Evidence review
Stress and eating: average associations in the Hill review
In Hill's review, stress showed small average associations with higher total intake (g=0.114), greater intake of foods the studies classified as less healthy (g=0.116), and lower intake of foods classified as healthy (g=−0.111).
- Evidence design
- Systematic review and meta-analysis
- Population
- Healthy adults; explicitly defined stress measures and varied eating behaviors.
- Assessment period
- Varying protocols and time points across the review
- Reported units
- Hedges’ g
Keep in view
- Small average effects and between-study heterogeneity; not everyone's response.
- 119,820 is the review-wide total; each effect's denominator was not verified.
- Food categories come from the studies; they do not morally characterize people who eat them.
- It does not establish cortisol as a causal mediator.
See study details — Stress and eating review
Review design and extraction scope
Systematic review and meta-analysis
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 54 studies on stress and non-disordered eating.
Population
Healthy adults; explicitly defined stress measures and varied eating behaviors.
- Study design
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of 54 studies on stress and non-disordered eating.
- Reported sample count
- 119820
- Role of the reported sample count
- Review-wide total; not an outcome-specific denominator
- Included study count
- 54
- Role of the study count
- Review-wide total; not an outcome-specific denominator
- Research question
- What is the magnitude of the relationship between stress and total intake or food choices?
- Qualified findings
- Stress was associated with a small average increase in intake and in consumption of foods classified as less healthy, and with lower consumption of those classified as healthy. Significant heterogeneity was not explained by the moderators examined.
- Estimand and analysis rules
- Not reported or not verified
- Reason the formal estimand is unavailable
- A complete formal estimand was not extracted from the verified input.
How to read this review
Included studies may differ in population, design and outcomes. Review-wide counts describe coverage and cannot be used as the sample size of every estimate.
Included studies: 54 — Review-wide total; not an outcome-specific denominator.
Extracted review results and scope
Study counts describe review scope. Review-wide participant totals are not outcome-specific denominators.
| Outcome and group | Reported value | Assessment period | Sample and denominators | Uncertainty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Association with total intake Stress–eating association Effect estimate | 0.114 Hedges’ g standardized association Unit: Hedges’ g | Varying protocols and time points across the review | Reported N: 119820 — review-wide participants; not an outcome-specific denominator
| Each effect's CI and denominator were not verified in the abstract. |
| Association with foods classified as less healthy in the studies Stress–eating association Effect estimate | 0.116 Hedges’ g standardized association Unit: Hedges’ g | Varying protocols and time points across the review | Reported N: 119820 — review-wide participants; not an outcome-specific denominator
| Each effect's CI and denominator were not verified in the abstract. |
| Association with foods classified as healthy in the studies Stress–eating association Effect estimate | -0.111 Hedges’ g standardized association Unit: Hedges’ g | Varying protocols and time points across the review | Reported N: 119820 — review-wide participants; not an outcome-specific denominator
| Each effect's CI and denominator were not verified in the abstract. |
Association with total intake — Stress–eating association: extraction context
- Outcome role
- Not specified in the consulted scope
- Scale reference
- standardized_effect
- Extraction location
- Original systematic-review abstract
- Synthesis of varied designs; do not interpret it as one causal trial.
Association with foods classified as less healthy in the studies — Stress–eating association: extraction context
- Outcome role
- Not specified in the consulted scope
- Scale reference
- standardized_effect
- Extraction location
- Original systematic-review abstract
- Synthesis of varied designs; do not interpret it as one causal trial.
Association with foods classified as healthy in the studies — Stress–eating association: extraction context
- Outcome role
- Not specified in the consulted scope
- Scale reference
- standardized_effect
- Extraction location
- Original systematic-review abstract
- Synthesis of varied designs; do not interpret it as one causal trial.
What the curated evidence supports
- In Hill's review, stress showed small average associations with higher total intake (g=0.114), greater intake of foods the studies classified as less healthy (g=0.116), and lower intake of foods classified as healthy (g=−0.111).
Limitations
- Small average effects and between-study heterogeneity; not everyone's response.
- 119,820 is the review-wide total; each effect's denominator was not verified.
- Food categories come from the studies; they do not morally characterize people who eat them.
- It does not establish cortisol as a causal mediator.
Verification scope
Verified through 2026-11-04 within the consulted scope.
- Bibliographic metadata checked
- Yes
- Original article abstract consulted
- Yes
- Full-text consultation
- Not consulted
- full text verified fields
- Official trial registry consulted
- No
- Statistical analysis plan consulted
- No
- Verification boundary
- Verification is limited to the input's identified abstract/full-text fields. A trial identifier linked by an article does not imply a separate registry review.
Source record
Stress and eating behaviours in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2022)
Source identifiers
- PubMed record 33913377
- Article DOI: 10.1080/17437199.2021.1923406