Researchers looked at 50 studies from South Asia to understand how scientists measure what people buy, cook, and eat at home. They found that scientists use many different methods and tools to study food choices, but there’s no standard way to do it. This makes it hard to compare results between studies. The researchers suggest that instead of creating new tools, scientists should adapt and improve existing ones. This would help researchers better understand how diets are changing in countries like India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, where food choices are shifting quickly.

The Quick Take

  • What they studied: How scientists measure and study the food choices people make at home in South Asian countries, including what families buy, how they prepare food, and what they eat.
  • Who participated: The review looked at 50 published research studies from eight South Asian countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) published between 2000 and April 2025.
  • Key finding: Scientists use 40 different tools and methods to study food choices in South Asia, with little agreement on which tools work best. Only 14 out of 50 studies used tools that were properly tested and proven to be reliable.
  • What it means for you: If you live in South Asia or work in nutrition, this research suggests that scientists need to work together to use the same proven methods for studying food choices. This would help create better nutrition programs and policies tailored to your region.

The Research Details

This was a scoping review, which means researchers searched through published studies to find patterns and gaps in how scientists study food choices. The team searched three major scientific databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) using specific keywords related to food buying, cooking, and eating habits. They looked for studies published in English from 2000 to April 2025 that focused on eight South Asian countries.

Two independent reviewers read through the titles and summaries of 13,160 articles to decide which ones to include. They looked at the full text of promising studies and collected information about what methods each study used to measure food choices. The researchers organized their findings by looking at three main areas: how people acquire food (shopping habits), how they prepare it (cooking methods), and how they consume it (eating patterns and timing).

Understanding how scientists measure food choices is important because it helps us know if the research is reliable and comparable. When different studies use different methods, it’s hard to combine their findings or see the big picture. In South Asia, where eating habits are changing rapidly due to urbanization and economic development, having consistent measurement tools would help governments and health organizations create better nutrition programs and policies.

This review is well-designed because two independent reviewers checked the work, reducing bias. However, the review only included studies published in English, which may have missed some important research. The fact that only 14 out of 50 studies used validated (proven reliable) tools suggests that many studies may not be measuring food choices accurately. Additionally, most studies used quantitative methods (surveys and questionnaires) rather than qualitative methods (interviews and observations), which might miss important cultural details about food choices.

What the Results Show

The review found that scientists studying food choices in South Asia use three main approaches: measuring food acquisition (what people buy and how often), food preparation (cooking methods and who cooks), and household consumption (when and what people eat). Food acquisition was studied in 26 studies, food preparation in 9 studies, and consumption practices in 30 studies.

The most common tool used was the Likert scale (a simple rating system where people rate their agreement on a scale), which was used in quantitative studies. For qualitative studies (where researchers ask open-ended questions), semi-structured interviews were most popular. However, the researchers found that across all 50 studies, 40 different tools were used to measure food choices, showing very little consistency.

Only 23 studies included their full measurement tools in their published papers or supplementary materials, making it difficult for other researchers to replicate or compare the work. This lack of transparency and standardization is a major problem for building reliable knowledge about food choices in South Asia.

The review also found that most studies (34 out of 50) used quantitative methods like surveys, while 13 used qualitative methods like interviews, and only 3 used a combination of both. The mix of quantitative and qualitative approaches could provide richer information about food choices, but it’s rarely used. Additionally, the researchers noted that very few studies claimed to use validated tools—tools that have been tested and proven to measure what they’re supposed to measure accurately.

This is the first comprehensive review of how scientists measure food choices in South Asia specifically. Previous research in other regions has also noted inconsistency in measurement tools, but this review highlights that South Asia faces unique challenges because diets are changing rapidly and there’s limited infrastructure for standardized research methods. The findings align with global concerns about the need for better measurement tools in nutrition research.

The review only included studies published in English, which may have excluded important research published in local languages. The researchers couldn’t assess the quality of individual studies in detail, so some included studies may have been poorly designed. Additionally, the review doesn’t tell us which tools actually work best—it only documents what tools exist. Finally, because food choices are deeply connected to culture, a tool that works in one South Asian country might not work well in another.

The Bottom Line

If you’re involved in nutrition research or policy in South Asia, consider adapting and validating existing measurement tools rather than creating new ones. This approach is supported by moderate evidence and would improve the ability to compare research across countries and time periods. Work with other researchers to agree on standard tools that can be adapted for different cultural contexts.

This research matters most to nutrition researchers, public health officials, and policymakers in South Asian countries who want to understand and improve eating habits. It’s also relevant to international organizations working on nutrition in the region. If you’re a student of nutrition or public health, this shows why standardized methods are important for good science.

Implementing standardized tools would take time—likely 2-3 years to adapt, test, and validate tools across different South Asian countries. However, once in place, these tools could provide reliable data within 6-12 months of use.

Want to Apply This Research?

  • Track your weekly food shopping habits by recording: (1) what foods you buy, (2) how often you shop, and (3) whether you’re buying more processed foods or fresh foods. Use a simple weekly checklist to note these patterns.
  • Use the app to set a goal to increase purchases of one traditional South Asian food or cooking method you want to use more often. Track your progress weekly and note any barriers to achieving this goal.
  • Create a monthly summary of your food acquisition and preparation patterns. Compare month-to-month to see if your eating habits are becoming healthier or changing in ways you want. Share this data with a nutritionist or health provider for personalized feedback.

This review examines research methods rather than providing direct health advice. The findings suggest that scientists need better tools to study food choices in South Asia, but they don’t directly tell you what to eat. Always consult with a qualified healthcare provider or registered dietitian for personalized nutrition advice based on your individual health needs and cultural preferences. This research is intended for healthcare professionals, researchers, and policymakers rather than as a substitute for professional medical or nutritional guidance.