An evaluation of the Leicestershire community kitchen scheme

<b>Plain Language summary</b><br /> <br /> <b>Background</b>: In 2017 Leicestershire County Council (LCC) set up three Community Kitchens (CKs). The aim was to reduce household food waste (HHFW). An evaluation of these kitchens by LCC found them to reduce HHFW. The evaluation also suggested participation might be associated with health and wellbeing benefits, but did not explore these in detail.<br /> <br /> <b>Aims</b>: To understand the health and wellbeing benefits experienced from participating in the CKs and how these may be achieved.<br /> <br /> <b>Methods</b>: The study used questionnaires, observations and interviews with CK participants, volunteers and council staff who facilitated the sessions.<br /> <br /> <b>Key findings</b>: The CKs were valued and considered worthwhile by participants, volunteers, and staff. The most important benefit was reported to be increased social interaction. This was particularly important for people at risk of, or experiencing isolation<br /> <br /> <b>Patient and Public Involvement (PPI):</b> Three ex-CK attendees and volunteers and three local residents with no experience of CKs helped to inform how the study was designed and carried out. Two of the six PPI representatives also engaged in regular study management meetings throughout the duration of the research, including the interpretation and dissemination of results, to ensure a lay persons perspective, inclusivity and accessibility of research findings.<br /> <br /> <b>Conclusions:</b> The reduction of HHFW is no longer the focus of the CKs in this study. However, the CKs provided a useful and beneficial space for individuals to socialise, learn new skills and experience the health and wellbeing benefits of social interaction. Community kitchens are not necessarily effective for reducing HHFW but they do improve social health. A refocus on the social benefits of CKs and the provision of CKs in accessible generic facilities is likely to attract more participants and volunteers.<br /> <br /> <b>Key words</b>: Community kitchens, health and wellbeing, household food waste, Leicestershire, process evaluation, social interaction, social isolation.<br /> <br /> <br /> <b>Background</b><br /> Cooking interventions have been used to improve eating behaviours, nutritional status, weight related outcomes, and cooking skills.^1-3 Systematic reviews have repeatedly demonstrated cooking interventions to lead to favourable outcomes³ amongst the general population and in specific patient populations (e.g. patients with eating disorders).⁴<br /> Community kitchens (CKs) are community-based cooking programmes in which small groups of people meet regularly to plan, cook and share healthy, affordable meals. CKs are designed for anyone to participate in and can be run anywhere with a kitchen (e.g. churches, schools, community buildings). The main differences between CKs and other food assistance programmes (e.g. soup kitchens) are their collaborative, participatory nature, and their potential to foster cooking, nutritional and social skills and support.⁵<br /> <br /> Most of the research literature on CKs (sometimes referred to as collective kitchens) comes from studies conducted in Canada, Australia, and Scotland.⁶ The primary aim of these studies has been to examine the impact of CKs on health promotion. The results suggest that CKs are an effective public health strategy for improving nutrition.^7-10 For example, participants repeatedly report an improvement in their intake of nutritious food,^11-14 a greater diversity of food¹³ and a reduction in fast food consumption.¹⁵ Fano et al. also suggest that the dietary impacts from participating in CKs have flow-on effects to other family members, because CK participants feed their families healthier food.¹⁶<br /> <br /> While previous research on CKs does not focus directly on the social impacts and experiences of participation, feeling socially supported and less isolated consistently emerge as results.^{7,14,16-19,20} Racine and St-Onge found that some of the most frequent outcomes reported by participants of a CK were decreased isolation, friendship development, mutual aid, moral support, increased self-confidence, self-esteem and increased participation in other community events/organisations.¹⁹ All these outcomes were found to relate to increased feelings of being socially supported.¹⁹ Moreover, Fano et al¹⁶ found that social interactions and support were the main reasons participants gave for why they joined a CK. Other benefits of participating in CKs have included the development of skills and access to employment.^8,16,19<br /> <br /> An increased awareness of the environmental impact of food waste led Leicestershire County Council (LCC) to establish three CKs in 2017. These were established with funding from a national supermarket as part of their Waste Less Save More project. LCC applied six resources used by the climate action NGO Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP)²¹ which aims to reduce the climate impact of food and drink: 1) meal planning; 2) understanding labelling on food; 3) using shopping lists; 4) storing and using leftovers; 5) portioning properly; and 6) food storage advice. The aim of the CKs was to engage individuals from all walks of life with household food waste (HHFW) issues and build community capacity to reduce HHFW effectively and sustainably. The CKs were, and continue to be funded by LCC and participant donations. They are held in community houses (i.e., community centres) and churches with suitable facilities, and co-ordinated by volunteers and/or Borough Council staff.<br /> <br /> An unpublished internal report evaluating the three original CKs found them to be effective in reducing HHFW. LCC reported that over the course of a six-to-eight-week period, participants reduced their HHFW by 33% on average. CK participants also reported a range of health and wellbeing benefits including increased social interaction, reduced loneliness, increased self-confidence and employability. However, because the primary focus of the LCC report was on HHFW, the health and wellbeing benefits from participating remained unclear. There are now six established CKs in Leicestershire, and while the original three CKs were held on a weekly basis, today the kitchens are held fortnightly, alternating with a craft session. These craft have been set up by LCC Borough Council to an community for CK participants to the CKs are not The craft are to individuals of they participate in the This because the volunteers who facilitated the CKs found the of CKs on a weekly to be in of and (e.g. More of the participants who the CKs also the craft for the of this study they are being as part of the /> <br /> This the results of a process evaluation of the CK and craft The evaluation on the research population groups are CKs and craft health and wellbeing benefits do participants to the CK and are these from to the craft are the health and wellbeing benefits does the health and wellbeing <br /> /> <br /> conducted a process evaluation 1) with CK and craft 2) observations of CKs and craft 3) interviews with CK and craft participants, volunteers and council staff. to who was the CK and craft while from observations and interviews to a more of experiences and health and wellbeing also to directly the of the CK and craft in to participant interactions with the volunteers, and Borough Council staff.<br /> <br /> to all participants were a participant the aims of the and the of or was provided by all participants to for the study was by the of of in /> <br /> Involvement and /> LCC were in the development of the study and of the The study also a public with previous CK participants and volunteers and three local residents with no previous experience of community the they were the participation (e.g. and the The to ensure study and were and Two individuals who part in the were also to regular study management meetings throughout the course of the /> <br /> /> A was to all CK and craft participants at the of throughout the duration of the study. was by the volunteers, Borough Council staff or by the of the The was the for CK and craft participants, but was to be for /> <br /> were on participant of status, food general and social and with social was using which participants their to and access food (e.g. can food in on a health was by participants to the of their general health to health was using the The over the and and the of was on a the of the and with social support was using of the the of social interactions (e.g. how the did with who does not with and six with social support (e.g. are with and do are being was on a of the /> <br /> also on of the aims of the CK or craft the health and wellbeing benefits, and of /> <br /> /> of the six established CK were The kitchens were on participant (e.g. and or Three of the kitchens were specific for for The other kitchen was All of the CKs were in Two craft were also that was by participants who also the CKs and that was by participants who the craft that included participants who did and did not the CKs for the research to explore on health and wellbeing benefits in to potential reasons for why individuals not to the The the to the of the and how the was and were regular and participant interactions with other and the volunteers and impact they may be on the health and wellbeing of was by an that to be /> <br /> /> interviews were with participants volunteers and Borough Council All interviews were held by or on and access to facilities and The interviews were by a health and wellbeing benefits from participating in the CK and/or craft reasons for or not the and be to and the between and The was the for CK and craft participants, but was to be for who in the interviews were for their /> <br /> /> <br /> were using were in because the was small to examine between the or differences between the participants of the CKs and craft session. for are in for food social interaction, and with social are as The of used for was using is a of how related a set of are as a of an of and or greater a of /> <br /> and were by the to the and the by the of from greater food health were by the to the health were by to social with social support was by six with social support /> <br /> For the the the from the on the research A for the CK and craft and differences is provided in the /> <br /> of the interviews was and using and to the and of the between was are as a by the of part of the was not because was not was for were and (e.g. to also improve and were to they were from a or staff or participant and are by a participant /> <br /> /> <br /> /> <br /> A of individuals the six CKs in Leicestershire were to the with a of were and were the six individuals who the craft the all of were in the of CK and craft participants were at a or of no their to general and health food social and were with the of social support /> <br /> /> <br /> the CKs to a and volunteers and staff supported other to participate in the cooking the CKs of and were less to the of the while participation in the CKs with participation in the craft was on an of assistance from and Borough Council staff the CK and craft However, for the CKs they as the craft they engaged as /> <br /> The cooking of the community cooking All participants to engage in The of reducing HHFW was not the of While the CKs of some of the resources associated with (e.g. reducing HHFW was not in or to a of the /> <br /> and the CK and craft were and the at The of or more (e.g. the CKs the (e.g. the food was cooking in the However, these of were They were more likely to the craft because the craft to have because in the was at the the CK and craft were In all the groups some individuals were more with some participants being more likely to from to social interactions /> <br /> /> <br /> A of interviews were conducted with CK and craft participants, volunteers and LCC Borough Council staff /> <br /> the and of /> <br /> was by the participants or in their found the CKs participation in community-based of and from the or by being to the CKs by their There was a general all participants that the CKs were of the CKs and to to the associated with the community houses and the churches in which they or the local community were reported to be more accessible to groups of /> <br /> council the not to people that necessarily with the /> <br /> In to the of the the of included (e.g. and was also suggested to awareness and in the a participants reported that to their in the they a of understanding the including who they were for groups or the general and the (e.g. cooking /> <br /> There was also the participants in of and of with some participants the to be a to For example, the community houses were established to the was associated with and of which were by some to be to participation, particularly for new individuals /> <br /> that the Community is of in them of /> <br /> was also reported to have a impact on of For example, less participants, and participants who were to reported with the to of public /> <br /> is and a to of the /> <br /> can the to a to or which for and be by the /> <br /> of /> <br /> participants provided the CK and craft volunteers, and participants the CKs to be a to have and being or /> <br /> a /> <br /> a /> <br /> /> <br /> for the included them being a of social and and for participants who and an for participants to have to learn new skills and have a from other (e.g. volunteers, and participants all reported that they the with some them to be the of their most participants reported that the cooking, was not to their The to was reported to be the primary for while the was reported to be an /> <br /> not the cooking of the as to and a meal with /> <br /> the has more /> <br /> important for that can and meet up with not in the on and /> <br /> While the were a issues were These included the of the and them being to to cook that the participant did not or not to dietary and the not for improvement were also and included the and of the the of the for more participants and the kitchen facilities and /> <br /> were the potential reasons why they did not participate in the CK and craft reported that they were in of the of they of the to and that may have a of to their cooking being more other /> <br /> from the the community they was because they were this to a and to and were to /> <br /> and /> <br /> volunteers, and participants to be benefits from the craft and cooking for and For example, with new cooking skills and new were reported by the CK participants, as was new by participants who the craft Other benefits reported included increased to be the from the to the and individuals how to reduce HHFW. was reported to be associated with increased social interaction, and These benefits were particularly by participants with a or (e.g. and at risk of social because of the of a or /> <br /> gave more and with and helped and to people more and with /> <br /> also reported that their in the CK and craft in new These were, to the with interactions the The social friendship and by the and craft were reported to be the reported that the for a or have a impact on them and their /> <br /> the are and /> <br /> The health and wellbeing benefits reported by participants were to be a of participating in the CKs and/or craft They were also to participation in a of community /> <br /> the kitchen /> <br /> in they to the on /> <br /> and /> <br /> All the participants the CK and/or craft to be in the at other community-based a /> <br /> other as do all on other /> <br /> in community was suggested to to of and of with individuals from and participating more in community /> <br /> the are they to on in the /> <br /> participant were to and benefits For example, participants, and volunteers reported individuals who were and or that or more more who were also reported to benefit more they the to them to the /> <br /> be /> <br /> CK in were reported to an in which participants with of of and /> <br /> beneficial for people of all and /> <br /> that to for the people that are are to all /> <br /> The were reported to an for participants to and engage in and with reported that they not on issues to the and less also reported that some and/or in the more and that they were more likely to other community (e.g. or and family to the more issues they may be /> <br /> of them their are or and and /> <br /> or people general of but not or /> <br /> of the /> <br /> While the CK were to be beneficial in their were for of the Borough Council staff and volunteers reported that the the a of CK volunteers were to the for the do the shopping for the the participants, and the the session. Borough Council staff reported that some volunteers have up to these associated who reported the of the to have as they of the CKs was suggested to the and of suitable volunteers (e.g. /> <br /> the volunteers that to be and /> <br /> and of volunteers was to be a to staff and volunteers, was a general that the of participants to established kitchens not be because of the of the kitchens and the benefits experienced from /> <br /> for the in the included the CKs at other (e.g. the and of the groups that they be more accessible to individuals with other (e.g. and not associated with groups (e.g. or (e.g. Other included and /> <br /> /> <br /> from this process evaluation that reducing HHFW, the of the no longer the focus of these However, the CK and craft was found to be a valued and worthwhile community-based In with Fano et the primary for was reported to be an increased to CKs be effective interventions for reducing risk associated with social (e.g. reduced wellbeing, results suggest that they are not effective for and with and reducing loneliness, the CKs This is important the population groups these CKs to Most participants were a population at risk of social and because of decreased and social and the of social was also reported to be a benefit of these CK by participants with and and with the of and an of and general health. These health and wellbeing benefits were to from participating in the CK and craft but were particularly in the CKs because they a in an /> <br /> The participatory and of the CKs was suggested to be important to the of social and This previous research that effective interventions to be that a social and/or support a and participants are to be in the The health and wellbeing benefits including increased social interaction, were reported to a and were reported and to to the benefits experienced from the CK and craft For example, participants reported that other community their at the and the benefits experienced are likely to from social interactions and with the community and community the CKs or craft CKs are suggested to with the community in their to increased of social /> <br /> This was demonstrated to be particularly for groups of for example, with or The CKs were found to these groups of individuals a in which to engage with other with or are likely to the to which the health and wellbeing benefits are For example, the CKs were reported to be particularly beneficial for individuals with a because they can the on their with the support of participants, volunteers and/or staff. the CKs these participants an to and social the craft was and reported to be particularly beneficial to participants with them with an to their by in an from their /> <br /> at the CK was to be to all with and of cooking as a they learn how to reduce HHFW. from the observations and interviews the CKs to be particularly beneficial to individuals with of and to This process evaluation has the CK to have this of reasons for found participants to to that of social (e.g. on a All participants a to their social and that the CKs and were as an effective CKs to be effectively at risk of social and in CKs the population they to CK /> <br /> the participants, volunteers and staff on the were reported to impact For example, accessibility and were all reported to be particularly for individuals with access to public and/or individuals with or is important that CKs the population they to and access /> <br /> For CKs to continue to in social they their focus on participation and their to the provision of social support, particularly for socially isolated and groups of A focus on the social benefits of CKs may attract more participants and volunteers as CKs in accessible and in generic community facilities not associated with specific or these also the and of this the of the CK Leicestershire and and health and wellbeing /> <br /> and /> <br /> The of the CK and craft may have an impact on the of participants to the as the was to all and participants, to on volunteers and staff. volunteers and staff were to participants to the CK and to the craft more may have been the more interactions with the Moreover, the may have been to with participants less likely to to participate (e.g. participants to the study by to of the of the /> <br /> Other included the being and most of the being the CK or craft may have with or to in they considered the socially of the the CK and craft may have also to and of the social because some participants may have (e.g. of social in the of Moreover, while with to experience and and that participants may not directly participants may have been by the of the The may have also the participants and with the and the the was and facilitated by the these the process evaluation using for questionnaires, and which to a more in understanding of or and public and from from the and throughout the duration of the /> <br /> /> <br /> The reduction of household food waste is no longer the focus of CKs in this study. However, CKs continue to be valued community-based at risk of social to Community kitchens are not necessarily effective for reducing household food waste but they are for improving social health. A refocus of the social benefits of the community kitchens is likely to attract more participants and the of the community kitchen Leicestershire and other This in an increased of the CK to in and improvement of the health and wellbeing of socially isolated and /> <br /> <br /> et al. of a for a that A of the and of interventions to to of the of of cooking and food interventions outcomes and for of and The eating meal for and patients a study. on community community kitchens and the in a community-based of of Public health and from a public health. kitchens in a of the of and health and impacts of community a Public evaluation of community results from local of people with a to and their community of and food health community of the food with collective kitchens participants in three and in collective kitchens in three of and A study of community kitchens as a to food of and people with a to and their community of and of a collective kitchens using the population health promotion. of and A of community-based to household food in and of St-Onge of Community kitchens in people cooking community as a of a health a to and of the to social support in a general on action research for A for on research in and health. and health for at risk of social of people and risk of A in in a of and <br /> <br /> <br /> <b>Patient and Public /> <br /> /> To with and and Public Involvement representatives a process evaluation of the Community and PPI throughout the duration of the /> <br /> /> PPI was the main of the study. The research was a and including representatives from Leicestershire County Council and Public The the of the who regularly throughout the /> <br /> PPI representatives were individuals with and experience of in the PPI was facilitated by Leicestershire County Council and Leicestershire Borough Council staff who were in the development, and of the A PPI with three ex-CK attendees and volunteers and three of the community with no experience of the CKs to study to the and study Two individuals from the PPI were to continue their in the study by participating in regular PPI at throughout the study accessibility and inclusivity of the study and dissemination of findings.<br /> <br /> /> and PPI representatives with the research the study on the and including and were and with the PPI representatives to potential to and of study PPI representatives on the accessible in to accessibility issues for individuals and individuals with They also the of improving accessibility of participation by the to interviews the in or /> <br /> and /> throughout the study provided valued to the research PPI representatives to the study and of study and to the interpretation and dissemination of the /> <br /> /> to the between the research and the CK with and PPI representatives was While this was a to PPI the research an effective with the PPI representatives who were and for the duration of the /> <br /> /> used the study are from the on /> <br /> /> This was funded by the for and Public The are of the and not necessarily of the or the of and /> /> This was carried between and This report has not been The report was by the at the of to the These do not a

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.