... The remaining 33 articles were further evaluated in full text against the study selection criteria. Among them, eight articles evaluated the nutrition status of home-delivered meal program participants but without pre-post or cross-sectional comparisons (Coulston et al., 1996;Herndon, 1995;Lipschitz et al., 1985;Lo et al., 1989;Sharkey, 2002Sharkey, , 2004Sharkey and Schoenberg, 2002;Vailas et al., 1998), seven articles evaluated the nutritional value of home-delivered meals but without measuring participants' food or nutrient intakes (Barić et al., 2006;Beck et al., 2010;Bunker et al., 1986;Galea et al., 2013;Gatherer, 1971;Maclellan, 1997;O'Dwyer et al., 2009), five articles compared the effectiveness of different modes of homedelivered meal programs in increasing nutrient intakes and satisfaction among participants (the study designs were mode-to-mode rather than treated-to-untreated comparison) Gollub and Weddle 2004;Kretser et al., 2003;Osteraas et al., 1983;Silver et al., 2008), one article identified the nutritional needs (rather than food or nutrient intakes) of home-delivered meal program participants (Krassie et al., 2000), one article evaluated the impact of nutrition education and counseling (rather than the meals) on nutritional risk among home-delivered meal program participants (Wunderlich et al., 2011), and three articles examined home-delivered meal programs in other countries including Canada (Keller, 2006;Roy and Payette, 2006) and Belgium (Goeminne et al., 2012). Excluding the above articles yielded a final pool of eight studies (Edwards et al., 1993;Frongillo and Wolfe, 2010;Gleason et al., 2002;Marceaux, 2012;Ponza et al., 1996;Racine et al., 2012;Steele and Bryan, 1985;Troyer et al., 2010). ...