4.1 Article

'It's very hard to find what to put in the kid's lunch': What Perth parents think about food for school lunch boxes

Journal

NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Volume 68, Issue 1, Pages 21-26

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-0080.2010.01488.x

Keywords

focus group; lunch; nutrition resource; primary school; socioeconomic status

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: To describe the factors affecting school food selection by parents of young children attending low socioeconomic schools in Perth and recommend the features of resources parents need to make healthier choices. Methods: Nine focus groups of parents of young children attending low socioeconomic status schools in Perth were conducted where parents were asked about the food their children ate at school and their opinions of school food resources. Results: Focus group discussion centred on the themes of the challenge of being a good parent by providing healthy lunch box food; making compromises in what their children eat at school and the barriers to healthy eating in the school environment. Parents were concerned about what their children were eating at school but the barriers of convenience, child preference, cost and food safety prevented them from including healthier food in the lunch box. The amount of time allowed for eating and lack of refrigeration were school-based barriers that impacted on the type and amount of food selected. Parents liked colourful, practical school food resources with recipes and nutrition information aimed at children. Conclusions: Parents want help with selecting lunch box food/drinks that are nutritious, convenient, inexpensive and appealing for children to eat. Schools need to be supported to introduce healthy eating programs and should review the time given for young children to eat at school. Dietitians need to consider the home food environment and what motivates parents to make food choices for their children.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available