Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jan 27;18(1):184.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5096-3.

The challenges of interventions to promote healthier food in independent takeaways in England: qualitative study of intervention deliverers' views

Affiliations

The challenges of interventions to promote healthier food in independent takeaways in England: qualitative study of intervention deliverers' views

Louis Goffe et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Much of the food available from takeaways, pubs and restaurants particularly that sold by independent outlets, is unhealthy and its consumption is increasing. These food outlets are therefore important potential targets for interventions to improve diet and thus prevent diet related chronic diseases. Local authorities in England have been charged with delivering interventions to increase the provision of healthy food choices in independent outlets, but prior research shows that few such interventions have been rigorously developed or evaluated. We aimed to learn from the experiences of professionals delivering interventions in independent food outlets in England to identify the operational challenges and their suggestions for best practice.

Methods: We used one-to-one semi-structured qualitative interviews to explore the views and experiences of professionals who were either employees of, or contracted by, a local authority to deliver interventions to increase the provision of healthier food choices in independent food outlets. Purposive sampling was used to recruit a sample which included men and women, from a range of professional roles, across different areas of England. Interviews were informed by a topic guide, and proceeded until no new themes emerged. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework method.

Results: We conducted 11 individual interviews. Participants focussed on independent takeaways and their unhealthy food offerings, and highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of intervention delivery methods, their evaluation and impact. The main barriers to implementation of interventions in independent takeaways were identified as limited funding and the difficulties of engaging the food outlet owner/manager. Engagement was thought to be facilitated by delivering intensive, interactive and tailored interventions, clear and specific information, and incentives, whilst accounting for practical, primarily financial, constraints of food businesses. Alternative intervention approaches, targeting suppliers or customers, were suggested.

Conclusions: Participants emphasised independent takeaways as particularly challenging, but worthwhile intervention targets. Participants perceived that interventions need to take account of the potentially challenging operating environment, particularly the primacy of the profit motive. Upstream interventions, engaging suppliers, as well as those that drive consumer demand, may be worth exploring. Rigorous, evidence-informed development and evaluation of such interventions is needed.

Keywords: Diet; Food environments; Food outlets; Health promotion; Intervention; Public health nutrition; Qualitative methods; Takeaways.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

We obtained ethical approval for the study from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medical Sciences at Newcastle University (Application No: 00761/2014). All participants gave written informed consent to take part and no financial or other incentives were offered.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

MW is funded by NIHR as Director of its Public Health Research Funding Programme. Authors LG, LP, JA, VAS, CDS, CA, AA, and AAL declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Barriers and facilitators to delivering interventions to promote healthier food mapped to Story et al.’s [34] ecological framework

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Cullen P. Time, tastes and technology: the economic evolution of eating out. Br Food J. 1994;96:4–9. doi: 10.1108/00070709410072445. - DOI
    1. Hawkes C. Globalization, diets and noncommunicable diseases. 2002. Marketing activities of global soft drink and fast food companies in emerging markets: a review; pp. 1–78.
    1. Riley M. Marketing Eating Out. Br Food J. 1994;96:15–18. doi: 10.1108/00070709410072463. - DOI
    1. Hucker R. Market report 2013: Fast-Food & Home-Delivery Outlets. 27th ed: Key Note Ltd; 2013. p. 75.
    1. Jaworowska AM, Blackham T, Long R, Taylor C, Ashton M, Stevenson L, Glynn Davies I. Nutritional composition of takeaway food in the UK. Nutrition & Food Science. 2014;44:414–430. doi: 10.1108/NFS-08-2013-0093. - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources