, which limits the ability to make direct comparisons between studies and renders meta-analysis or quantitative synthesis impractical.“ 2. Including a summary of key findings in percentages would enhance readability. Thank you for this suggestion. We have now included percentages through the methods section along with the study counts for each category discussed. 3. Supplemental Table 1 provides extracted study data, ensuring transparency. If possible, include a table summarizing key study findings numerically to improve data interpretation. Thank you for this suggestion. Also in alignment with a comment from Reviewer 3, we have addressed this by including the number of studies for each result category in the pie chart, which hopefully will improve the ability for readers to quantify the subgroups that we were able to discuss in the results and discussion sections of this paper. Reviewer #2: 1. In the results, I couldn´t find references to the studies of Ogourtsova et al., 2018; Kizony et al., 2010 and Chang et al., 2022. in the study population section (lines 158-172). In the assessment delivery method section, I couldn´t find references to the studies of McGuire et al., 2006 and Bosley et al., 2004. Since these papers meet the inclusion criteria and were described in the country of origin section I think they should be described and cited in all other results sections. Thank you for catching this oversight! We absolutely agree that these studies should also be included in these sections. They have now been included in each section. In explanation, we inadvertently left stroke and the 3 associated citations out of the study population section. Citation errors were made in the assessment delivery, which have now been corrected. 1) McGuire 2006 is referenced for “IADL Profile” instead of Bier et al., 2013. In the same section, Bier et al., was accurately referenced for testing in a real-world grocery store in the previous draft. 2) Bosley et al., 2004 is now referenced in the statement of “only asked a specific question related to grocery shopping ability or independence” instead of Kiosses et al., 2005. Kiosses et al., 2005 is referenced correctly for the Multi-Level Assessment IADLS scale. 2. In the introduction, the sentence "Both the SF-36 and PROMIS measures have been validated across a wide range of populations, including those experiencing aging, schizophrenia, and neurodegenerative diseases.[5, 6]" (lines 68-70) refers to the '36-Item Short Form Health Survey questionnaire' as SF-36, I think it is best to use the full name in this first reference and maintain the acronym in the next ones. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This has now been corrected in the previous sentence where they first appear. 3. In this same sentence, the author mentions populations experiencing aging, schizophrenia, and neurodegenerative diseases, however, the work of Hill et al., 2001 and Shields et al., 2008 (references 5 and 6) describes patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and adults with Down syndrome, respectively. I think it would be better if the authors could add references to populations experiencing aging, schizophrenia, and neurodegenerative diseases. Thank you for bringing this oversight to our attention. This is now updated with references for these specific populations. 4. Also, in line 70, and several other lines, the reference number is placed after the comma, the authors should carefully scan the paper to uniform this. Thank you for catching this inconsistency. Reference numbers are now placed before all commas and periods. 5. In the introduction, the sentence "Verbal memory tests such as these have 79 been shown to be sensitive in the ability to detect differences in cognitive function in 80 conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease[9] and mild traumatic brain injury [9]." (lines 78-80) mention populations experiencing Alzheimer’s disease and mild traumatic brain injury, but the work of Leitner et al., 2019 describes a heterogeneous sample of people with traumatic brain injury. It would be better if the authors could add a reference directly related to populations experiencing Alzheimer’s too. Thank you for catching this referencing error. This is now corrected with an appropriate reference to a study involving those affected by Alzheimer’s disease. 5. The introduction section has excellent content, but, if the authors can group the related concepts and cut some words, it will be even better. We appreciate the comment and have reviewed the introduction in the context of the rest of the manuscript. We believe that the format of the current manuscript is important to demonstrate the multi-layered paradigm that is key to understanding dual and multi-tasking in an ecologically valid environment. If we group concepts together, the information does not reflect the complex nature of what we have been trying to understand. We hope that helps clarify. 6. In the discussion, the sentence "Of these 15 studies, nine emphasized the relationship between cognitive function and grocery shopping ability and how cognitive functioning in this population relates to being able to function independently in complex real-world tasks.[34-38, 41, 42, 56, 57]" (lines 221-224), I understand that by "these 15 studies" the authors mean the studies with individuals with psychiatric disorders. However, since the number 15 was used to refer to these studies only in the results section, maybe it's best to repeat something like "studies with individuals with psychiatric disorders" to make it clear. Thank you for this suggestion. The statement has been changed to “Of the studies including individuals with psychiatric disorders, “ 7. I found the sentence "These studies provide evidence that mobility devices (e.g., scooters) increase a person’s independence in grocery shopping and reported grocery shopping ability at baseline and two months following total hip arthroplasty is related to pain and one-year functional outcomes." (lines 284-287) a little bit hard to understand. I think it will be better If it can be divided into two small sentences. Thank you for this suggestion. The sentence has been broken up into two sentences: “These studies provide evidence that mobility devices (e.g., scooters) increase a person’s independence in grocery shopping. These studies also report findings that reported grocery shopping ability at baseline and two months following total hip arthroplasty is related to pain and one-year functional outcomes.“ 8. The sentence "Finally, and most markedly, there is a lack of ecologically valid functional assessments for people on the spectrum of ADRD, even though the definition of dementia includes the loss of ability to perform ADLs/IADLs." (lines 322-324) Maybe the authors should use 'Alzheimer's disease and related dementias' before using ADRD to make the paper more readable to people who are not from the field. Thank you for the suggestion. This has been changed accordingly. Reviewer #3: 1. In Figure 2, in the study population, instead of adult, write healthy adult. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This is now corrected. 2. In the discussion, line 213, I think the correct word is neurocognitive instead of neurodevelopmental. Thank you for catching this typographical error. This is now corrected. 3. In the study population, line 165 mentions a study that uses only a population with schizophrenia; but, in the discussion, line 221 mentions schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, it is not clear since they are two different disorders. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Some of the included studies examined both schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder in the same study. This statement has been revised to “schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder[]”. 4. In figure 2, the study population includes a study with people who have suffered a stroke, however, this is not mentioned in the results or in the discussion. We apologize; this is now included in the results in the “Study populations” section. 5. For a better understanding of the graphs in figure 2, it would be good to include the number of studies within the graph. Thank you for this suggestion. We have now added the number of studies in each wedge of each pie chart. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324711.r003
30 Apr 2025 Decision Letter - Rae Yule Kim, Editor Grocery shopping as an outcome measure: a scoping review PONE-D-25-03026R1 Dear Dr. Cole, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Rae Yule Kim Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors present a well-organized and insightful scoping review examining the use of grocery shopping as a complex instrumental activity of daily living in functional outcome assessments across diverse populations. The manuscript is well-structured and comprehensive, and the authors have clearly responded to prior reviewer suggestions with thoughtful revisions. Several aspects of the study are commendable, including the systematic application of the PRISMA-ScR methodology, inclusion of diverse study populations, and the emphasis on cognitive and physical multitasking demands inherent to grocery shopping. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: Yes: CHIU PO EN Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324711.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Rae Yule Kim, Editor PONE-D-25-03026R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Cole, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Rae Yule Kim Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324711.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .