Experimental Evaluation of Intergenerational Mealtime at a Shared Site: A Randomized Wait-listed Controlled Trial
Phase: NA
Conditions: Healthy Nutrition, Intergenerational Relations, Well-being, Relational Care, Eating, Mealtimes
Sponsor: Universidad de Granada

 
 
 
 
 
 
Experimental Evaluation of Intergenerational Mealtime at a Shared Site: A 
Randomized Wait-listed Controlled Trial 
 
 
 
Date: May 9, 2025 
 
 
 
 
 
Study Protocol with Statistical Analysis Plan and Informed Consent Form 
 
 

1 
1. Theoretical Framework 
The term Intergenerational Dining Room (IGD) refers to the intentional and planned 
space and experience that enables people from different generations to periodically 
share the experience of eating together in settings dedicated to service provision 
(e.g. residential centers or schools), community work, intergenerational practices, 
etc. The IGD conceptual approach to be piloted is based on the intersection of three 
key areas: 
- 
Relationship-centered Care (RCC): scientific evidence suggests that care 
should focus on promoting meaningful relationships, rather than approaching 
people solely from an individualistic perspective of care (Gopinath et al., 2023; 
Kartupelis, 2020). 
- 
Life-course perspective and feeding: the act of eating is a social practice that 
cuts across the life course and contributes to the construction of 
intergenerational relationships (Lawless et al., 2024). Previous studies have 
pointed to the importance of eating as a space for interaction and learning 
between generations (Bruce et al., 2022; Norouzi et al., 2023). 
- 
Commensality, education and nutritional health in care spaces: research has 
shown that intergenerational programs have the capacity to improve the 
nutrition of their participants and promote healthy eating habits, especially in 
settings where adequate food is a challenge (Jarrott et al., 2021a, 2021b). 
Despite growing interest in these approaches, empirical evidence remains limited, 
especially for structured IGD interventions with rigorous evaluation of their impact. 
This Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) is justified on several methodological and 
scientific grounds: 
- 
Lack of robust experimental evidence: while there are observational and 
qualitative studies of intergenerational programs, few have used experimental 
designs to causally assess their effects on well-being, eating and 
intergenerational perceptions. 
- 
Need for rigorous evaluation: validating the impact of IGD requires a design 
that allows comparison of intervention and control groups, minimizing bias 
and ensuring internal validity. 
- 
Multi-dimensional impact evaluation: the aim is to analyze the effect of the 
intervention on aspects such as healthy eating, social well-being and health, 
which advised a mixed methodological approach, integrating quantitative 
measures (e.g., indicators of change in dietary intake and well-being) with a 
qualitative analysis of participants' lived experience (e.g., focused 
ethnography). 
- 
Replicability: an experimentally validated model facilitates its implementation 
in other contexts, allowing for the development of an evidence-based 
implementation guide. 
This trial will provide a systematic evaluation of the mechanisms and outcomes of 
the IGD model examined, offering a framework for leveraging this type of dining 
room in future intergenerational policies. 

2 
2. Objectives 
The overall objective will be to assess the impact of participation in an IGD on eating, 
nutrition education, well-being and intergenerational perceptions in young children 
and older adults through a three-arm wait-listed RCT. 
The specific objectives are as follows: 
- 
To design and implement an IGD in a controlled institutional setting 
(Macrosad’s Intergenerational Reference Center (CINTER)), ensuring the 
feasibility of the model and adequate interaction between generations. 
- 
To evaluate the influence of IGD on relationship-centered care, measuring 
changes in the quality of the relational and social environment during 
mealtimes. 
- 
To measure the impact of an IGD on nutrition education by analyzing 
improvements in participants' knowledge and awareness of healthy eating. 
- 
To Determine the effect of IGD on healthy eating and well-being by assessing 
changes in food intake, food leftovers and subjective health perception. 
- 
To analyze the impact of IGD on intergenerational perceptions, measuring 
changes in attitudes and stereotypes of toddlers about older people and vice 
versa. 
- 
To validate the results and replicability of the IGD model, ensuring its 
applicability in other contexts through a set of implementation indicators 
(acceptability, appropriateness, adoption and sustainability). 
 
2.1. Hypothesis 
General hypothesis: 
Participation in an intergenerational dining room is an effective means of improving 
relationship-centered care, nutrition education and healthy eating, generates benefits 
in the health and well-being of participants and promotes a more positive perception 
among the generational groups involved. 
Sub-hypothesis (sH): Getting involved in an IGD… 
sH1: improves participants' relationship-centered care and eating experience. 
sH2: improves participants' nutrition education (attention and knowledge). 
sH3: improves the practice of healthy eating and thus participants' subjective 
perception of health and well-being. 
sH4: improves participants' positive appraisal of other generations, i.e. the 
development of generational intelligence. 
Each of these hypotheses will be tested by applying quantitative and qualitative 
techniques in the different phases of the study. 

3 
3. Setting  
The Macrosad's Intergenerational Reference Center (CINTER), located in Albolote 
(Granada, Spain), opened its doors in September 2018 with the aim of fostering 
coexistence and meaningful interaction between children aged 0 to 3, older adults, 
and practitioners (e.g., teachers, psychologists, physiotherapists, and so on). The 
center brings together under one roof a nursery school and a day center for older 
people, offering a unique environment designed to promote intergenerational 
exchange. Since its opening, the CINTER has consistently maintained high 
occupancy levels, with approximately 70 children enrolled in the nursery and around 
40 older adults attending the day center, reflecting the strong demand and positive 
impact of its innovative approach. 
 
4. Methods  
4.1 Study Design 
A three-arm RCT with a waiting list has been designed to assess the impact of an 
intentional IGD compared to a control group, minimizing bias and ensuring internal 
validity. 
The study will include two main phases: 
1) Initial intervention phase (weeks 1-8): an immediate intervention group (eating 
at the IGD) and a waiting group having lunch with peers. 
2) Delayed intervention phase (weeks 9-16): the wait-listed group will switch to 
the intervention (eating at the IGD), while the control group will remain at the 
peer-based dining room without being exposed to the IGD. 
The composition of the three groups of participants is detailed below: 
Intervention Group #1 (IG1) (first stage: weeks 1-8): 
- 
5 so-called older friends (OF, i.e., older people from the Day Center. 
- 
5 so-called younger friends (YF), i.e., toddlers aged 2-3 years from the nursery 
school. 
Intervention Group #2 (IG2) (second stage: weeks 9-16): 
- 
5 OF and 5 YF, equivalent to the first group, who start the intervention in the 
second phase. 
Control Group (CG) (no intervention): 
- 
11 OF and 12 YF maintain their usual routine without participation in the IGD 
throughout the study. 

4 
Randomization is performed in a 1:1:1 ratio ensuring equal allocation of participants 
to groups: 
- 
Intervention Group #1 (IG1) = 10 participants (5 OF + 5 YF) 
- 
Intervention Group #2 (waitlisted) (IG2) = 10 participants (5 OF + 5 YF) 
- 
Control group (CG) = 23 participants (11 OF + 12 YF) 
A computational random number generator is used to allocate participants to the 
three groups. 
Each intervention phase lasts 8 weeks with approximately 30 lunch sessions per 
group. Different types of measurements are taken at five key points in time: 
- 
t1 (baseline): Before starting the intervention (for all groups). 
- 
t2 (middle of the first stage): Mid-term assessment in first stage. 
- 
t3 (end of first stage): Final assessment of IG1 and pre-intervention 
assessment of IG2. 
- 
t4 (middle of the second stage): Mid-term evaluation of IG2. 
- 
t5 (end of second stage): Final evaluation of IG2 and final evaluation of the 
control group. 
Informed consent will be obtained from all participants and their legal guardians in 
the case of YF. In addition, the guidelines of the University of Granada’s Research 
Ethics Committee will be followed, ensuring compliance with ethical standards and 
data privacy. 
Flow chart of the experimental study: 

5 
 
 
4.2 Sample 
The sample size for the IGD trial was determined in the framework of a three-arm 
wait-listed randomized controlled trial and taking into account the limitations to run 
this trial at the CINTER, i.e., the overall number of participants meeting inclusion 
criteria was small. 
Intervention Group #1 (Weeks 1-8): 
- 
5 Older Friends (OF) from the day center. 
- 
5 Young Friends (YF) 2-3 years old from the nursery school. 
Waiting list groups (entering in Weeks 8-16): 

6 
- 
5 additional OF from the day center. 
- 
5 additional YF from the nursery school. 
- 
 
Control group: 
- 
11 OF. 
- 
12 YF. 
These figures make up a total of 43 participants (21 OF and 22 YF), selected 
according to specific criteria such as ability to eat independently and permanence in 
the center until July 2025. 
They will be assessed at 5 points in time (pre-test, mid-intervention, post-test, mid-
second stage and final), with quantitative and qualitative measurements detailed in 
the methodology. 
 
4.3 Intervention 
The interventions implemented for the two experimental groups (Intervention Group 
#1 (IG1) and Intervention Group #2 (IG2)) were identical in design, duration, 
frequency, content and implementation conditions, in order to ensure comparability 
of the observed effects. 
Common characteristics: 
- 
Duration: 8 weeks per stage. 
- 
Frequency: 4 sessions per week at the IGD, with a total of approximately 30 
shared meals. 
- 
Setting: same physical space of intergenerational dining room adapted within 
the CINTER. 
- 
Participants: 5 older people (OF) and 5 children (YF) per group, selected under 
the same eligibility criteria. 
- 
Guided interaction: educational and care staff accompanied the sessions 
under a common intervention protocol. 
- 
Evaluation: the same observation tools, scales and interviews were applied to 
both groups. 
- 
The only difference between the two groups was the starting time of the 
intervention: IG1 started in week 1 whereas IG2 did it in week 9 (after having 
acted as a comparison group during the first phase). 
The control group (CG), on the other hand, did not receive any intervention and 
continued their usual routine. This allowed to assess changes attributable 
exclusively to the intergenerational dining experience, while maintaining 
methodological consistency.

7 
4.4 Data collection  
Time Point 
Evaluated Change 
Instruments 
Target Group 
Methods 
t1 (Baseline) 
Food intake/waste, 
food preferences 
(Wilkinson et al., 2022), 
nutrition education, 
children’s views on 
older adults, older 
adults' attitudes toward 
children, relational care 
during meals, subjective 
health and well-being 
(older adults), well-
being and empathy 
(children) 
Comstock 
Method(Chavez & 
Peréz, 2024; Egaña et 
al., 2023; Llorens & 
Soler, 2017), Ad hoc 
survey, Nutriplato®-
based nutritional 
education activities 
(Nguyen, 2007; Termes 
et al., 2024), word 
association (Flamion et 
al., 2020, visual analog 
scale, semantic 
differential (Pinquart et 
al., 2000), 
Intergenerational 
Attitudes Scale (dos 
Santos et al., 2016), 
Mealtime Scan+ (Keller 
et al., 2019), WHO-5, 
Rosenberg’s Self-
Esteem Scale 
(Rosenberg, 1965), EQ-
5D (EuroQol Research 
YF, OF, YF’s parents 
Visual estimation, 
structured observation, 
questionnaires, 
interviews, scales, 
parent &teacher reports 

8 
Foundation, 2024), Early 
Childhood Empathy 
Scale (Kimonis et al., 
2023), Leuven Scale 
(Laevers, 1994). 
t2 (Mid 1st cycle) 
Food intake/waste, 
reaction to food items, 
relational care during 
meals 
Comstock Method, 
Mealtime Scan+, notes 
from observation 
YF and OF 
Visual estimation, 
structured and 
unstructured 
observation, 
ethnographic methods 
(Alcock, 2011; 
Knoblauch, 2005). 
t3 (End 1st cycle) 
Food intake/waste, 
reaction to food 
items,food preferences, 
nutrition education, 
children’s views on 
older adults, older 
adults' attitudes toward 
children, relational care, 
subjective health and 
well-being (older 
adults), well-being and 
empathy (children), 
Same as t1 plus 
qualitative interviews 
(Weltizen, 2024), notes 
from observation 
YF, OF, YF’s parents 
Visual estimation, 
structured and 
unstructured 
observation, 
questionnaires, 
interviews, scales, 
ethnographic methods 

9 
shared mealtime 
experience 
t4 (Mid 2nd cycle) 
Food intake/waste, 
reaction to food items, 
relational care during 
meals 
Comstock Method, 
Mealtime Scan+, notes 
from observation 
YF and OF 
Visual estimation, 
structured and 
unstructured 
observation, 
ethnographic methods 
t5 (End 2nd stage) 
Food intake/waste, 
reaction to food items, 
food preferences, 
nutrition education, 
children’s views on 
older adults, older 
adults' attitudes toward 
children, relational care, 
subjective health and 
well-being (older 
adults), well-being and 
empathy (children), 
shared mealtime 
experience 
Same as t3 
YF, OF, YF’s parents 
Visual estimation, 
structured and 
unstructured 
observation, 
questionnaires, 
interviews, scales, 
ethnographic methods 
Legend: YF = Younger Friends (toddlers aged 2–3); OF = Older Friends.

10 
4.5 Statistical Analysis Plan 
The number of participants in the trial (42 people of whom 10 toddlers and 10 
seniors are expected to be part of the intervention arms while the remaining 22 (11 
toddlers and 11 seniors) remain in the control group) is limited by the maximum 
capacity of the intergenerational experimentation center to accommodate users. 
Consequently, the statistical analysis will require a combination of tests depending 
on the distribution of the data in each case. 
At baseline, various descriptive profile data were collected for both older people 
(e.g., sex, age, SDG level, risk of dysphagia, weight, height or calf circumference) and 
toddlers (e.g., sex, age, weight, height, contact with grandparents). These variables, 
according to their nature (binary nominal, non-binary nominal, ordinal or continuous), 
will be described by means of means, standard deviations, ranges, frequencies or 
percentages. In order to check the equivalence between the intervention and control 
groups, and depending on non-normality/normality, the Fisher's exact test, Chi-
square test, Fisher-Freeman-Halton test, Mann-Whitney U test or Student's t-test will 
be applied (Shapiro-Wilk test; in case of p > 0,05, Student/Welch t-test may be used). 
In relation to the intake of healthy foods by children and older people and given that 
each participant in the intervention is expected to reach about 30 meals, a mixed-
effects multilevel model with group, phase and session fixation will be used. The 
average effect of the intervention will be the coefficient of the group x phase 
interaction. This type of model allows for some missing data, something very 
predictable in this trial, as long as that loss is random. To make sure that this is the 
case, the Little's test for Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) will be used. If this 
is the case, multiple imputation and sensitivity analysis will be applied. Post-meal 
leftovers data per participant will consist of mean scores after assessment by 3 
investigators.The degree of inter-rater reliability will be assessed using either 
Kendall's W statistic (acceptance threshold W ≥ 0.70) or Intraclass Correlation 
Coefficient (two-way, absolute agreement). 
Regarding nutritional education and intergenerational attitudes by toddlers 
(semantic differential on visual analog scale) and older people (semantic differential 
and Intergenerational Exchanges Attitude Scale) different generalized linear mixed-
effects models (LMM Gaussian) with group (intervention vs control), time (4 time 
points) and group x time (interaction) fixation will be estimated. With the 5 words 
provided by toddlers (a warm-up question before delving into the semantic 
differential) the frequency of occurrence and co-occurrence matrices will be 
calculated to see which terms appear together. Depending on the profile of these 
terms, an average valence score can also be carried out to see how positive or 
negative the sentiment expressed by toddlers is. The multiple correspondence 
analysis technique will allow us to represent in a two-dimensional space how these 
words are grouped according to time and group (intervention vs control). 
The data on relationship-centered environment using the Mealtime Scan+ instrument 
(once due training of two raters was carried out until meeting required inter-rater 
reliability as measured by Cohen’s Kappa (acceptance threshold K ≥ 0.70)) will be 
analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model with effects fixed by dining room 

11 
(intergenerational, older people 1, older people 2, children), time (4 time points) and 
dining room x time (interaction to detect whether changes differ between dining 
rooms).  
As for the subjective health and well-being data (older people), 3 linear mixed-effects 
univariate models will be proposed to evaluate how the subjective perception of 
health (WHO-5 Well-being Index and EQ-5D) and self-esteem (Rosenberg's Self-
Esteem Scale) may have changed.  
Finally, the statistical analysis of children's well-being, based on 9 items of the 
“Measure of Early Childhood Empathy” scale completed by toddlers' parents and 
teachers will be performed with the mean value of the two scores obtained for each 
toddler. Then, a linear mixed-effects model with attention to time (3 time points), 
group (intervention vs control) and group x time (possible change between groups) 
will be composed. A similar process will be followed regarding the Leuven Scale. 
In each of the models, the most appropriate covariates (e.g., level of education) and 
confounding variables (e.g., contact with grandparents and grandchildren, 
respectively) will be introduced. LMM might become GLMM depending on the nature 
of the dependent variable at stake. The convenience of centering the continuous 
variables (age, baseline score) to improve the interpretability of the intercept and 
convergence will be considered. 
Given that the study as a whole uses a mixed methodology (quantitative and 
qualitative), it should be noted that focused ethnography (applied, for example, to 
analyze the place-based eating experience, commensality and also relationship-
centered care, in a different way than the Mealtime Scan+ instrument) will use 
qualitative analysis techniques such as thematic analysis (with NVivo support) that 
will take into account the longitudinal nature of the collected data. 
 
5. Informed Consent Form 
5.1 Participant Information Document  
Note: the content of the document will be adapted for easy reading and 
comprehension by participants with different profiles. 
Details of the principal investigator (PI) of the project 
Name and surname: Mariano Sánchez Martínez 
Center, telephone, e-mail: Faculty of Political Science and Sociology, University of 
Granada. Political Science and Sociology, University of Granada. Tel: 958248070. E-
mail: marianos@ugr.es 
Data on the project 
Title and source of funding 

12 
Intergenerational Dining Room (IGD): proof of concept, prototyping, small-scale 
piloting and validation. 
Project description 
The IGD project aims to work, always within the intergenerational field, around the 
following aspects: (1) improving our attention to what we eat (increased sensitivity); 
(2) increasing our knowledge of what we eat (knowledge development); (3) living the 
experience of sharing a table with different generations in places where this does 
not usually happen (strengthening intra- and extra-familial generational intelligence); 
(4) the practice - or at least the observation - of relationships and mutual help 
between different people who eat together (promoting mutual support, care and 
solidarity in relation to the need to feed themselves). 
To this end, the project aims to analyze and explain, for a specific institutional 
context - an intergenerational shared site - not only the type of feeding/nutrition but 
also some of the processes, causal mechanisms and impacts associated with 
lunchtime as a social act and intergenerational practice that connects generations in 
spaces where this connection takes place to different degrees and in different ways. 
In this way, it is hoped that feeding oneself, as a psychological, social, economic, 
political and cultural fact, and nutrition, as a fundamentally physiological and health-
related fact, can be associated with the idea of a beneficial connection between 
family and non-family generations. This validated IGD model may constitute a 
transformative space because of its capacity to generate relational benefits for a 
sustainable shared life. 
Data collection throughout the project will use combined procedures such as 
interviews, focus groups, ethnography (with image and sound collection), 
quantitative scales on health and well-being and analysis of nutritional habits (e.g. 
leftovers control, weight monitoring...). Such collection will be carried out from the 
beginning of the project but especially during the experimental phase (February-June 
2025) consisting of a two-arm controlled and wait-listed trial.  
All data collected will be anonymized, so that none of the participants can be 
identified, and will only be available to the project research team. This data will be 
deposited in an electronic archive (Drive space of the University of Granada) under 
the custody of the PI. 
Nature, importance and expected benefits of the project 
• To test whether an intergenerational dining room can enable, through 
appropriate interactions between generations, people to feel cared for - 
through the relationships they maintain. 
• To appreciate food as a social act. 
• To improve nutritional health and to increase appreciation of diversity and 
some life-course changes. 
• To find out whether an intergenerational dining room might become a 
transformative space because of its potential to recreate a sense of ‘us’, away 

13 
from the weakening of social cohesion connected to a fearful and pessimistic 
view of community. 
 
It is hoped that all of this will have a positive impact on participants’ well-being and 
happiness. 
Implications and risks, if any, of the research to be undertaken 
In principle, and in general, the possible risks and implications derived from the 
research are controlled by the protocols for the protection of people set at the 
experimental center: the Macrosad Intergenerational Center in Albolote (CINTER). 
However, specific discussions on risks and implications have been held with the 
people responsible for the management of the services for the older people and for 
toddlers at the CINTER. Conclusion of these discussions confirms that there are 
safety procedures already in place for the correct management of all services for 
older and younger clients at CINTER. 
Potential use of research results 
No immediate commercial use of the results is foreseen, although they may be used 
in academic publications and dissemination actions, including, with prior 
authorization, the presentation of images and videos on the development of the 
project. Anonymized data may be published in scientific journals, conferences, 
seminars, websites and dissemination channels of the University of Granada, the 
Macrosad Chair in Intergenerational Studies, and elsewhere.  
Measures are in place to ensure adequate compensation due to any damage or 
inconvenience caused by the research. However, no compensation for expenses or 
inconvenience is envisaged. 
All data will be treated anonymously and confidentially. Participation in the project in 
general and in fieldwork in particular is voluntary and the right to withdraw from the 
research may be exercised at any time without any impact onparticipants. 
Confidentiality and data processing 
The processing of personal data of all participating subjects will comply with the 
provisions of REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
OF THE COUNCIL of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard 
to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and 
repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) and Organic Law 
3/2018 of 5 December on the Protection of Personal Data and the guarantee of 
digital rights. In accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned legislation, 
you may exercise your rights of access, rectification, deletion, opposition and 
limitation by contacting the General Secretariat by electronic means through the 
Electronic Register of the University of Granada: https://sede.ugr.es/sede/.  

14 
You can obtain additional information about exercising your rights in the field of data 
protection at the following e-mail address: protecciondedatos@ugr.es 
If you consider that your request has not been answered in time or has not been 
adequately dealt with by our institution, you may contact the Data Protection 
Delegate of the University, explaining everything you consider necessary in defense 
of your rights, either by e-mail (dpd@ugr.es) or by post (Hospital Real, Avda. del 
Hospicio, s/n. 18071 Granada). 
If you prefer, you can file a complaint directly with the Council for Transparency and 
Data Protection of Andalusia, although it is possible that this may require, prior to its 
reply, information from the Data Protection Delegate of the University of Granada. 
 
5.2 Participant’s consent 
I, , with D.N.I. nº.                                                  
I have spoken to the professional responsible for the study. 
I have read the information sheet corresponding to the project ‘Intergenerational 
Dining Room (IGD): proof of concept, prototyping, small-scale piloting and validation’, 
which has been given to me. 
The general characteristics and the main objective of the study have been explained 
to me. 
I have understood the research to be carried out with my participation and the use of 
the information I will provide, and I have had the opportunity to resolve any doubts 
about it. 
I know that my data will be kept confidential. 
I give my consent voluntarily and I know that I am free to withdraw from the study at 
any time and to request the withdrawal of any information I have provided up to that 
point. 
Lack of consent at the start of the study or withdrawal of consent after the start of 
the study will not harm me (in any other right) or discriminate me. 
I will be informed, with my consent, of the data that will be collected during the 
research and how this information will be obtained. 
I understand that I can withdraw from the study: 
• Whenever I want.  
• Without having to give explanations.  
• Without any repercussions for me in any way. 

15 
Additional information about the study:  
• The staff working on this study have signed a confidentiality commitment 
with the University of Granada, so due confidentiality is guaranteed. 
• Participants' data, once collected, will be anonymised/pseudonymised.   
As a consequence of the above, in each case I tick one of the following boxes for 
consent: 
Consent to participate in the study 
I agree to participate in this research study and may withdraw from the study at any 
time if I wish to do so. 
Consent to the processing of personal data 
☐ YES I consent to my personal data being processed by the University of Granada. 
(You may withdraw your consent to the processing of your personal data at any time 
through the University of Granada's website: (https://sede.ugr.es/procs/Proteccion-
de-datos-personales-Ejercicio-del-derecho-a-retirar-el-consentimiento-prestado/). 
☐ I do NOT consent to my personal data being processed by the University of 
Granada.  
Other consents: 
☐ YES I authorise the data obtained during the research (with the relevant legal 
exceptions) to be communicated to me by post. 
☐ I DO NOT consent to the data obtained during the research (with the relevant legal 
exceptions) being communicated to me. 
Date:  
Signature of the participant: 
Fdo: 
Date:  
Signature of the professional responsible for the study 
Basic Information on Data Protection 
Responsible party:UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA 
Legitimation:The University is legitimized to process your personal data because it is 
necessary for the fulfilment of a mission carried out in the public interest or in the 
exercise of public powers conferred on the data controller: Art. 6.1 e) RGPD, and art. 
6.1.a) RGPD. 

16 
Purpose: To manage participation in the research study‘ Intergenerational Dining 
Room (IGD): proof of concept, prototyping, small-scale piloting and validation’. 
Recipients:No transfer of personal data is foreseen.  
Rights:You have the right to request access, opposition, rectification, erasure or 
restriction of the processing of your data, as explained in the additional information 
section below. 
Additional information:You can consult additional and detailed information on data 
protection, at the following link: https://secretariageneral.ugr.es/unidades/oficina-
proteccion-datos/guia/clausulas-informativas-sobre-proteccion-de-datos/info-
adicional-produccion-investigadora 
 
6. References 
Alcock, C. L., Camic, P. M., Barker, C., Haridi, C., & Raven, R. (2011). Intergenerational 
practice in the community: A focused ethnographic evaluation. Journal of 
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 21(5), 419-432. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1084  
Bruce, J. S., Lien, T. N., George, E., Puri, V., Ramirez, M., & Merrell, S. B. (2022). 
Examination of an intergenerational summer meal program for children and 
older adults. Journal of Community Health, 47(6), 902-913. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-022-01125-0 
Chavez, M. A. B., & Pérez, C. B. (2024). Validación de la estimación visual con 
fotografías para medir el desperdicio alimentario del almuerzo en adultos 
mayores de un hospital nacional peruano. Nutrición Clínica y Dietética 
Hospitalaria, 44(2). https://doi.org/10.12873/442benavides 
Egaña Txurruka, I., Valcárcel Alonso, S., Macazaga Perea, N., Oria Eraso, C., & García-
Baquero Moneo, G. (2023). Evaluation of food intake through residual analysis 
in 
90 
Basque 
school 
canteens. 
Gaceta 
Sanitaria, 
37, 
102256. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2022.102256 
EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-Y-5L User Guide, 2024. Available from: 
https://euroqol.org/information-and-support/documentation/user-guides. 
Flamion, A., Missotten, P., Jennotte, L., Hody, N., & Adam, S. (2020). Old age-related 
stereotypes of preschool children. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 807. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00807 
Gopinath, M., de Lappe, J., Larkin, M., & Wilson, A. (2023). The value and practice of 
relational care with older people: a research report by The Open University. 
https://oro.open.ac.uk/88675/8/Relational%20care%20report_ORO%20VERS
ION%20EDIT.pdf 
Jarrott, S. E., Cao, Q., Dabelko-Schoeny, H. I., & Kaiser, M. L. (2021a). Developing 
intergenerational interventions to address food insecurity among pre-school 
children: A community-based participatory approach. Journal of Hunger & 
Environmental Nutrition, 16(2), 196-212. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2019.1640827 

17 
Jarrott, S. E., Juckett, L. A., Naar, J. J., Scrivano, R. M., & Lobb, J. M. (2021b). 
Addressing Children's Nutritional Needs with Community-Based 
Participatory Action Research. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: 
Research, Education, and Action, 15(3), 327-336. 
https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2021.0035 
Kartupelis, J. (2020). Making relational care work for older people: exploring innovation 
and best practice in everyday life. Routledge. 
Keller, H., Awwad, S., Morrison, J., & Chaudhury, H. (2019). Inter-rater reliability of the 
Mealtime Scan+. The Journal of nutrition, health and aging, 23(7), 623-627. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-019-1210-1 
Kimonis E. R., Jain N., Neo B., Fleming, G. E., & Briggs N. (2023). Development of an 
Empathy Rating Scale for Young Children. Assessment, 30(1), 37-50.  
https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211038629   
Knoblauch, H. (2005). Focused ethnography. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(3). 
https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.3.20  
 Lawless, M. T., Tieu, M., Golley, R., & Kitson, A. (2024). How and where does “care” 
fit within seminal life‐course approaches? A narrative review and critical 
analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 80(3), 871-883. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15852 
Llorens Ivorra, C., & Soler Rebollo, C. (2017). Aceptación de un menú escolar según 
la valoración de residuos del método de estimación visual Comstock. 
Revista Española de Nutrición Humana y Dietética, 21(2), 148-154. 
https://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2174-
51452017000200007 
Nguyen, S. P. (2007). An Apple a Day Keeps the Doctor Away: Children’s Evaluative 
Categories 
of 
Food. 
Appetite, 
48(1), 
114-118. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.06.001 
Norouzi, N., Chen, J. C., Jarrott, S., & Satari, A. (2023). Designing Intergenerational 
Spaces: What to Learn from Children. HERD: Health Environments Research & 
Design Journal, 16(2), 174-188. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867221138929 
Pinquart, M., Wenzel, S., Sörensen, S. (2000). Changes in attitudes among children 
and elderly adults in intergenerational group work. Educational Gerontology, 
26(6), 523-540. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270050133883 
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University. 
dos SantosTarallo, R., Neri, A. L., & Cachioni, M. (2016). Semantic and cultural 
equivalence of the Intergenerational Exchanges Attitude Scale (IEAS). 
Revista Brasileira de Geriatria e Gerontologia, 19(03), 453-463. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1809-98232016019.150002 
Termes Escalé, M., Martínez Chicano, D., Egea Castillo, N., Gutiérrez Sánchez, A., 
García Arenas, D., & Martín de Carpi, J. (2024). Resultados del programa de 
hábitos alimentarios para niños de 3 a 12 años basado en el Nutriplato®. 
Nutrición Hospitalaria, 41(SPE3), 8-11.https://dx.doi.org/10.20960/nh.05448 
Weltizen, D. (2024). Dialoggestützte Interviews mit Kindern. Das Hand-buch zur 
Methode. FEL Verlag. https://fel-verlag.de/produkt/dialoggestuetzte-
interviews-mit-kindern-das-handbuch-zur-methode/  
 

18 
Wilkinson, N. M., Kannan, S., Ganguri, H., Hetherington, M. M., & Evans, C. E. L. 
(2022). Study protocol: Evaluation of the 'Flavour School' sensory food 
education programme: a cluster-randomised controlled trial in UK primary 
school children, aged 4-7 years, to determine impact on confidence and 
curiosity in tasting vegetables and fruit. Trials, 23(1), 705. 
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06612-2