Changing the food environment in secondary school canteens to promote healthy dietary choices: a qualitative study with school caterers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Typical adolescent diets do not meet current dietary recommendations. There is a need to address these dietary patterns to reduce the risk of obesity and other diet-related diseases. Schools provide an opportune setting to do so, as students consume a substantial proportion of their daily dietary intake whilst at school. There is a developing evidence base on the use of choice architecture (food choice cues) to promote healthy eating in school contexts. It is necessary to understand the acceptability and feasibility of implementing such interventions. We aimed to explore these factors from the perspectives of secondary school caterers. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with caterers from secondary schools across the West Midlands, UK and national/regional catering representatives. A semi-structured topic guide and visual aid were used to guide interviews. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Framework analysis was conducted in NVivo v12. RESULTS: Twelve participants took part. Seven themes were identified and grouped into three categories: Acceptability (Suitability; Salient cues; Student engagement), Barriers (Catering decision drivers; Limits of influence), and Enablers (Perceived role; Opportunities). Caterers considered healthy food cues to be suited to adolescents as they require minimal reflective motivation. Salient cues included enhancing the placement, presentation and portability of healthy items, improving the dining environment and focusing pricing/incentive strategies on increased quantity. Student engagement was considered important. Some catering decision drivers conflicted with healthy food cues, and many felt that their role in healthy eating was limited due to the overwhelming influence of external food environments, adolescent resistance, and features of the secondary school canteen setting e.g. short duration of lunchtime, lack of space. However, caterers appeared motivated to implement healthy food cues and identified key opportunities for implementation, including integration into whole-school approaches to healthy eating. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions using healthy food cues appeared acceptable to secondary school caterers, key potential implementers of these strategies. Future interventions could incorporate strategies relating to placement, presentation and pricing to prompt healthy selections, and actions to engage the student body and improve the dining environment. Evaluations should consider potential impacts upon food purchasing, consumption and waste to address caterers' concerns about these issues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".