An exploration of how meal preparation activities relate to self-rated time pressure, stress, and health in Canada: A time use approach

Associations between cooking skills, cooking with processed foods, and health: a cross-sectional study

To improve health outcomes, home cooking has been suggested as a solution to reduce intakes of processed foods. However, little is known about how cooking skills or cooking with processed foods influence health. This cross-sectional study examined associations between diet and health outcomes with cooking skills and cooking with processed foods. The dataset included a nationally representative sample of 18 460 adults from Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) annual component rapid response modules on food skills. In the CCHS rapid response modules, diet and health outcomes (fruit and vegetable intake, general health, mental health, and obesity) and data related to cooking skills and cooking with processed foods were collected through self-report. Separate logistic regression models were fitted for each outcome, controlling for age, income, and education, and stratified by sex. Adults with poor cooking skills were less likely to have adequate fruit and vegetable intake (≥5 servings per day) (p < 0.001), very good general health (p < 0.001) or mental health (p < 0.001), and obesity (p = 0.02) compared to advanced cooking skills. Adults who cooked with highly processed foods were less likely to have adequate fruit and vegetable intake (p < 0.001), very good general health (p = 0.002) or mental health (p < 0.001), but more likely to have obesity (p = 0.03) compared to cooking with minimally processed foods. Cooking skills alone appear insufficient to protect against obesity. Results suggest that not only are cooking skills important, but the quality of ingredients also matter. Limiting the use of processed foods in addition to improving cooking skills are potential intervention targets to promote better health and diet outcomes.

Who's cooking tonight? A time-use study of coupled adults in Toronto, Canada

Understanding how coupled adults arrange food-related labor in relation to their daily time allocation is of great importance because different arrangements may have implications for diet-related health and gender equity. Studies from the time-use perspective argue that daily activities such as work, caregiving, and non-food-related housework can potentially compete for time with foodwork. However, studies in this regard are mostly centered on individual-level analyses. They fail to consider cohabiting partners' time spent on foodwork and non-food-related activities, a factor that could be helpful in explaining how coupled partners decide to allocate time to food activities. Using 108 daily time-use logs from seventeen opposite-gender couples living in Toronto, Canada, this paper examines how male and female partners' time spent on non-food-related activities impact the total amount of time spent on foodwork by coupled adults and the difference in time spent on foodwork between coupled women and men. Results show that both male and female partners took a higher portion of foodwork when their partner worked longer. When men worked for additional time, the couple-level duration of foodwork decreased. Without a significant impact on the gender difference in foodwork duration, women's increased caregiving duration was associated with a reduction of total time spent on foodwork by couples. An increase in caregiving and non-food-related chores by men was associated with an increased difference in duration of foodwork between women and men, which helped secure a constant total amount of foodwork at the couple level. These behavioral variations between men and women demonstrate the gender differences in one's responsiveness to the change of partners' non-food-related tasks. The associations found among non-food-related activities and foodwork are suggestive of a need to account for partners' time allocation when studying the time-use dynamics of foodwork and other daily activities.

Investigating experiences of frequent online food delivery service use: a qualitative study in UK adults

BACKGROUND

Food prepared out-of-home is typically energy-dense and nutrient-poor. This food can be purchased from multiple types of retailer, including restaurants and takeaway food outlets. Using online food delivery services to purchase food prepared out-of-home is increasing in popularity. This may lead to more frequent unhealthy food consumption, which is positively associated with poor diet and living with obesity. Understanding possible reasons for using online food delivery services might contribute to the development of future public health interventions, if deemed necessary. This knowledge would be best obtained by engaging with individuals who use online food delivery services as part of established routines. Therefore, we aimed to investigate customer experiences of using online food delivery services to understand their reasons for using them, including any advantages and drawbacks.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 2020, we conducted telephone interviews with 22 adults living in the UK who had used online food delivery services on at least a monthly basis over the previous year. Through codebook thematic analysis, we generated five themes: 'The importance of takeaway food', 'Less effort for more convenience', 'Saving money and reallocating time', 'Online food delivery service normalisation' and 'Maintained home food practices'. Two concepts were overarching throughout: 'Place. Time. Situation.' and 'Perceived advantages outweigh recognised drawbacks'. After considering each of the accessible food purchasing options within the context of their location and the time of day, participants typically selected online food delivery services. Participants reported that they did not use online food delivery services to purchase healthy food. Participants considered online food delivery service use to be a normal practice that involves little effort due to optimised purchasing processes. As a result, these services were seen to offer convenient access to food aligned with sociocultural expectations. Participants reported that this convenience was often an advantage but could be a drawback. Although participants were price-sensitive, they were willing to pay delivery fees for the opportunity to complete tasks whilst waiting for delivery. Furthermore, participants valued price-promotions and concluded that receiving them justified their online food delivery service use. Despite takeaway food consumption, participants considered home cooking to be irreplaceable.

CONCLUSIONS

Future public health interventions might seek to increase the healthiness of food available online whilst maintaining sociocultural values. Extending restrictions adopted in other food environments to online food delivery services could also be explored.