Jamie’s Ministry of Food Victoria
Participant experience evaluation
Report prepared for The Centre for Excellence in Intervention and Prevention Science and
the Victorian Department of Health & Human Services by the evaluation team:
Deakin Health Economics, Faculty of Health, Deakin University
Marj Moodie, Anna Flego, Jessica Herbert, Laura Nichols and Boyd Swinburn
Jack Brockhoff Child Health & Wellbeing Program, Melbourne School of Population
Health, The University of Melbourne
Lisa Gibbs, Dana Young and Elizabeth Waters
[1]
Contents
Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 8
Cooking skills and health........................................................................................................ 8
Jamie’s Ministry of Food Victoria........................................................................................... 8
The evaluation ................................................................................................................... 9
Evaluation aims and outcome measures ................................................................................. 10
Program logic ....................................................................................................................... 10
Primary and secondary outcomes ....................................................................................... 11
Structure of this report ........................................................................................................ 12
1. Mobile kitchen program – quantitative evaluation ............................................................. 13
Study design and methods................................................................................................... 13
JMoF evaluation questionnaire ....................................................................................... 13
Participant reach and recruitment .................................................................................. 14
Sample size....................................................................................................................... 14
Data collection ................................................................................................................. 15
Statistical analysis ............................................................................................................ 15
Results .................................................................................................................................. 16
Response rates ................................................................................................................. 16
Characteristics of mobile kitchen participants ................................................................ 17
Primary outcomes ................................................................................................................ 22
Cooking confidence (self-efficacy) ................................................................................... 23
Secondary outcomes............................................................................................................ 30
Healthy eating .................................................................................................................. 30
Healthy cooking measures ............................................................................................... 34
Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding healthy eating habits ................................. 37
Cooking skills and knowledge .......................................................................................... 42
Nutrition knowledge ........................................................................................................ 43
Enjoyment and satisfaction around cooking ................................................................... 46
Social connectedness around cooking and eating ........................................................... 50
Affordability of a healthy meal ........................................................................................ 53
[2]
Attitudes and beliefs of affordability of a healthy meal .................................................. 56
Global self-esteem ........................................................................................................... 58
General health ................................................................................................................. 59
Body mass index (BMI) .................................................................................................... 60
Summary of mobile kitchen results ..................................................................................... 61
2. Fixed kitchen program – quantitative evaluation ................................................................ 63
Methods ............................................................................................................................... 63
Evaluation design ............................................................................................................. 63
Participant reach and recruitment .................................................................................. 63
Sample size....................................................................................................................... 63
Data collection ................................................................................................................. 63
Statistical analysis ............................................................................................................ 64
Results .................................................................................................................................. 64
Response rates ................................................................................................................. 64
Characteristics of fixed kitchen evaluation participants ................................................. 65
Program impacts .............................................................................................................. 65
3. Qualitative evaluation .......................................................................................................... 70
Methods ............................................................................................................................... 70
Sampling and recruitment ............................................................................................... 70
Data collection ................................................................................................................. 70
Data analysis .................................................................................................................... 70
Results .................................................................................................................................. 71
Self-image ........................................................................................................................ 71
Motivation and risks ........................................................................................................ 72
Experiences ...................................................................................................................... 72
Celebrity factor ................................................................................................................ 73
Course length ................................................................................................................... 74
Discussion of findings............................................................................................................... 75
Growth in cooking confidence ............................................................................................. 75
Improved healthy eating behaviours ................................................................................... 76
Small sustained improvements in cooking knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and practices .... 77
Positive family impacts ........................................................................................................ 77
[3]
Enhanced cooking enjoyment and satisfaction ................................................................... 78
Positive changes in food purchasing patterns ..................................................................... 79
Marginal improvements in health outcomes ...................................................................... 80
Factors impacting on results ................................................................................................ 80
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 83
References ............................................................................................................................... 84
Suggested citation
Herbert J, Flego A, Gibbs L, Young D, Nichols L, Waters E, Swinburn B, Mohebbi M, Moodie,
M. Jamie’s Ministry of Food Victoria: Participant experience evaluation, Melbourne: Deakin
University, June 2015.
[4]
Executive summary
Jamie’s Ministry of Food (JMoF) Australia is a community-based program teaching basic
cooking skills to help people prepare simple, fresh, healthy food quickly and cheaply.
Commencing in 2012 in Victoria, the program implements both a 10-week program in a
fixed centre in Geelong and a five-week mobile kitchen program that moves between both
metropolitan and regional communities.
The evaluation of JMoF Victoria has shown positive personal impacts for participants. Both
the mobile kitchen and fixed kitchen programs reported positive sustained impacts in
cooking confidence, healthy eating behaviours and improved self-efficacy in their ability to
prepare a healthy meal quickly and cheaply. Qualitative reports of program experiences
provided insights into the reasons for the changed behaviours demonstrated in the
quantitative findings, with participants reporting increased capacity to provide healthy,
diverse, affordable and quick meals for their families.
JMoF was delivered as part of a State Government of Victoria funded initiative, Healthy
Together Victoria (HTV). Applying a concentrated community level effort in 12 sites, HTV is
using multiple strategies, policies and initiatives at both the state and local levels to tackle
rising rates of overweight and obesity and to stimulate community action to address this
issue.
The evaluation comprised a mixed method study including a longitudinal assessment of
both the mobile kitchen program, which visited five communities, and the fixed kitchen
program base in Geelong. This was conducted in parallel with a qualitative study. The
quantitative evaluation replicated methods used to evaluate JMoF in Ipswich Queensland,
which was a 10-week fixed kitchen program.
Results from the mobile kitchen evaluation were compared with the Ipswich evaluation,
highlighting differences in delivery method and course length. Results from the evaluation
of the Geelong fixed kitchen offer evidence regarding the transferability of the program
from one state to another. All results provided further understanding of the impacts of
JMoF in Victoria.
[5]
Key findings

The results demonstrate that JMoF has a positive increased effect on participants’
cooking confidence in both mobile kitchen and fixed kitchen programs.

Six months after completing the JMoF mobile kitchen program, participants were
consuming almost one serve more vegetables (0.81 serves per day more) compared with
the Victorian statewide average. JMoF participants were also consuming over half a
serve more fruit per day (0.61 serves per day more) compared with the Victorian
statewide average. The fixed kitchen program participants were consuming more fruit
and vegetables per day after attending JMoF.

Both the mobile and fixed kitchen programs resulted in improvements in participants’
beliefs in their ability to prepare meals quickly and cheaply.

Participants in both the mobile and fixed kitchen programs made positive improvements
over time in the areas of cooking attitudes, knowledge, behaviours and food purchasing
behaviours. However, the improvements in these areas for participants who attended
the mobile kitchen program were not statistically different from the control group over
time. The potential reason for this is that participants attending the mobile kitchen
program received only half the program dose (five weeks) compared with participants
attending the fixed kitchen program of 10 weeks.

The demographic profile of participants contributing to the evaluation was similar to
that of Victoria. The absence of comparable income data precluded a comparison of the
proportion of low income earners in the sample.

JMoF was delivered as part of HTV, a broader systems-driven initiative that aimed to
tackle overweight and obesity. During the time the JMoF program was delivered, other
HTV initiatives and programs at the broader community level were driving change to
encourage healthy eating. JMoF participants (both intervention and control groups) may
have benefited or been influenced by this other community action and engagement
around healthy living behaviours.

Results from the mobile kitchen program indicate a significant impact on participants’
cooking confidence and self-reported healthy eating. However, there was no internal
consistency among findings, as was found in the Ipswich fixed kitchen program
evaluation. The Ipswich findings reinforced one another, suggesting the 10-week
program influenced many aspects of participants’ cooking, confidence, knowledge,
attitudes and beliefs around cooking, which led to sustained behavioural changes in
healthy eating, cooking practices, food shopping practices and eating activities at home.
[6]
Results from the Victorian mobile kitchen program did not indicate such consistency
between impacts.

Results appear to have been replicated between states. Findings from the fixed centre in
Geelong are consistent with those found in the fixed centre in Ipswich. There appears to
have been successful transferability of JMoF’s 10-week program between states.

The qualitative study provided insights into changes in participants’ self-image and
behaviours following participation in the program. Findings suggest that self-image in
relation to attitudes to cooking and eating and perceived capacity to cook and provide
for families can be changed.
[7]
Introduction
Cooking skills and health
In today’s society, Australians are facing a number of barriers that discourage home cooking.
Changes in the dietary patterns and lifestyles of westernised countries have resulted in an
excess of energy intake that contributes to obesity and diet-related diseases such as
diabetes.1-3 The increasing demands of modern lifestyles have made time a precious
commodity, and the food industry has responded by offering quick and easy meal solutions
in the form of prepared and processed foods, which are often energy-dense and contain
high levels of salt, saturated fat and sugar.4,5 The resultant decline in the population’s
cooking skills and confidence to cook has now become a barrier for some people in the
preparation of food at home. This is concerning because preparing home-cooked meals
from fresh ingredients will generally result in more nutritious meals and healthier
outcomes.6
Factors influencing eating and cooking choices are potential drivers of change but they are
complicated and include health, taste, cost, time, convenience, family responsibilities,
familiarity and confidence.7-12 In addition, it is likely that there needs to be some motivation
for an individual to be ready to make those changes.13 This may involve a change in life
circumstances that triggers a shift in current food attitudes and behaviours.11,14
Jamie’s Ministry of Food Victoria
Jamie’s Ministry of Food (JMoF) Australia is a community-based program that teaches basic
cooking skills to people over the age of 12 years from all backgrounds and aims to skill them
to prepare simple, fresh, healthy food quickly and cheaply. Classes are 90 minutes in length
and are delivered either via a fixed kitchen or a travelling mobile kitchen. Participants pay
AUD$10 per class or a subsidised concession rate of AUD$5 per class. Children over the age
of 12 years are allowed to attend if they are accompanied by a parent or guardian. During
each class, participants prepare a meal for four people based on a Jamie Oliver–based recipe
that they can take home. Messages regarding nutrition, meal planning and budgeting are
embedded in the program and are discussed in an informal manner during each session.
JMoF was first introduced in Australia by The Good Foundation (TGF) with the opening of
the first fixed kitchen in Ipswich, Queensland in April 2011, with funding from the
Queensland Government. The JMoF program began in Victoria in 2012, with the
implementation of both a 10-week program in a fixed centre in Geelong and a five-week
mobile kitchen program that moves between metropolitan and regional communities. Both
programs deliver the same content and skill set; however, the mobile kitchen program
works on a shorter five-week timeframe. The Victorian Department of Health & Human
[8]
Services, in partnership with TGF, funded JMoF as part of the Healthy Together Victoria
(HTV) initiative.15 The department provided AUD$2.87 million (over four years) for the
Victorian program, with an additional AUD$2.89 million sourced through TGF.
The HTV initiative targets 12 areas across Victoria and aims to initiate action on a systems
level to tackle rising rates of overweight and obesity and related chronic disease.15
Positioned within this HTV systems model, JMoF (both the fixed kitchen and mobile kitchen
programs) aims to contribute to the overall goals of HTV and the Victorian Healthy Eating
Enterprise to create a healthy eating culture in the state and provide a stimulus for
community action around healthy eating. The 12 HTV communities are in the municipalities
of Geelong, Bendigo, Cardinia, Grampians Goldfields (Ararat, Central Goldfields and
Pyrenees), Greater Dandenong, Hume, Knox, Latrobe, Mildura, Whittlesea, Wodonga and
Wyndham.16 The JMoF program is available to all residents regardless of socioeconomic or
other demographic factors.
The evaluation
Additional Victorian Government funding was provided to the Centre for Excellence in
Intervention & Prevention Science (CEIPS) to broker the evaluation of JMoF in Victoria. An
evaluation team comprising researchers from Deakin and Melbourne universities were
commissioned in 2013 to conduct the evaluation. The same team was responsible for
evaluating the Ipswich JMoF in 2014 on behalf of TGF. This evaluation of participants’
experiences of the program in Victoria sits alongside a parallel evaluation of the system
impacts of JMoF conducted by CEIPS.
The 2014 JMoF evaluation demonstrated the effectiveness of the fixed kitchen program in
Ipswich.17 The program had a positive impact on participants’ cooking confidence and
increased vegetable consumption.18 It also resulted in a number of positive impacts in terms
of: preparing more meals at home; improved knowledge, skills and attitudes to cooking and
food; a reduction in purchases and consumption of take-away food; and small
improvements in self-esteem and general health.18,19
While this evaluation of JMoF Victoria incorporates two separate evaluation designs
measuring both a five-week and 10-week program design, it employs the same methods as
the Ipswich evaluation where possible.20 Six of the 12 HTV communities receiving JMoF have
been included in this evaluation, namely Geelong, Greater Dandenong, Hume, Latrobe,
Mildura and Wyndham. These six communities were the locations where the mobile kitchen
was operational during the evaluation period.
[9]
Evaluation
measures
aims
and
outcome
The evaluation aimed to determine the impact of the JMoF program on participants. It set
out to answer the following research questions, which were the same as in the Ipswich
evaluation.
Does the JMoF program increase participants’ skills, knowledge, attitudes, enjoyment and
satisfaction of cooking and cooking self-efficacy (confidence to cook)?
Does the JMoF program result in broader positive outcomes for participants in terms of
behaviour change to a healthier diet, more affordable healthy meals, improved selfesteem and social connectedness?
The evaluation had an additional aim of comparing the five-week mobile kitchen program
with the 10-week fixed kitchen program to determine the relative merits of different lengths
and modes of delivering the JMoF program.
A qualitative study was also conducted to explore participants’ relationship with food and
cooking and how this was influenced by their participation in the JMoF program.
Program logic
The program logic model developed for the Ipswich evaluation was also used to underpin
the Victorian evaluation (Figure 1). The program logic shows potential pathways towards
behaviour change and was based on limited or emerging evidence where possible and aligns
with program objectives.20 The evaluation aimed to determine, using mixed methods,
whether the program (as delivered in Victoria) improves individuals’ cooking confidence and
cooking and eating behaviours and to explore other additional positive impacts in terms of
personal development and social connectedness.
[10]
Figure 1: Program logic model
Primary and secondary outcomes
At the request of the Department of Health & Human Services, the primary outcome of
interest for this Victorian evaluation is the change in confidence to cook using fresh and
healthy foods. This represents a point of difference from the Ipswich evaluation, where
change in cooking confidence and in vegetable consumption were both primary outcomes.
Secondary outcomes included change over time in self-reported measures of (i) mean fruit
and vegetable intake (serves per day), (ii) mean weekly take-away/fast food intake, (iii)
frequency of cooking the main meal from basic ingredients, (iv) nutrition knowledge, (v)
attitudes towards cooking, (vi) willingness to try new foods and (vii) enjoyment and
satisfaction of cooking. Secondary outcomes also included change in psycho-social measures
such as (viii) global self-esteem, (ix) social connectedness in relation to cooking and eating
and (x) a change in participants’ total expenditure on food.
The qualitative measures provide insights into the reasons for changes or lack of changes in
primary and secondary outcomes and identify any additional impacts not captured by the
quantitative measures.
[11]
Structure of this report
This report is divided into three sections: 1. Mobile kitchen program – quantitative
evaluation, 2. Fixed kitchen program – quantitative evaluation, and 3. Qualitative
evaluation. In the discussion, the results of the qualitative and quantitative studies are then
brought together, summarised and interpreted.
[12]
1. Mobile kitchen
quantitative evaluation
program
–
Study design and methods
The mobile kitchen evaluation design replicated the quasi-experimental pre–post waitlist
control design conducted in Ipswich.20 Intervention participants were measured at three time
points:



T1 – baseline on commencement of the mobile kitchen program
T2 – on completion of the mobile kitchen program
T3 – at follow-up, six months after T2.
Control participants were measured at two time points:


T1 – five weeks prior to starting the mobile kitchen program
T2 – on completion of a period on the waitlist that corresponds with their entry into
the program.
It was not feasible or ethical for waitlist controls to wait for a further six months before
starting the program, therefore a six-month follow-up period for the control group was not
used. Data from the 2011–12 Victorian population health survey was used as a point of
comparison at T3.
JMoF evaluation questionnaire
The same self-administered questionnaire used in the Ipswich evaluation was used for the
Victorian evaluation. This questionnaire comprises 26 questions and takes 10–15 minutes
for participants to complete. The questionnaire was developed by the evaluation team to
address change over time and the unique evaluation objectives for the JMoF program,
drawing on validated measures where available. The same questionnaire was used to
evaluate both the mobile kitchen and fixed kitchen; however, delivery of the questionnaire
varied slightly for each, as explained below.
The questionnaire includes five questions relating to cooking confidence, each measured on
a Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all confident to 5 = extremely confident. These
questions were based on validated questions used to evaluate two other cooking
programs21,22 and included:



confidence to cook from basic ingredients
confidence about following a simple recipe
confidence about preparing and cooking new foods and recipes
[13]


confidence that what you cook will ‘turn out’ well
confidence about tasting foods that you have not eaten before.
All secondary outcomes were also measured via the JMoF self-administered questionnaire,
which used validated questions where possible.20
Participant reach and recruitment
The JMoF mobile kitchen visited a designated community for 10 weeks, implementing two
five-week program cycles. During this time, the program had the capacity to reach 552
participants per site, based on 23 classes with 12 participants per class for two five-week
periods.
Participants were recruited from five of the HTV communities: Greater Dandenong, Hume,
Latrobe, Mildura and Wyndham. These were the communities where the mobile kitchen
was operational during the period of the evaluation data collection. Participants were
recruited to the intervention and control groups in a non-randomised way. Using a batch
design, participants in the first five-week cycle at each site were recruited to the
intervention arm, while participants on a waitlist for the second five-week cycle were
recruited to the control group.
Sample size
To determine the mobile kitchen sample size, calculations were based on a baseline of
confidence to cook of 50%, an arbitrary 20% increase in confidence as a result of program
participation and alpha: 0.05 and power: 0.80 as per convention for sample size calculations
for community-based health promotion interventions. The resulting sample size required to
detect a 20% improvement in confidence was approximately 93 participants per group (186
in total) for a two-way design. For a one-way design in which there is confidence of the
direction of effect that assumes participants will either maintain their current confidence
levels or increase them as a result of the program, 74 participants per group were required.
While the baseline figure of 50% confidence seems reasonable based on data from Ipswich,
the feasibility of achieving a 20% increase is unknown, although it is in line with findings by
Wrieden et al.23 While initial discussions with the JMoF Evaluation Advisory Group
suggested aiming for a 10% increase in confidence, sample size calculations indicated that to
detect such an effect size for a quasi-experimental design would require much larger
numbers within each group (> 350), which were not achievable given the evaluation
resources.
Basing calculations on a throughput of more than 500 participants in each of the five sites
and allowing for some attrition, achievement of the sample size would require an
approximate response rate of 18% (assuming the program is running at full capacity).
[14]
Data collection
To maximise response rates, the questionnaire was distributed in three ways: electronic
copy via email delivery, in-class hard copy delivery and postal delivery (Table 1). The
electronic questionnaire delivery was distributed using a Deakin licensed survey tool
(Qualtrics™). Paper-based questionnaires were delivered by the food trainers with a sealed
reply paid Deakin-addressed envelope in class or mailed to participants who did not respond
to the electronic version. A $20 Good Guys voucher was provided to all intervention
participants who completed the questionnaire at all three time points. Data collection was
conducted from October 2013 to March 2015.
Table 1: Mobile kitchen evaluation design
Evaluation design
Data collection time point
Questionnaire delivery
Mobile kitchen program (evaluation sample size: 93 per group)
Intervention: Cycle 1 T1: Baseline, program
Completed in class
commencement
T2: Completion of program
Completed in class
T3: Six months after T2
Electronic
Mailout to non-responders
Control: Cycle 2
T1: Baseline, five weeks before Electronic
program commencement
Mailout to non-responders
T2: Program commencement
Completed in class
Statistical analysis
Demographic and baseline characteristics were summarised for both intervention and
control groups using standard summary statistics (mean and standard deviation) and nonparametric statistics (medians and inter-quartile ranges). Data analysis of all primary and
secondary outcome variables was designed to determine the incremental change over time
between the intervention and control groups. All continuous outcomes were analysed using
a multilevel mixed model for repeated measures. Results are reported as predicted means,
recovered from a fitted mixed linear model with their associated standard error (SE).
Predicted means are presented visually on graphs. All categorical outcomes were analysed
using generalised linear models and fitted using the method of generalised estimating
equations (GEE), which allows for longitudinal binary data.24 In addition, sustainable change
over time was explored in the intervention group for all repeated measures collected at
three time points. This type of analysis is appropriate where there is randomly missing
follow-up data and enables all available data to be utilised. Interclass coefficient (ICC)
analysis was also used to test any cluster effect due to the use of a ‘batch’ recruitment
method in the mobile kitchen analysis. To determine a standardised effect size for the
primary outcome of cooking confidence, a Cohen’s d statistical test was performed. For
[15]
dichotomised confidence variable the proportion of change was shown for those who
increased their confidence, odds ratios were converted to Cohen’s d for ease of
comparison.25 Recommended cut-off points were used to determine the magnitude of the
effect: small (0.2), medium (0.5) and large (0.8). All analyses were performed using STATA™
software (version 13.0). Results were deemed significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Results
Response rates
Allocation of participants to groups and response rates at each time point are shown in
Figure 2. Between October 2013 and March 2015, 1,060 participants registered to
participate in the mobile kitchen program; 547 were allocated to the intervention group
(cycle 1 of the program) and 513 were allocated to the wait-list control group (cycle 2).
Figure 2: Mobile kitchen: Evaluation participation and questionnaire completion numbers
All participants registered for the mobile kitchen between October 2013 to March 2015 (n = 1,060)
Intervention
Registered for the program < 10 weeks before
program commencement (n = 547)
Wait-list
control
Registered for the program > 10 weeks before
program commencement (n = 513)
Did not respond to invitation to participate in
evaluation, n = 221
Did not respond to invitation to participate in
evaluation,
n
=
263
Excluded,
n
=
19
Withdrawal (n = 1), replied too late (n = 18)
Intervention T1 analysed, n = 326
Wait-list control T1 analysed, n = 231
Loss
to
follow-up,
n
=
115
Withdrew from the evaluation (n = 2)
Did not respond to T2 questionnaire (n = 113)
Loss to follow-up, n = 160
Did not respond to T2 questionnaire
Intervention
T2
analysed,
50.9% response rate from T1
n
=
Wait-list control T2 analysed,
50.2% response rate from T1
166
Loss to six month follow-up, n = 76
Did not respond to T3 questionnaire (n = 79)
Intervention T3 analysed, n = 166
- 90 participants completed T1, T2, T3
- 76 participants failed to complete T2; however, they
completed T1 and T3
[16]
n
=
116
Response rates at T2 were similar for both groups (Figure 3). Approximately 50% of
participants who agreed to participate in the evaluation at baseline completed a T2
questionnaire in both the intervention and control groups. After exclusions and loss to
follow-up, the number of intervention participants included in the analysis was 326 at T1,
166 at T2 and 166 at T3 six months post completion, with 90 (28%) participants completing
all three questionnaires. For the control group, 231 completed T1 and 116 completed T1
and T2.
Figure
3:
Mobile
kitchen
evaluation
response
rates
Percentage of participants
Response rates at baseline and retention rates at follow-up
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
60
45
51
50
28
Baseline (T1)
Post program (T2)
Intervention
6 months post program (T3)
Control
Characteristics of mobile kitchen participants
The demographic profile of the population living in each of the evaluation communities
varied. Table 2 shows the population profile for each evaluation community based on 2011
Australian Bureau of Statistics Census data.26 Relative to the total Victorian population,
communities such as Greater Dandenong, Hume and Wyndham had much higher
proportions of residents who spoke a language other than English at home and who were
born overseas.
The proportion of evaluation participants allocated to the intervention and control groups
varied by location (Figure 4). There were no control participants in Latrobe, the first site to
be evaluated, as ethics approval dictated the time data collection could begin.
To account for any potential undue influence that location may have on results, an interclass
correlation was performed between each location and the primary outcome of cooking
confidence. The interclass correlation range of 0.00–0.05 was considered a small enough
association to conclude that the different locations of the mobile kitchen would not impact
significantly on results.
[17]
Table 2: Overall demographic profile of evaluation area
Hume
Latrobe
Mildura
Greater
Dandenong
Wyndham
Greater
Geelong
Victoria
Total population: 2011
Estimated
resident
population
175,063
73,564
51,848
142,591
166,038
21,5151
5,534,526
Aboriginal and
Strait Islander (%)
Torres
0.66
1.53
3.79
0.38
0.74
0.88
0.74
Speak language other than
English at home (%)
43.0
7.2
9.4
64.5
32.0
10.0
24.2
Persons who completed a
higher
education
1
qualification (%)
31.2
24.8
26.8
38.2
41.6
35.8
45.7
Unemployment rate (%)
7.0
6.5
7.6
8.8
8.6
6.2
5.4
Individuals with gross
individual income less than
$400 per week (%)
45.3
45.2
45.1
50.4
36.9
41.8
39.9
Source:
Department
of
Health
&
Human
Services
2012
Local
Government
Area
profile
data 26
1
Percentage of people aged 15 years or over with higher education qualification, including a postgraduate degree (master’s or doctoral degree), a graduate
diploma, a graduate certificate or a bachelor degree. Note that it does not include people who have attained a diploma or an advanced diploma, as these may
have been obtained through the vocational education and training (VET) sector.
Figure 4: Proportion of participants in each evaluation location at baseline
Baseline proportion of participants from each site, %
Percentage of participants
35
30
30.7
30.1
26.4
25
25.1
24.7
19.5
20
16.9
14.7
15
12
10
5
0
Latrobe
Hume
Wyndham
Intervention
Mildura
Dandenong
Control
Table 3 shows the demographic characteristics of the mobile kitchen participants in both
intervention and control groups at each time point. While there were slight differences over
time between groups due to participant dropout between time points, there were no
significant differences in their demographic profile over the course of the evaluation. At
baseline, there were more female than male participants in both groups. The mean age of
all evaluation participants was 40–43 years old, and there were no significant differences
[18]
between groups in age distribution. Less than 2% of evaluated participants identified as
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. A very small proportion of evaluated participants
indicated they spoke a language other than English at home (11% intervention, 13% in the
control group). Education varied between groups, with the intervention group including a
slightly higher proportion of tertiary educated (37% to 33%) and a lower proportion having
completed Year 12 or less (40% compared with 48% in the control group).
While baseline employment levels were similar in both groups, there was a small but
significant difference between groups at T2 (p = 0.049), with more control participants being
in full-time employment (38% compared with the intervention group at 26%). There were
no significant differences in household yearly income between groups. At baseline, 60.6% of
intervention participants and 56.8% of control participants had a household yearly income
of more than $50,000 per year.
There were small but significant differences between groups at baseline (p = 0.047) in terms
of household characteristics. The intervention group had a slightly higher proportion of
participants with young children living at home, while the control group had a slightly higher
proportion of participants living with older children (18 years or over). The control group
also had a slightly higher proportion of one-parent families with children living at home,
while the intervention group had a higher proportion of people living alone.
A comparison was also made between the baseline characteristics of intervention
participants at T1 who completed T3 (evaluation completers) and those who did not
complete T3 (non-evaluation completers). Two significant differences were found. At
baseline, completers had a mean age of 37.5 years compared with non-completers at 43.0
(p = 0.01). A higher proportion of non-completers were aged under 50 years (80.1%)
compared with completers (69.1%). There were significant differences in employment
status (p = 0.01), with significantly more retired (14.7%) and part-time workers (29.5%)
among the evaluation completers at baseline compared with non-completers (3.4% and
24.5% respectively). The non-completer group comprised more full-time workers (32.7%),
students (8.2%) and participants in home duties (21.1%) compared with the non-completers
(29.5%, 3.21% and 15.4% respectively). There were no significant differences between these
two groups in terms of baseline cooking confidence.
[19]
Table 3: Demographic characteristics of all participants included in analysis a at each time
point in Jamie’s Ministry of Food mobile kitchen evaluation, Victoriaa
Intervention
T1 n = 326
Intervention
T2 n = 166
Intervention
T3 n = 165
Control
T1 n = 231
Control
T2 n = 116
Latrobe
98 (30.1)
70 (42.2)
48 (28.9)
n/a
n/a
Hume
48 (14.7)
22 (13.3)
30 (18.1)
45 (19.5)
20 (17.24)
Wyndham
86 (26.4)
29 (17.5)
47 (28.3)
57 (24.7)
33 (28.45)
Mildura
39 (12.0)
19 (11.5)
21 (12.7)
58 (25.1)
23 (19.8)
Dandenong
55 (16.9)
26 (15.7)
20 (12.0)
71 (30.7)
40 (34.5)
Female
276 (85.2)
142 (85.5)
145 (87.9)
196 (84.9)
102 (87.9)
Male
48 (14.8)
24 (14.5)
19 (11.5)
35 (15.2)
14 (12.1)
Under 50
241 (74.6)
120 (73.2)
114 (69.1)
165 (73.0)
91 (78.5)
50 and over
82 (25.4)
44 (26.8)
51 (30.9)
61 (27.0)
25 (21.6)
18–24
42 (13.0)
16 (9.8)
15 (9.1)
24 (10.6)
7 (6.0)
25–34
89 (27.5)
36 (22.0)
40 (24.2)
46 (20.4)
27 (23.3)
35–44
91 (28.2)
57 (34.8)
51 (30.9)
60 (26.6)
38 (32.8)
45–54
46 (14.2)
26 (15.9)
23 (13.9)
57 (25.2)
25 (21.6)
55–64
65–74
33 (10.2)
20 (6.2)
17 (10.4)
10 (6.1)
19 (11.5)
15 (9.1)
27 (12.0)
11 (4.9)
11 (9.5)
8 (6.9)
75+
2 (0.6)
2 (1.2)
2 (1.2)
1 (0.4)
0 (0.0)
Mean age years (SD)
40.3 (13.9)
41.9 (13.7)
43.0 (14.3)
42.5 (13.1)
42.6 (12.5)
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander,
n (%)
3 (0.9)
0 (0.0)
1 (0.6)
4 (1.8)
1 (0.9)
Speaks a language other than English at
home, n (%)
35 (10.9)
13 (7.9)
21 (12.8)
30 (13.4)
16 (14.2)
127 (40.5)
65 (40.6)
59 (36.9)
107 (47.8)
45 (39.5)
69 (22.0)
38 (23.8)
35 (21.9)
41 (18.3)
23 (20.2)
116 (36.9)
56 (35.0
65 (40.6)
74 (33.0)
46 (40.4)
2 (0.6)
1 (0.6)
1 (0.6)
2 (0.9)
0 (0.0)
Employment, n (%)
Full time
94 (30.8)
40 (25.8)
46 (29.5)
70 (32.1)
42 (37.5)
Part time/casual
83 (27.2)
41 (26.5)
46 (29.5)
55 (25.2)
26 (23.2)
Retired
28 (9.2)
18 (11.6)
23 (14.7)
17 (7.8)
10 (8.9)
Home duties/ carer
55 (18.0)
35 (22.6)
24 (15.4)
36 (16.5)
18 (16.1)
Not working (permanently ill/unable to
work, unemployed)
Student (full time and part time)
18 (5.9)
8 (5.2)
9 (5.8)
23 (10.6)
10 (8.9)
18 (5.9)
10 (6.5)
5 (3.2)
9 (4.1)
1 (0.9)
Other
9 (3.0)
3 (1.9)
3 (1.9)
8 (3.7)
5 (4.5)
Household yearly income, n (%)
$1–$6,000
9 (3.2)
7 (4.7)
4 (2.7)
5 (2.6)
3 (2.9)
$6,001–$13,000
19 (6.7)
10 (6.7)
7 (4.7)
8 (4.2)
2 (1.9)
$13,001–$20,000
20 (7.0)
11 (7.4)
8 (5.3)
14 (7.4)
7 (6.7)
Location, n (%)
Gender, n (%)
Age (years)
Highest Level of education attained, n
(%)
High school, Year 12 or less
TAFE, apprenticeship, diploma
certificate
Tertiary, bachelor degree or higher
or
Other
c
[20]
$20,001–$30,000
Intervention
T1 n = 326
18 (6.3)
Intervention
T2 n = 166
8 (5.4)
Intervention
T3 n = 165
13 (8.7)
Control
T1 n = 231
21 (11.1)
Control
T2 n = 116
14 (13.5)
$30,001–$50,000
46 (16.2)
25 (16.8)
21 (14.0)
34 (17.9)
17 (16.4)
$50,001–$100,000
100 (35.2)
49 (32.9)
59 (39.3)
72 (37.9)
41 (39.4)
$100,001–$150,000
53 (18.7)
32 (21.5)
31 (20.7)
27 (14.2)
12 (11.6)
Over $150,000
19 (6.7)
7 (4.7)
7 (4.7)
9 (4.7)
8 (7.7)
120 (37.4)
68 (41.5)
64 (39.0)
75 (32.9)
35 (30.2)
45 (14.0)
22 (13.4)
18 (11.0)
45 (19.7)
16 (13.8)
67 (20.9)
26 (8.1)
29 (17.7)
18 (11.0)
36 (22.0)
11 (6.7)
50 (21.9)
30 (13.2)
37 (31.9)
13 (11.2)
32 (10.0)
31 (9.7)
3.3 (1.6)
3
16 (9.8)
11 (6.7)
3.3 (1.4)
3
20 (12.2)
15 (9.2)
3.3 (1.7)
3
15 (6.6)
13 (5.7)
3.2 (1.4)
3
9 (7.8)
6 (5.2)
3.0 (1.3)
3
b
Household characteristics, n (%)
Couple with young children (0–17 years
old) living at home
Couple with adult children (18 years or
over) living at home
Couple without children living at home
One-parent family with children living at
home
Live alone
Other
Mean household size (SD)
Median household size (50th percentile)
a
Sample size for different variables might vary from total sample size because of missing responses and rounding of
weighted frequencies.
b
Significant difference between groups (p < 0.05) at baseline as tested with chi squared analysis.
c
Significant difference between groups (p < 0.05) at T2 as tested with chi squared analysis.
SD = standard deviation; TAFE = Technical and Further Education
Table 4 indicates that approximately 70% of evaluation participants shared their program
experience with friends and family members or as part of a community group.
Table 4: Shared experiences: Evaluation participants’ program attendance with others
Attending with others or a group (yes)
T1
T2
T3
T1
T2
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
228 (71.3)
114 (69.1)
113 (69.3)
156 (70.0)
73 (64.0)
Friend
86 (37.9)
35 (31.0)
52 (45.6)
Family
86 (37.9)
41 (36.3)
45 (39.5)
With a carer
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
As part of a community group
40 (17.6)
29 (25.7)
Other
15 (6.6)
8 (7.1)
[21]
61 (39.1)
49 (31.4)
25 (34.7)
3 (1.9)
19 (12.2)
2 (2.8)
11 (9.7)
6 (5.3)
24 (15.4)
16 (22.2)
22 (30.6)
7 (9.7)
Primary outcomes
For the primary outcomes of cooking confidence, the following results are presented:


change over time from baseline (T1) to post program (T2) between intervention and
control groups
the sustained effects (T1, T2 and six months post program at T3) for the intervention
group only.
The reported means for each group over time are presented in histograms, with confidence
intervals represented as a bar on each column. The secondary outcomes results are
presented in the same manner (starting on page 31). Results are reported as predicted
means and presented visually on graphs (Figures 5a to 41b). Predicted means may vary
slightly between graphs as a result of the mixed linear model analysis.
Caption: Inside Jamie’s Ministry of Food mobile kitchen
[22]
Cooking confidence (self-efficacy)
Figure 5a: Confidence to cook from basic ingredients – T1–T2 group comparison
Mean confidence score
Interaction effect: Significant (p < 0.001)
4.47
5.00
4.00
Effect size: Medium (Cohen’s d = 0.55)
3.86
3.843.70
There was a significant difference
between groups over time. Mean
confidence to cook from basic ingredients
significantly increased in the intervention
group between T1 and T2 (p < 0.001). The
control group also made small but
significant improvements over time (p =
0.03).
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 5b: Confidence to cook from basic ingredients – sustained effect in intervention
group
Mean confidence score
5.00
4.00
4.45
4.34
3.84
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant p < 0.001
Effect size:
T1–T2 difference: large (Cohen’s d 1.11)
T1–T3 difference: medium (Cohen’s d 0.77)
3.00
2.00
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.61 p < 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 0.50 p < 0.001
3 versus 2: difference: –0.11 p = 0.10
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
The significant increase in confidence to cook
from basic ingredients from T1 to T2 was
sustained at six months follow-up (T3).
[23]
Figure 6a: Confidence to follow a simple recipe – T1–T2 group comparison
Interaction effect: Significant (p < 0.001)
Mean confidence score
5.00
4.64
[VALUE
]
[VALUE
4.27 ]
4.00
Effect size: Small (Cohen’s d = 0.48)
There was a significant difference between
groups over time. Between T1 and T2, the
intervention group significantly increased in
mean confidence to follow a simple recipe,
whereas the control group did not.
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Timepoint
Intervention
Control
Figure 6b: Confidence to follow a simple recipe – sustained effect in intervention group
Mean confidence score
5.00
4.27
4.64
4.66
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p < 0.001)
Effect size:
T1–T2 difference: medium (Cohen’s d = 0.67)
T1–T3 difference: medium (Cohen’s d = 0.70)
4.00
3.00
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.37 p < 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 0.38 p < 0.001
3 versus 2: difference: 0.02 p = 0.79
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
The significant increase in the confidence of the
intervention group to follow a simple recipe was
sustained and continued to grow at six months
follow up (T3).
[24]
Figure 7a: Confidence about preparing new foods and recipes – T1–T2 group comparison
Interaction effect: Significant (p < 0.001)
Mean confidence score
5.00
4.00
4.33
3.65 3.47
Effect size: Medium (Cohen’s d = 0.73)
3.55
3.00
2.00
1.00
There was a significant difference between
groups over time. The confidence of the
intervention group to prepare new foods
and recipes significantly increased between
T1 and T2, whereas there was no change in
the control group.
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 7b: Confidence about preparing new foods and recipes – sustained effect in
intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant p < 0.001
5.00
Mean confidence score
4.32
4.00
4.13
3.65
3.00
Effect size:
T1–T2 difference: large (Cohen’s d = 1.21)
T1–T3 difference: medium (Cohen’s d = 0.78)
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.67 p < 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 0.49 p < 0.001
3 versus 2: difference: –0.19 p = 0.01
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
The significant increase in confidence to
prepare and cook new foods and recipes
from T1 to T2 was sustained at six months
follow-up (T3). While there was a significant
drop in confidence between T2 and T3, the
levels remained significantly higher than at
T1.
[25]
Figure 8a: Confidence that what you cook will turn out well – T1–T2 group comparison
Interaction effect: Significant (p < 0.001)
Mean confidence score
5.00
4.00
Effect size: Medium (Cohen’s d = 0.76)
4.01
3.43
3.34 3.37
There was a significant difference between
groups over time. Between T1 and T2 the
intervention group significantly increased
in confidence that what they cooked would
turn out well, but the control group did
not.
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 8b: Confidence that what you cook will turn out well – sustained effect in
intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p < 0.001)
5.00
4.00
Mean confidence score
4.00
4.00
Effect size:
T1–T2 difference: large (Cohen’s d = 1.20)
T1–T3 difference: large (Cohen’s d = 1.13)
3.34
3.00
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.67 p < 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 0.67 p < 0.001
3 versus 2: difference: 0.00 p = 0.97
2.00
1.00
The significant increase in the confidence
that what they cooked would turn out
well in the intervention group was
maintained at six months follow-up (T3).
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[26]
Figure 9a: Confidence to taste foods never eaten before – T1–T2 group comparison
Interaction effect: Significant (p < 0.001)
5.00
Effect size: Medium (Cohen’s d = 0.69)
Mean confidence score
4.26
4.00
3.71 3.66
3.61
There was a significant difference
between groups over time. Between T1
and T2 the intervention group
significantly increased in confidence to
taste foods they had never eaten before,
but the control group did not.
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 9b: Confidence to taste foods never eaten before – sustained effect in intervention
group
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p < 0.001)
5.00
Mean confidence score
4.26
4.00
Effect size:
T1–T2 difference: large (Cohen’s d = 0.91)
T1–T3 difference: small (Cohen’s d = 0.43)
4.05
3.70
3.00
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.55 p < 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 0.35 p < 0.001
3 versus 2: difference: –0.21 p = 0.01
2.00
1.00
The significant increase in the confidence
of the intervention group to taste foods
never eaten before was sustained at six
months follow-up (T3). However, there
was a small but significant decline in
confidence between T2 and T3.
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[27]
Figure 10a: Combined confidence score – T1–T2 group comparison
Interaction effect: Significant (p < 0.001)
Mean confidence score
25.00
20.00
Effect size: Medium (Cohen’s d = 0.96)
21.79
18.8118.28
18.57
There was a significant difference between
groups over time. The intervention group
significantly increased in mean confidence
from baseline (T1) to post program (T2),
but the control group did not.
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 10b: Combined confidence score – sustained effect in intervention group
Mean confidence score
25.00
20.00
21.75
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p < 0.001)
21.19
Effect size:
T1–T2 difference: large (Cohen’s d = 1.51)
T1–T3 difference: large (Cohen’s d = 1.10)
18.82
15.00
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 2.93 p < 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 2.38 p < 0.001
3 versus 2: difference: –0.56 p = 0.03
10.00
5.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
There was a significant increase in overall
cooking confidence from T1 to T3,
demonstrating a sustained program effect
over time.
T3
[28]
Figure 11a: Frequency of confident cooks – T1–T2 group comparison
82.3
80.0
Percentage %
Effect size: Large (Cohen’s d = 0.91)
96.2
100.0
There was a significant improvement in
the frequency of participants who were
considered confident cooks between
groups and over time (p < 0.001). The
proportion of intervention participants
who were confident cooks significantly
increased between T1 and T2 (p < 0.001).
79.5
75.7
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 11b: Frequency of participants who were confident cooks – sustained effect in
intervention group
96.2
100.0
Effect size:
T1–T2 difference: large (Cohen’s d = 1.62)
T1–T3 difference: large (Cohen’s d = 1.67)
97.0
82.3
Percentage %
80.0
Improvements in cooking confidence
were maintained six months after the
program was completed at T3 (p < 0.001).
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
T1
T2
Time point
T3
Intervention
[29]
Secondary outcomes
Healthy eating
Figure 12a: Self-reported daily vegetable intake – T1–T2 group comparison
Mean daily intake (serves)
Interaction effect: Significant (p = 0.03)
4.00
Effect size: Small (Cohen’s d = 0.21)
3.06
3.00
2.52
2.56
2.34
There was a significant difference between
groups over time. The intervention group
significantly increased its mean daily
vegetable intake by 0.54 serves from
baseline (T1) to post program (T2) (p <
0.001). The control group also significantly
increased its daily vegetable consumption
by 0.22 serves per day from T1 to T2 (p =
0.05).
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 12b: Self-reported daily vegetable
intake – sustained effect in intervention
group
Mean daily intake (serves)
4.00
3.02
3.00
2.96
2.52
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p < 0.001)
Effect size:
T1–T2 difference: medium (Cohen’s d = 0.53)
T1–T3 difference: small (Cohen’s d = 0.34)
2.00
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.50 p < 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 0.43 p < 0.001
3 versus 2: difference: –0.06 p < 0.001
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
There was a significant increase of 0.43
serves in daily vegetable intake from baseline
(T1) to six months post program (T3),
demonstrating that the program effect was
sustained.
[30]
Figure 13a: Self-reported daily fruit intake – T1–T2 group comparison
Interaction effect: Significant (p = 0.05)
Mean daily intake (serves)
3.00
Effect size: Small (Cohen’s d = 0.21)
2.14
2.00
1.78 1.58
There was a significant difference
between groups over time. The
intervention
group
significantly
increased its mean daily fruit intake by
0.36 serves from baseline (T1) to post
program (T2) (p < 0.001).
1.70
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
The control group increased its daily
fruit consumption by 0.12 serves;
however, this change was not
significant.
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 13b: Self-reported daily fruit intake – sustained effect in intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p < 0.001)
Mean daily intake (serves)
3.00
2.12
2.00
T1–T2 difference: small (Cohen’s d =
0.45)
T1–T3 difference: small (Cohen’s d =
0.36)
2.11
1.78
1.00
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.34 p < 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 0.33 p < 0.001
3 versus 2: difference: –0.01 p = 0.90
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
There was a significant increase of 0.34
serves of daily fruit intake from baseline
(T2), and this was sustained at six months follow-up (T3).
[31]
Figure 14a: Self-reported frequency of eating take-away/fast food per week – T1–T2 group
comparison
Interaction effect: Significant (p = 0.01)
2.00
Mean weekly intake
Effect size: Small (Cohen’s d = -0.33)
1.06
1.00
0.92
There was a significant difference between
groups over time. The intervention group
significantly decreased its mean weekly
take-away food consumption by 0.2 serves
from baseline (T1) to post program (T2).
The control group did not significantly
change its consumption.
0.860.93
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 14b: Self-reported frequency of eating take-away/fast food per week – sustained
effect in intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p < 0.001)
Mean weekly intake
2.00
T1–T2 difference: small (Cohen’s d = -0.42)
T1–T3 difference: small (Cohen’s d = –0.34)
1.05
0.87
1.00
0.87
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: –0.18 p < 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: –0.19 p < 0.001
3 versus 2: difference: –0.00 p = 0.96
There was a significant reduction in weekly
take-away consumption by 0.19 serves from
baseline (T1) to T2, and this change was
sustained at six months post program (T3).
[32]
[33]
Healthy cooking measures
Figure 15a: Frequency of preparing and cooking the main meal at home from basic
ingredients – T1–T2 group comparison
Interaction effect: Not significant (p =
0.32)
Mean weekly intake
6.00
5.00
4.59 4.50
4.31 4.40
While frequency of preparing and cooking
the main meal from basic ingredients
increased in the intervention group from
baseline (T1) to program completion (T2),
there was no significant difference
between groups over time.
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 15b: Frequency of preparing and cooking the main meal at home from basic
ingredients – sustained effect in
intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p < 0.001)
6.00
Mean weekly intake
5.00
4.31
4.56
4.74
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.25 p = 0.03
3 versus 1: difference: 0.43 p < 0.001
3 versus 2: difference: 0.18 p = 0.18
4.00
3.00
Overtime there was a significant increase
in the frequency of preparing and
cooking the main meal from basic
ingredients between T1 to T2 by 0.25
times per week, and it continued to
increase (by 0.18) between T2 and T3.
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[34]
Figure 16a: Frequency of eating readymade meals at home – T1–T2 group
comparison
Mean weekly intake
2.00
Interaction effect: Not significant (p =
0.24)
0.97 1.10
1.05 1.02
While consumption of ready-made meals
decreased slightly in the intervention
group and increased slightly in the control
group, there was no significant difference
between groups over time.
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 16b: Frequency of eating ready-made meals at home – sustained effect in
intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p = 0.01)
Mean weekly intake
2.00
1.05
1.00
0.97
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: –0.08 p = 0.32
3 versus 1: difference: –0.25 p = 0.002
3 versus 2: difference: –0.17 p = 0.08
0.80
The significant reduction in the frequency
of eating ready-made meals between T1
and T2 was more than sustained between
T2 and T3, with further reductions.
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[35]
Figure17a: Consumption of vegetables
with the main meal – T1–T2 group
comparison
Mean weekly intake
6.00
5.00
4.71 4.72
Interaction effect: Not significant (p =
0.88)
4.90 4.89
4.00
There was no significant difference
between groups and over time. Between
T1 and T2, both the intervention and
control groups increased their mean
frequency of including vegetables with the
main mean by approximately 0.2 times
per week.
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Mean weekly intake
Figure 17b: Consumption of vegetables with the main meal – sustained effect in
intervention group
7.00
Overall effect of change over time:
6.00
5.19
Significant (p < 0.001)
4.88
4.71
5.00
Pairwise comparisons:
4.00
2 versus 1: difference: 0.18 p = 0.13
3 versus 1: difference: 0.48 p < 0.001
3.00
3 versus 2: difference: 0.31 p = 0.02
2.00
Overtime, the significant increase in the
1.00
mean frequency of including vegetables with
0.00
the main meal between T1 to T2 was
T1
T2
T3
sustained, with further improvements to T3.
Time point
[36]
Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding healthy eating habits
Mean change in agreement
Figure 18a: I find it easy to change my eating habits – T1–T2 group comparison
Interaction effect: Not significant (p = 0.24)
4.00
3.00
2.89
2.622.49
2.66
2.00
1.00
There was no significant difference between
groups and over time. Between T1 and T2,
both the intervention (p < 0.001) and
control (p = 0.013) groups significantly
improved their attitudes about finding it
easy to change their eating habits.
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 18b: I find it easy to change my eating habits – sustained effect in intervention
group
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p < 0.001)
Mean change in agreement
4.00
3.00
2.62
2.88
2.67
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.27 p < 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 0.05 p = 0.37
3 versus 2: difference: –0.22 p = 0.002
2.00
Improvements in attitudes made between
T1 and T2 were not sustained at T3 when
the mean had dropped back to baseline
levels.
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[37]
Mean change in agreement
Figure 19a: Vegetables can be tasty foods
– T1–T2 group comparison
4.00
3.70 3.74
3.64 3.60
Interaction effect: Not significant (p =
0.24)
3.00
There was no significant difference
between groups and over time. Between
T1 and T2 there was no significant change
in the intervention group in terms of the
belief that vegetables can be tasty. On the
other hand, the control group significantly
improved by 0.14 (p = 0.02).
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Mean change in agreement
Figure 19b: Vegetables can be tasty foods – sustained effect in intervention group
4.00
3.64
3.69
Overall effect of change over time:
Not significant (p = 0.49)
3.62
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.05 p = 0.37
3 versus 1: difference: –0.02 p = 0.65
3 versus 2: difference: –0.07 p = 0.25
3.00
2.00
There was no significant or sustained
change over time in the intervention
group’s attitude regarding vegetables
being tasty.
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[38]
Mean change in agreement
Figure 20a: I eat enough fruit and vegetables – T1–T2 group comparison
Interaction effect: Not significant (p =
0.39)
4.00
3.00
2.71 2.65
2.92 2.78
T1
T2
While there was no significant difference
between groups and over time, between
T1 and T2 the intervention participants
significantly improved their belief that
they ate enough fruit and vegetables.
There was no significant improvement
among control group participants.
2.00
1.00
0.00
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 20b: I eat enough fruit and vegetables – sustained effect in intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p = 0.001)
Mean change in agreement
4.00
3.00
2.71
2.93
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.22 P>0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 0.13 p = 0.04
3 versus 2: difference: –0.09 p = 0.20
2.83
2.00
The intervention group’s improvement in
the belief that they ate enough fruit and
vegetables was largely sustained
between T2 and T3.
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[39]
Figure 21a: Fruit and vegetables are cheaper when they are in season – T1–T2 group
comparison
Mean change in agreement
Interaction effect: Not significant (p = 0.28)
4.00
3.78 3.73
3.60 3.47
There was no significant difference
between groups over time. However, both
groups significantly increased their belief
that fruit and vegetables are cheaper when
in season (by 0.18 in the intervention
group and 0.26 in the control group)
between T1 and T2.
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 21b: Fruit and vegetables are cheaper when they are in season – sustained effect in
intervention group
Mean change in agreement
4.00
3.60
3.77
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p = 0.003)
3.65
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.17 p = 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 0.05 p = 0.36
3 versus 2: difference: –0.13 p = 0.03
3.00
2.00
The significant improvement in the
proportion of the intervention group
believing that fruit and vegetables are
cheaper when in season was not sustained
between T2 and T3, with the proportion
falling back close to baseline levels.
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[40]
Figure 22a: My lifestyle does not prevent me eating a healthy diet – T1–T2 group
comparison
Interaction effect: Not significant (p = 0.41)
4.00
3.08 3.07
3.24 3.14
T1
T2
There was no significant difference
between groups and over time. Between
T1 and T2, intervention group participants
significantly (p = 0.02) increased their belief
that their lifestyle did not prevent them
from eating a healthy diet, while there was
no change in the control group.
3.00
Mean change in agreement
2.00
1.00
0.00
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 22b: My lifestyle does not prevent me eating a healthy diet – sustained effect in
intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Not significant (p = 0.06)
Mean change in agreement
4.00
3.08
3.24
3.19
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.15 p = 0.03
3 versus 1: difference: 0.10 p = 0.12
3 versus 2: difference: –0.05 p = 0.54
3.00
2.00
There were no significant changes over
time in the attitudes of the intervention
group that lifestyle prevents eating a
healthy diet.
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[41]
Cooking skills and knowledge
Figure 23a: I can make a healthy meal from scratch in 30 minutes – T1–T2 group
comparison
Mean change in agreement
4.00
3.37
3.00
3.00 2.90
Interaction effect: Significant (p = 0.03)
3.06
There was a significant difference
between groups over time. Between T1
and T2, the intervention participants
significantly improved (by 0.37) their
belief that they had the ability to put
together a healthy meal from scratch in
30 minutes. However, the control
group also significantly improved,
although the increase was smaller
(0.16).
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 23b: I can make a healthy meal from scratch in 30 minutes – sustained effect in
intervention group
Mean change in agreement
4.00
3.38
3.00
3.29
3.00
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.38 p < 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 0.29 p < 0.001
3 versus 2: difference: –0.10 p = 0.17
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p < 0.001)
T2
Time point
T3
[42]
The significant improvement in the
attitude of intervention participants
about their ability to put together a
healthy meal from scratch in 30
minutes between T1 and T2 was
sustained six months later at T3.
Nutrition knowledge
Figure 24a: Frequency of answering a nutrition knowledge question about salt correctly –
T1–T2 group comparison
Percentage %
100.00
89.51 92.86
91.77 88.16
80.00
There was no significant difference
in nutritional knowledge about salt
content in foods between groups
and over time (p = 0.16).
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 24b: Frequency of answering a nutrition knowledge question about salt correctly –
sustained effect in intervention group
100.00
91.77
89.51
T1
T2
Time point
94.58
Percentage %
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
T3
[43]
While not significantly different,
the intervention group was more
likely to answer a nutrition
knowledge question about the salt
content in foods correctly at T3
than at the earlier time points (p =
0.24).
Figure 25a: Frequency of answering a nutrition knowledge question about sugar correctly
– T1–T2 group comparison
100.00
91.98
88.96 89.96
90.43
Percentage %
80.00
60.00
40.00
There was no significant difference
between groups and over time (p =
0.33). The intervention group
increased its nutritional knowledge
relating to sugar in food between
T1 and T2, while there was no
change in the control group.
20.00
0.00
T1
Time point
Intervention
T2
Control
Figure 25b: Frequency of answering a nutrition knowledge question about sugar correctly
– sustained effect in intervention group
100.00
88.96
91.98
T1
T2
Time point
96.99
Percentage %
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
T3
[44]
The improvement in the knowledge
of the intervention group about
sugar in foods continued after the
program, with a significant increase
between T2 and T3 (p = 0.01).
Figure 26a: Frequency of answering a nutrition knowledge question about fat correctly –
T1–T2 group comparison
100.00
Percentage %
80.00
69.67 65.18
70.39 69.09
60.00
40.00
20.00
There was no significant
difference between groups and
over time (p = 0.58). The control
group
showed
a
small
improvement between T1 and
T2 in its nutritional knowledge
relating to fat in food, while
there
was
negligible
improvement in the intervention
group.
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 26b: Frequency of answering a nutrition knowledge question about fat correctly –
sustained effect in intervention group
100.00
Percentage %
80.00
69.67
70.39
68.10
T1
T2
T3
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
Time point
[45]
At T3, the nutrition knowledge
of the intervention group about
fat content in foods fell
marginally to below baseline
levels (p = 0.96).
Enjoyment and satisfaction around cooking
Figure 27a: I enjoy cooking – T1–T2 group comparison
Mean change in agreement
4.00
Interaction effect: Not significant (p =
0.16)
3.30 3.27
3.48 3.34
T1
T2
There was no significant difference
between groups and over time. Between
T1 and T2 the intervention group made a
small but significant (p < 0.001)
improvement in its enjoyment levels of
cooking, while there was no change in the
control group.
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 27b: I enjoy cooking – sustained
effect in intervention group
Mean change in agreement
4.00
3.30
3.49
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p < 0.001)
3.36
3.00
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.19 p < 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 0.05 p = 0.22
3 versus 2: difference: –0.13 p = 0.01
2.00
The significant improvement in the
cooking enjoyment of the intervention
group between T1 and T2 was not
sustained between T2 and T3.
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[46]
Figure 28a: I enjoy cooking for others – T1–T2 group comparison
Mean change in agreement
Interaction effect: Not significant (p = 0.11)
4.00
3.26 3.21
3.43 3.26
T1
T2
There was no significant difference
between groups and over time. Between T1
and T2 the intervention group significantly
increased its level of enjoyment in cooking
for others. There was no change in the
control group.
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 28b: I enjoy cooking for others –
sustained effect in intervention group
Mean change in agreement
4.00
3.26
3.43
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p = 0.003)
3.35
3.00
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.17 p = 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 0.09 p = 0.08
3 versus 2: difference: –0.08 p = 0.18
2.00
The intervention group’s significant
improvement between T1 and T2 in its
enjoyment of cooking for others was not
significantly sustained at T3.
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[47]
Figure 29a: I get a lot of satisfaction from cooking my meals – T1–T2 group comparison
Interaction effect: Significant (p < 0.001)
Mean change in agreement
4.00
3.23 3.13
3.43 3.30
T1
T2
There was a significant difference
between groups over time. Both the
intervention and control groups
significantly increased their level of
satisfaction from cooking their meals
after completing the program.
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 29b: I get a lot of satisfaction from cooking my meals – sustained effect in
intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p < 0.001)
Mean change in agreement
4.00
3.23
3.42
3.34
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.19 p < 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 0.11 p = 0.03
3 versus 2: difference: –0.08 p = 0.19
3.00
2.00
The
significant
increase
among
intervention participants in their levels
of satisfaction received from cooking in
the intervention between T1 and T2 was
sustained at T3.
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[48]
Figure 30a: I enjoy eating a meal with others – T1–T2 group comparison
Mean change in agreement
4.00
Interaction effect: Not significant (p =
0.35)
3.68 3.62
3.67 3.55
There was no significant difference
between groups and over time. At
baseline, both the intervention and
control groups had high levels of
enjoyment while eating with others, and
this changed very little as a result of
completing the program.
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 30b: I enjoy eating a meal with others – sustained effect in intervention group
Mean change in agreement
4.00
3.67
3.68
Overall effect of change over time:
Not significant (p = 0.82)
3.65
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.01 p = 0.84
3 versus 1: difference: –0.02 p = 0.61
3 versus 2: difference: –0.03 p = 0.54
3.00
2.00
Intervention participants showed no
significant changes in their levels of
enjoyment of eating a meal with others
between T1 and T3.
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[49]
Social connectedness around cooking and eating
Figure 31a: Frequency of eating together in a typical week – T1–T2 group comparison
Interaction effect: Not significant (p =
0.14)
Mean frequency per week
5.00
4.06 4.09
4.19 4.03
T1
T2
4.00
There was no significant difference
between groups and over time. Between
T1 and T2 the intervention group showed
a marginal but insignificant increase in the
mean frequency of eating with others.
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 31b: Frequency of eating together in a typical week – sustained effect in
intervention group
Mean weekkly intake
5.00
4.06
4.20
Overall effect of change over time:
Not significant (p = 0.11)
4.23
4.00
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.15 p = 0.12
3 versus 1: difference: 0.17 p = 0.07
3 versus 2: difference: 0.03 p = 0.82
3.00
2.00
There was no significant change in the
frequency of eating together with others
over the three time periods.
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[50]
Figure 32a: Frequency of eating dinner in front of the television in a typical week – T1–T2
group comparison
Interaction effect: Significant (p = 0.05)
Mean frequency per week
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.37 2.33
2.09
2.35
2.00
1.00
There was a significant difference
between groups over time. Between
T1 and T2 the intervention group
reduced the mean number of times
they eat dinner in front of the
television per week. There was no
significant change in the control
group.
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 32b: Frequency of eating dinner in front of the television in a typical week –
sustained effect in intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p = 0.03)
Mean weekkly intake
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.37
2.11
2.19
2.00
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: –0.25 p = 0.01
3 versus 1: difference: –0.17 p = 0.09
3 versus 2: difference: 0.08 p = 0.50
The reduction between T1 and T2 in
the frequency of eating dinner in front
of the television was not fully
sustained at T3.
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[51]
Mean frequency per week
Figure 33a: Frequency of eating dinner at the dinner table in a typical week – T1–T2 group
comparison
4.00
3.36 3.44
3.63 3.46
Interaction effect: Not significant (p =
0.05)
T2
There was a no significant difference
between groups over time. The
intervention group significantly increased
its frequency of eating dinner at the
dinner table by 0.27 times per week
between T1 and T2. The control group did
not change.
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 33b: Frequency of eating dinner at the dinner table in a typical week – sustained
effect in intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p = 0.01)
5.00
Mean weekkly intake
4.00
3.36
3.61
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.25 p = 0.01
3 versus 1: difference: 0.19 p = 0.03
3 versus 2: difference: –0.07 p = 0.53
3.55
3.00
The significant increase in the frequency
of eating dinner at the dinner table in a
typical week from T1 to T2 among
intervention participants was sustained
at six months follow-up.
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[52]
Affordability of a healthy meal
Mean weekly expenditure ($)
200.00
150.00
Figure 34a: Total weekly food and drink
expenditure ($) – T1–T2 group
comparison
160.54 166.91
150.78 154.25 Interaction effect: Not significant (p =
0.66)
There was no significant difference
between groups over time. Between T1
and T2 the intervention group significantly
reduced its mean total weekly food and
drink expenditure by $9.75 (p = 0.02).
However, the reduction in the control
group was greater at $12.66 (p = 0.01).
100.00
50.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 34b: Total weekly food and drink expenditure ($) – sustained effect in intervention
group
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p = 0.01)
Mean weekly expenditure ($)
200.00
160.54
150.00
149.75 150.99
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: –10.78 p = 0.01
3 versus 1: difference: –9.55 p = 0.02
3 versus 2: difference: 1.24 p = 0.79
100.00
Reductions in food and drink expenditure
made by the intervention group between
T1 and T2 were sustained six months after
the program at T3.
50.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[53]
Figure 35a: Total weekly fruit and vegetable expenditure ($) – T1–T2 group comparison
Interaction effect: Not significant (p = 0.18)
Mean weekly expenditure ($)
40.00
30.00
27.92 25.47
25.60 25.13
20.00
10.00
There was no significant difference
between groups over time. The
intervention group significantly increased
its mean total weekly household fruit and
vegetable expenditure between T1 and T2,
while the change in the control group was
marginal.
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 35b: Total weekly fruit and vegetable expenditure ($) – sustained effect in
intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p = 0.04)
Mean weekly expenditure ($)
40.00
30.00
25.62
28.10
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 2.48 p = 0.02
3 versus 1: difference: –0.08 p = 0.94
3 versus 2: difference: –2.55 p = 0.04
25.54
20.00
The significant increase in the mean total
weekly household fruit and vegetable
expenditure of the intervention group from
T1 to T2 was not sustained six months after
the program at T3. Expenditure patterns
significantly dropped to marginally below
baseline levels.
10.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[54]
Figure 36a: Total weekly take-away/fast food expenditure ($) – T1–T2 group comparison
Mean weekly expenditure ($)
Interaction effect: Significant (p = 0.06)
25.00
20.00
15.67
15.43
15.00
14.94
12.67
10.00
5.00
0.00
T1
There was no significant difference
between groups and over time. The
intervention
group
significantly
decreased its mean total weekly
household take-away food expenditure
between T1 and T2 by $3.00. The
change in the control group was small
($0.49) and insignificant.
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 36b: Total weekly take-away/fast food expenditure ($) – sustained effect in
intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p = 0.001)
Mean weekly expenditure ($)
25.00
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: –2.27 p = 0.002
3 versus 1: difference: –2.38 p = 0.01
3 versus 2: difference: 0.40 p = 0.69
20.00
15.67
12.89
15.00
13.29
The significant decrease in the mean
total weekly household take-away
expenditure from T1 to T2 was largely
sustained at T3.
10.00
5.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[55]
Attitudes and beliefs of affordability of a healthy meal
Figure 37a: I can prepare a meal from basics that are low in price – T1–T2 group
comparison
Mean change in agreement
Interaction effect: Significant (p = 0.04)
4.00
3.48
3.16 3.04
3.18
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
There was a significant difference
between groups over time. Between
T1 and T2, both the intervention and
control groups significantly increased
their belief that they could prepare a
meal from basics that were low in
price.
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 37b: I can prepare a meal from basics that are low in price – sustained effect in
intervention group
Mean change in agreement
4.00
3.47
3.16
3.39
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.31 p < 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 0.23 p < 0.001
3 versus 2: difference: –0.18 p = 0.18
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p < 0.001)
T2
Time point
T3
[56]
The significant improvement in
intervention group participants’ belief
that they could prepare a meal from
basics that were low in price was
largely sustained at T3.
Figure 38a: Buying more fruit/vegetables would not be difficult on my budget – T1–T2
group comparison
Mean change in agreement
Interaction effect: Not significant (p = 0.52)
4.00
3.00
3.04 2.96
3.05 2.91
T1
T2
There was no significant difference
between groups over time in the belief that
buying more fruit and vegetables would
not be difficult on their budget.
2.00
1.00
0.00
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 38b: Buying more fruit/vegetables would not be difficult on my budget – sustained
effect in intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Not significant (p = 0.14)
Mean change in agreement
4.00
3.04
3.05
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.00 p = 0.95
3 versus 1: difference: 0.16 p = 0.06
3 versus 2: difference: 0.11 p = 0.11
3.16
3.00
2.00
While insignificant, the intervention group
displayed a small improvement at followup in the belief that buying more fruit and
vegetables would not be difficult on their
budget.
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[57]
Global self-esteem
Figure 39a: Global self-esteem score
– T1–T2 group comparison
Mean self-esteem score
30.00
22.08
22.75 22.26
20.43
There was a significant difference
between groups over time. The
intervention
group
significantly
increased its mean global self-esteem
score between T1 and T2 by 0.67 units
on the scale. However, the control
group also significantly improved and
by a larger amount (1.83 units).
20.00
10.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Interaction effect: Significant (p =
0.01)
Control
Figure 39b: Global self-esteem score – sustained effect in intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Not significant (p = 0.09)
Mean self-esteem score
30.00
22.09
22.75
22.26
20.00
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.66 p = 0.03
3 versus 1: difference: 0.17 p = 0.57
3 versus 2: difference: –0.49 p = 0.16
Improvements in global self-esteem
made by the intervention group post
program at T2 were not fully
sustained six months after the
program at T3.
10.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[58]
General health
Mean general health score
Figure 40a: Perceived general health – T1–
T2 group comparison
5.00
Interaction effect: Not significant (p = 0.07)
4.00
3.00
3.30
3.07 3.00
There was no significant difference
between groups and over time. Between
T1 and T2, intervention group participants
reported a small but significant
improvement in their perceived general
health, while there was no significant
change in the control group.
3.06
2.00
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 40b: Perceived general health –
sustained effect in intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Significant (p < 0.001)
Mean general health score
5.00
4.00
3.07
3.26
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: 0.19 p = 0.001
3 versus 1: difference: 0.17 p = 0.004
3 versus 2: difference: –0.03 p = 0.68
3.24
3.00
2.00
The significant mean increase in
participants’ perceived general health
between T1 and T2 was sustained during
the follow-up phase.
1.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
T3
[59]
Body mass index (BMI)
Figure 41a: Body mass index (BMI) – T1–T2 group comparison
Interaction effect: not significant (p =
0.46)
40.00
Mean BMI
30.00
27.86 28.74
27.79 28.78
20.00
There was no significant change in selfreported BMI in either the control or
intervention group over time.
10.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Intervention
Control
Figure 41b: Body mass index (BMI) – sustained effect in intervention group
Overall effect of change over time:
Not significant (p = 0.25)
40.00
Mean BMI
30.00
28.04
27.88
27.83
20.00
BMI did not significantly change over
time in the intervention group from
baseline T1 and to six months post
program at T3.
10.00
0.00
T1
T2
Time point
Pairwise comparisons:
2 versus 1: difference: –0.16 p = 0.26
3 versus 1: difference: –0.21 p = 0.13
3 versus 2: difference: –0.05 p = 0.77
T3
[60]
Summary of mobile kitchen results
Table 5 provides a summary of all mobile kitchen primary and secondary outcome results
and their effect.
Table 5: Summary of all mobile kitchen primary and secondary outcome results and their
effect
Significant group by
time effect
Outcomes showed a
significant difference
between
groups
between T1 and T2
Cooking confidence
Confidence to cook from basic
ingredients
Confidence to follow a simple recipe
Confidence in preparing and cooking
new foods and recipes
Confidence that what one cooks will
turn out well
Confidence to taste foods never eaten
before
Combined confidence score
Healthy eating
Daily vegetable consumption (serves
per day)
Daily fruit consumption (serves per
day)
Weekly take-away consumption
No
intervention
effect
Outcomes showed
no
significant
improvement in the
intervention group
 a,S
S
S
S
S
S
 a,S
S
S
Healthy cooking measures
Cooking the main meal from basic
ingredients
Consumption of ready-made meals at
home
Consumption of vegetables with the
main meal
Knowledge,
attitudes,
beliefs
regarding healthy eating habits
I find it easy to change my eating
habits
Vegetables can be tasty foods
S
S
S
a
b
S
 a,S
I eat enough fruit and vegetables
Fruit and vegetables are cheaper when
they are in season
My lifestyle does not prevent me
eating a healthy diet
Cooking skills and knowledge
I can put together a healthy meal from
Intervention
effect
over time
Outcomes were not
significantly different
from the control group
but showed significant
improvement over time

 a,S
[61]
Significant group by
time effect
Outcomes showed a
significant difference
between
groups
between T1 and T2
Intervention
effect
over time
Outcomes were not
significantly different
from the control group
but showed significant
improvement over time
No
intervention
effect
Outcomes showed
no
significant
improvement in the
intervention group
scratch in 30 minutes
Nutrition knowledge

Nutritional knowledge: salt

Nutritional knowledge: sugar
S

Nutritional knowledge: fat
Cooking enjoyment and satisfaction
S
S
 a, S
I enjoy cooking
I enjoy cooking for others
I get a lot of satisfaction from cooking
my meals
I enjoy eating a meal with others
Social connectedness around cooking
and eating
Frequency of eating together
Frequency of eating dinner in front of
the TV
Frequency of eating dinner at the
dinner table
Affordability of a healthy meal
Total weekly food and drink
expenditure ($)
Total weekly fruit and vegetable
expenditure ($)
Total weekly take-away/fast food
expenditure ($)
Attitudes and beliefs of affordability
of a healthy meal
I can prepare a meal from basics that
are low in price
Buying more fruit/vegetables would
not be difficult on my budget
Health outcomes
Global self-esteem score



S
S
 a, S
S
S
 a, S

a
S
General health

Body mass index (BMI)
S
= Sustained effect in the intervention group at T3
=
improvement
in
both
the
control
b
= improvements in control group only – not intervention group
a
[62]
and
intervention
groups
2. Fixed kitchen program – quantitative
evaluation
In 2013 the JMoF program started operating from a purpose-built kitchen located in a
shopfront in the heart of the Geelong commercial area. This centre provides for a 10-week
program, the same as in Ipswich.
Methods
Evaluation design
Given budget constraints and the focus on conducting a rigorous evaluation of the mobile
kitchen program, the decision was made to place less emphasis on the evaluation of the
fixed kitchen program. This evaluation of the fixed kitchen program in Geelong was limited
to a pre–post design, with no control arm. Participants were measured at two time points
only: T1 – baseline on commencement of their program, and T2 – on completion of the 10week program. Such a design still provides evidence of the impact of the program on
cooking confidence and comparisons with Ipswich.
Participant reach and recruitment
The Geelong kitchen has the capacity to reach 1,080 participants over a 30-week period
(based on 26 classes with 15 participants in each class = 390 per 10-week period). All
participants who began their 10-week program at the centre during the data collection time
period were invited to participate in the evaluation.
Sample size
The sample size calculations assume a one-way design to determine a change in the
proportion of participants reporting confidence to cook from baseline to program
completion. The following inputs were used: an assumed baseline confidence to cook of
50%; an arbitrary 20% increase in confidence as a result of program participation; and alpha:
0.05 and power: 0.80 as per convention for calculating sample size for community-based
health promotion interventions. The resulting minimum sample size needed to detect the
effect size was approximately 50 participants.
Data collection
Data collection occurred over a four-month period from June to September 2014. The same
questionnaire was used as for the mobile kitchen evaluation and the previous Ipswich fixed
kitchen evaluation. The questionnaire was administered and completed in class during
[63]
participants’ first and last sessions in weeks 1 and 10 respectively. To increase response
rates, participants were also given a Deakin self-addressed return envelope to complete the
survey at home, if they preferred.
Statistical analysis
Demographic and baseline characteristics were summarised using standard summary
statistics, similar to the mobile kitchen analysis. All primary and secondary outcome
variables were analysed using paired t-tests for continuous variables and McNemar’s test
for binomials. Outcomes measured on a Likert scale were standardised to determine an
effect size. All analyses were performed using STATA™ software (version 12.0). Results were
deemed significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Results
Response rates
A total of 80 participants, who completed both T1 and T2 surveys, were included in the fixed
kitchen evaluation (Figure 42). This equates to a response rate of 44.2% of the baseline
respondents.
Figure 42: Fixed kitchen response rates, Geelong
Number of participants who completed
questionnaires at each time point
200
181
150
100
80
50
0
baseline (T1)
post program (T2)
[64]
Characteristics of fixed kitchen evaluation participants
Table 6 shows that the majority of participants captured in the sample were female (74%).
However, it should be noted that the proportion of males in the Geelong sample was
considerably higher than the mobile kitchen sample. The mean age was 44 years. The
majority spoke English only at home (90.1%). Of the 9.9% who spoke another language at
home, the majority spoke a European language such as French, Spanish, German or
Croatian.
In relation to participant education levels, 48% had completed Year 12 or less. Technical
diplomas or technical apprenticeships accounted for 14% of respondents, while tertiary and
postgraduates combined accounted for 30.1%. Of those who responded, 31.9% of the
sample reported a gross household income of $50,000 or less, 30.6% between $50,000 and
$100,000 and 37.5% $100,000 or more. Approximately 40% were employed full time,
followed by a further 28% who work part time or casually. The proportions of respondents
reporting their employment status as home duties/carer was the same as those retired
(12%).
The mean number of people per household was 3.07 (SD= 1.45). More than 36% of the
sample lived in households consisting of couples with either adult or young children or a
combination of both, while 7.5% were one-parent families with children living at home.
Of the 63.3% of participants who indicated they attended the program with someone else,
46% (23) attended with a family member, 42% (21) with a friend and 12% (six) attended
with a partner.
Program impacts
Table 7 shows the mean difference between T1 (program commencement) and T2 (program
completion) measurements for each of the variables.
Cooking confidence
There was a significant improvement in participant cooking confidence over time, moving
from ‘less confident’ to ‘more confident’ across all measures of cooking confidence (p <
0.001).
Healthy eating behaviours
Self-reported mean daily vegetable consumption significantly increased from 2.42 to 2.99
serves per day (p < 0.001) and daily fruit consumption by 0.37 serves per day (p = 0.01). Selfreported weekly take-away food consumption marginally decreased after program
attendance; however, this was not a statistically significant change (p = 0.12).
[65]
Table 6: Demographic characteristics of evaluation participants, Geelong fixed kitchen
program
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Number of participants
80¹
Gender
Female
59
73.75
Male
21
26.25
Age (years)
Under 50
55
69.62
50 or over
24
30.38
Age categories
18–24
5
6.33
25–34
23
29.11
35–44
20
25.32
45–54
16
20.25
55–64
10
12.66
65–74
5
6.33
Mean age years (SD)
42.12 (mean)
13.53 (SD)
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander
0
0%
Speaks a language other than English at home
8
9.87%
Highest level of education obtained
High school: Year 12 or less
38
48.10
TAFE, apprenticeship, diploma, certificate
11
13.92
Tertiary degree or higher
30
30.97
Employment
Full time
35
44.87
Part time/casual
19
24.36
Retired
8
10.26
Home duties/carer
8
10.26
Not working (permanently ill/unable to work, unemployed)
3
3.85
Student (full time and part time)
3
3.85
Other
2
2.56
Household yearly income
$1–$6,000
0
0.00
$6,001–$13,000
3
4.17
$13,001–$20,000
1
1.39
$20,001–$30,000
2
2.78
$30,001–$50,000
17
23.61
$50,001–$100,000
22
30.56
$100,001–$150,000
18
25.00
>$150,000
9
12.50
Household characteristics
Couple with young children (0–17 years old) living at home
23
28.75
Couple with adult children (18 years or over) living at home
6
7.50
Couple without children living at home
24
30.00
One-parent family with children living at home
6
7.50
Live alone
16
20.00
Other
4
5.00
Mean household size (SD)
3.07 (mean)
1.45 (SD)
Median household size (50th percentile)
3
¹ Number of participants who completed both T1 (pre) and T2 (post) questionnaires and were included in the analysis.
[66]
Table 7: Mean scores of all outcomes for the intervention group between T1 and T2,
Geelong fixed kitchen program
Outcome measure
Cooking confidence
Confidence to cook from basic
3
ingredients
3
Confidence to follow a simple recipe
2
T1 mean (95%
confidence interval)
T2 mean (95%
confidence interval)
Mean
1
difference
p value
3.53 (3.29–3.77)
4.44 (4.30–4.58)
0.91
p < 0.001
3.95 (3.74–4.15)
4.57 (4.44–4.70)
0.62
p < 0.001
Confidence in preparing and cooking
3
new foods and recipes
3.34 (3.09–3.59
4.30 (4.15–4.46)
0.96
p < 0.001
Confidence that what one cooks will turn
3
out well
Confidence to taste foods never eaten
3
before
4
Combined confidence score
3.11 (2.88–3.34)
3.96 (3.80–4.12)
0.85
p < 0.001
3.83 (3.58–4.08)
4.20 (4.11–4.42)
0.43
p < 0.001
17.78 (16.81–18.73)
21.54 (20.96–22.13)
3.77
p < 0.001
2.42 (2.10–2.74)
2.99 (2.65–3.32)
0.57
p < 0.001
1.75 (1.52–1.98)
0.99 (0.80–1.18)
2.12 (1.82–2.40)
0.87 (0.69–1.05)
0.37
–0.12
p = 0.010
p = 0.12
3.75 (3.29–4.21)
4.20 (3.77–4.62)
0.44
p=0.04
1.32 (1.04–1.59)
0.99 (0.77–1.21)
–0.32
p = 0.02
4.93 (4.50–5.36)
5.05 (4.64–5.45)
0.12
p = 0.50
4.20 (3.89–4.50)
4.26 (3.97–4.56)
0.07
p = 0.63
2.56 (2.12–3.01)
2.65 (2.22–3.08)
0.09
p = 0.55
3.14 (2.69–3.59)
3.44 (3.03–3.85)
0.30
p = 0.02
165.51 (150.60–
180.42)
26.07 (22.46–29.69)
157.95 (144.07–
171.82)
28.42 (24.61–32.23)
–7.56
p = 0.19
2.34
p = 0.07
17.34 (13.48 –21.20)
14.56 (10.51–18.60)
–2.78
p = 0.047
23.65 (22.54–24.76)
24.05 (22.87–25.23)
0.41
p = 0.29
3.06 (2.84–3.28)
3.48 (3.29–3.66)
0.41
p < 0.001
28.46 (26.58–30.33)
28.23 (26.37–30.09)
–0.22
p = 0.054
2.74 (2.55–2.93)
2.96 (2.79–3.13)
0.22
p = 0.02
3.38 (3.21–3.56)
3.29 (3.12–3.47)
–0.09
p = 0.32
3.71 (3.61–3.82)
3.79 (3.68–3.90)
0.08
p = 0.26
2.66 (2.45–2.87)
2.96 (2.77–3.15)
0.30
0.00
2.82 (2.62 3.03)
3.27 (3.13–3.40)
0.44
p < 0.001
Eating behaviours
Daily vegetable consumption (serves per
day)
Daily fruit consumption (serves per day)
5
Take-away consumption
Cooking behaviours
Cooking the main meal from basic
5
ingredients
Consumption of ready-made meals at
5
home
Consumption of vegetables with the
5
main meal
Social connectedness
5
Frequency of eating together
Frequency of eating dinner in front of
5
the TV
Frequency of eating dinner at the dinner
5
table
Food purchasing behaviours
Total weekly food and drink expenditure
6
($)
Total weekly fruit and vegetable
6
expenditure ($)
Total weekly take-away/fast food
6
expenditure ($)
Personal development
7
Global self-esteem score
8
General health
Body mass index (BMI)
9
Attitudinal statements
Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs regarding
healthy eating habits
10
I find it easy to change my eating habits
My lifestyle does not prevent me eating
10,a
a healthy diet
Vegetables can be tasty foods
10
I eat enough fruit and vegetables
10
I can put together a healthy meal from
10
scratch in 30 minutes
[67]
Outcome measure
2
T1 mean (95%
confidence interval)
T2 mean (95%
confidence interval)
Mean
1
difference
p value
3.53 (3.40– 3.67)
3.77 (3.67–3.87)
0.24
p = 0.001
3.19 (3.01–3.38)
3.32 (3.15–3.50)
0.13
p = 0.04
I enjoy cooking for others
3.13 (2.93–3.33)
3.32 (3.15–3.49)
0.19
p = 0.01
I get a lot of satisfaction from cooking my
10
meals
10
I enjoy eating a meal with others
3.14 (2.95–3.32)
3.38 (3.22–3.54)
0.24
p = 0.003
3.76 (3.66–3.86)
3.78 (3.69–3.88)
0.03
p = 0.62
2.95 (2.77–3.12)
3.41 (3.27–3.54)
0.46
p < 0.001
3.25 (3.07–3.43)
3.24 (3.03–3.44)
–0.01
p = 0.91
Fruit and vegetables are cheaper when
10
they are in season
Cooking enjoyment and satisfaction
10
I enjoy cooking
10
Food purchasing attitudes
I can prepare a meal from basics that are
10
low in price
Buying more fruit/vegetables would not
10,a
be difficult on my budget
1. For Likert scale questions (mean difference / standard deviation of the mean difference)
2. Significant different p < 0.05
3. Scale values are 1–5 (where 1 = not at all confident and 5 = extremely confident).
4. The combined confidence score is equal to the sum total of all other confidence scores (scores 20 or more = confident).
5. Mean frequency for a typical week was collected on a six- or seven-point scale that was analysed by its midpoint.
6. Expenditure data was collected in Australian dollars (AUD) on a seven-point scale that was analysed by its midpoints.
7. Rosenberg’s global self-esteem score (low self-esteem = 0–14, normal self-esteem = 15–25, high self-esteem = 16–30).
8. Perceived general health (poor = 1, fair = 2, good = 3, very good = 4, excellent = 5).
9. Body mass index (BMI) derived from measured weight and height (kg/m2), World Health Organization cut-off BMI points
used for weight status: underweight (below 18.5), normal weight (18.5–24.9), overweight (25.0–29.9) and obese (30.0 and
above)
10. Mean predicted score indicating level of agreement with statement from a Likert Scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 =
somewhat disagree, 3 = somewhat agree, 4 = strongly agree)
a. Score assignment was reversed.
Cooking and eating behaviours
Participants significantly increased their frequency of preparing and cooking the main meal
from basic ingredients by 0.44 times per week after program completion (p = 0.04). They
were also consuming 0.32 fewer serves of take-away food per week (p = 0.017).
Consumption of vegetables with the main meal increased marginally, but this was not
statistically significant (p = 0.497). Overall, however, both pre and post the program,
participants were eating vegetables with their main meal on average five times per week.
Nutritional knowledge
There were significant improvements in the proportion of participants who were able to
correctly identify foods high in fat after completing the program (18.7% at T2, p = 0.002). On
the other hand, there were no significant improvements in knowledge about the salt (89.7%
at T2, p = 1.00) and sugar (89.7% at T2, p = 0.16) content of foods. However, the proportions
of participants who answered these questions correctly at baseline were already high.
[68]
Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs regarding healthy eating habits
Overall there were statistically significant improvements over time in most of the beliefs and
attitudes about healthy eating. After program completion, there was no change in
participants’ belief that their lifestyle may prevent a healthy diet or that vegetables were
tasty; these parameters were already high at baseline.
Cooking enjoyment and satisfaction
There were small positive and significant improvements between T1 and T2 in participants’
enjoyment and satisfaction with cooking: cooking enjoyment (p = 0.04), satisfaction of
cooking (p = 0.003) and enjoyment for cooking for other (p = 0.01).
Social eating and connectedness
At baseline, participants were eating together with others an average 4.26 times in a typical
week; this did not change significantly after completing the program (p = 0.63). The
frequency of eating dinner in front of the TV likewise did not significantly change after
completing the program (p = 0.55). On average, participants were eating in front of the
television approximately 2.5 times a week. There were small but significant increases in the
frequency of eating dinner at the dinner table (from 3.14 to 3.44 times per week) after the
program (p = 0.091).
Food purchasing behaviours and attitudes
Total weekly food expenditure decreased by a mean of $7.56 between T1 and T2; however,
this was not statistically significant (p = 0.19). Total weekly fruit and vegetable expenditure
increased after the program by a mean of $2.34, although again this was not a statistically
significant improvement (p = 0.07). However, there was a significant reduction in weekly
take-away expenditure of $2.78 (p = 0.047).
Attitudes to food purchasing improved on program completion. Participants were more
likely to believe that they had the ability to prepare a meal low in price (p < 0.001).
Health and wellbeing
Participant perceptions of their general health significantly improved after attending the
program, with a standardised effect size difference of 1.53 on the five-point scale (p <
0.001). There were small improvements in global self-esteem between T1 and T2; however,
these were not statistically significant (p = 0.29). There was also a small but insignificant
reduction in BMI from 28.46 to 28.23 (–0.22 BMI units) (p = 0.054). It should also be noted
that the average BMI of participants was in the overweight category.
[69]
3. Qualitative evaluation
Methods
Sampling and recruitment
All program participants from the evaluation sites were eligible for selection for the semistructured interviews, excluding those who indicated on their questionnaire that they did
not want to be contacted for an interview. Maximum variation sampling was chosen to
capture a variety of perspectives. To achieve this, food trainers from the mobile kitchen and
fixed kitchen were briefed by the researchers to provide a short, anonymous description of
10 participants who they felt reflected the diversity of the class. Descriptions of participants
ranging in age, sex, cooking skills and companion status (attending alone, with someone else
or linked to community group) were provided to the research team, which were then
ranked in order of preference. The contact details of the preferred participants were then
progressively provided to the research team until three participants from the site had been
recruited and interviewed. One potential participant was invited to participate in an
interview and declined due to time constraints. A further four potential participants were
deemed unavailable after three attempts to contact them were made by the researcher.
Data collection
Qualitative data collection commenced in April 2014 and was completed in May 2015. Three
interviews were conducted at each of five sites, including four mobile kitchen sites (Hume,
Wyndham, Mildura and Dandenong) and Geelong. Interviews were conducted two to six
months following the participant’s completion of the JMoF program. Interviews were
conducted in person or by phone by two of the research team, individually or together. The
location of the interview (home, local community site, phone) was negotiated between the
researchers and the interviewee and determined by participant preferences and
convenience. The interviews were semi-structured and guided by an interview protocol that
explored individual attitudes to food, cooking behaviours at home, experience of the JMoF
program and changed attitudes and behaviours following the program. All interviews were
audio recorded and transcribed following individual consent.
Data analysis
An inductive analysis of the data was conducted, informed by a grounded theory
approach.27,28 It included line-by-line focused coding of the interview narratives to develop
interpretive memos and to allow a conceptual analysis to emerge.29 This was cross-checked
against successive transcripts to allow for comparison and clarification of contradictory
findings. This supported the development of a theoretical understanding that was aligned
with existing empirical and theoretical findings in the literature.
[70]
Results
A total of 15 participants were interviewed – 10 females and five males. The ages ranged
from 21 to 90 years old. The ethnicities represented included Australian born, Turkish and
Sudanese. Six of the participants attended on their own, seven attended with one or more
family members, and two attended with a community group or group of close friends. One
participant with a physical disability was enrolled in an ‘all access’ class that was conducted
in a local setting.
Analysis of the interview data revealed a process of engagement with the JMoF program
that was described as enjoyable, affirming and, for many, transformative.
Self-image
Participants had different views about the role of food in their lives. For some participants,
food was purely functional and they were seeking support to meet that need with as little
effort as possible. Others savoured food and were seeking additional food experiences.
Participants’ eating behaviours tended to be referenced by health beliefs about what they
should be eating, which often did not match what they were eating. Reasons for this varied
but included time, money, energy, skill level and family preferences. These participants
were hopeful that the course would assist them to increase their healthy cooking and
eating.
Participants readily described their self-image as a cook, which seemed to be informed by
their childhood home experiences. One woman noted that her parents had not provided her
with life skills:
It’s everyone's dream, you know that’s your job, you’re bringing out an adult and you
want to make sure that they can be self-sufficient and all the rest of it, and my
parents were quite strange in that regard. They didn't put in any effort.
Cooking self-image was then further developed by experiences cooking as an adult and
responses to cooking from family members who often didn’t appreciate the meals prepared.
Reported levels of cooking ability varied, ranging from beginner cooks with little or no
experience, to people with high levels of confidence in their cooking ability.
To be honest I detested it with an absolute passion. I hated it, I hated it, I dreaded it
every day, thinking about it, I hated it, I hated shopping, I hated everything to do with
it.
Those who disliked cooking were hoping the skills learnt in the course would minimise the
burden.
[71]
Motivation and risks
The motivation to attend the course was primarily family driven. Most participants reported
being introduced to the course by family members or were motivated to attend because of
a desire to provide more for their family in terms of healthy meals and to role model
cooking competence.
A second source of motivation was participants seeking something new. This varied based
on the current circumstances and capacity of the participant but included seeking new
cooking ideas, new techniques, new skills, new experiences and new confidence.
I was in a bit of a flat spot in life; I had nothing to sort of occupy my mind and when it
(the mobile kitchen) came along I thought ‘well that would be great’ and it’s really
put me into a cooking mood.
In some cases, this was linked with a change in life circumstances.
I love food. I've always loved food, but I'm a hopeless cook and that's why when my
(spouse) died last year ... I suddenly found myself catering for myself and that’s how I
came to get onto Jamie Oliver …
There were implicit risks for participants in attending the course of being taken out of their
comfort zone. For confident cooks, there was the risk that they would be wasting their time
and would lose their self-perceived status by attending a course below their skill level. For
unskilled cooks, there was the risk that they would not be able to perform the set tasks. For
shy participants, there was the risk that they would not be able to deal with the social
expectations.
The reported experience of the program was that all of these risks were effectively dealt
with in the first class. The friendliness of the instructors made everyone feel welcome. The
focus on the cooking tasks meant the social expectations were not demanding. The cooking
of eggs in the first class meant there was an early experience of competence for all. The
inclusion of clever techniques meant there were valued learnings for experienced cooks.
… the friendliness got me … the fact that I could actually make food with people
standing there and not judging me and saying ‘okay well maybe we need to do it just
a little bit more or a little bit less’. It was step by step. It was so easy. It was so simple.
The instructions were so easy to follow.
Experiences
All of the participants described enjoying the program and valuing what they had learnt.
Confident cooks appreciated the additional tips and techniques that enhanced their skills.
For those who lacked confidence as a provider for their family, the course was often
transformative. Not only did it provide them with new skills and recipes to enable them to
[72]
prepare a cooked meal, it also gave them the knowledge and experience to be able to try
new recipes and experiment with different ingredients, thereby independently building
upon their cooking repertoire and the ability to provide healthy meals for their family. The
subsequent change in cooking self-image was expressed with great pride.
Cooking at home has completely changed. I even make my own hamburgers with
cheese and garlic in them for the kids. I use fresh vegies now. I don't use frozen vegies
and potatoes. I use real potatoes. There’s no more instant potato in my cupboard.
This meant that the increased skills and confidence also improved their self-esteem and
their view of themselves as a parent and provider.
It’s given me that confidence and now also because I’m doing good stuff for the kids
I’m feeling I’m a better mum, so mentally it’s good for me as well.
This importance of the provision of food for the family also builds on findings from the
Ipswich, JMoF program evaluation. There were changes for families in regard to cooking
together, providing healthy, home-cooked meals and having shared a family experience.
Many participants reported an increase in cooking at home and a decrease in the
consumption of take-away food in lieu of home-cooked meals.
… now that I’ve done [the program] I’ve got like a roster every week … we probably
have take-away now maybe once every 10 days compared to nearly every day we’d
have take-away. There was also increased willingness to eat a range of foods.
I’m now cooking green beans. I never ate green beans, couldn’t stand green beans
and now I will blanch a whole big dish of green beans, tip them into a bowl and put a
swig of olive oil on top a squeeze of lemon through my fingers on the top, and we eat
beans all the time.
Participants who were enrolled in the course by another family member, but then were not
encouraged to cook in the home environment, reported that they had not expanded their
cooking repertoire, although they valued learning about food hygiene and felt more
confident to cook a meal if necessary.
Celebrity factor
Participants were all aware that Jamie Oliver established the program. In fact, there was a
strong sense that they were receiving Jamie’s program via the trainers, and while
acknowledging the teaching skills of the trainers, they attributed the benefits of the
[73]
program to Jamie. For the large majority of participants, there was trust in the messages
delivered in the course and a confidence that Jamie’s recipes would be healthy, quick and
affordable.
Most participants were appreciative on a personal level. When asked what they would say
to Jamie if they were able to meet, invariably it was an expression of gratitude. One woman
said she would ‘give him a big hug’. Another said:
It has made such a difference, such a massive, massive difference to me … I think he
is a very rare and wonderful man, bringing everyone back to basics. It’s not daunting,
it’s easy, you know it doesn’t have to cost an arm and a leg, it’s not wasting things …
um just chuck it all in, be rustic, and just enjoy it, and yeah I think I would be pretty
emotional if I had the opportunity to tell him what I thought.
Experienced cooks were more conscious of Jamie’s public health approach. In some cases
they questioned the nutritional content of some of the recipes but they were open to
learning Jamie Oliver’s style of cooking to expand on their own style and to gain new ideas
for meals.
Course length
Participants of both the five-week and the 10-week course were positive about the learnings
gained and reported developing new cooking skills or confidence. Participants from both
programs, but particularly those from the five-week course, mentioned they would have
liked the course to be longer for enjoyment and to build upon the skills learnt. It was
suggested that the length of each session could be extended to allow for reinforcement of
messages delivered and allow participants to practise new skills learnt at the time they were
being taught. This would support those with limited skills, learning difficulties or English as a
second language.
[74]
Discussion of findings
This mixed method evaluation of the JMoF program covers both forms of program delivery
currently operating in Victoria. Overall, the program has resulted in positive personal
impacts for participants. Sustained improvements were demonstrated in the cooking
confidence and healthy eating behaviours of participants attending the mobile kitchen
program and the fixed kitchen program participants. While the overall results reinforce the
findings of the previous evaluation of the program in Ipswich, Queensland, there are also
some key differences that may be explained by the variation in program delivery mode,
program duration and local context as well as in the evaluation design.
Overall the demographic profile of participants contributing to the evaluation is consistent
with the Victorian profile in terms of education, unemployment, ethnicity and English as a
second language. However, income data are not comparable. The local government profile
data were taken from demographic information complied by the Department of Health &
Human Services.26 It indicates that approximately 13.5% of mobile kitchen participants and
5% of fixed kitchen participants were earning a household income of less than $400 per
week (approximately $20,000 per year). The state-level data indicates that 39.9% of
Victorians earn a gross individual income of less than $400 per week. Given the difference in
the unit of analysis, these two proportions are not directly comparable, and therefore
preclude any statement of the extent to which the JMoF sample is representative in terms
of income status.26
Key findings of this evaluation include the following.
Growth in cooking confidence
There is evidence surrounding the importance of cooking confidence to purchase, plan and
prepare a healthy meal.30-32 Previous cooking skills interventions have demonstrated gains
in cooking confidence;23 in particular, the JMoF program in Ipswich provided evidence of the
program’s capacity to improve participant cooking confidence after the intervention.18
The evaluation of the Victorian JMoF program likewise demonstrated a positive impact on
participant cooking confidence. There were statistically significant improvements in all five
confidence measures and in total confidence scores among participants in both the mobile
kitchen and fixed kitchen centre. The differences in cooking confidence between groups and
over time were significant and were sustained six months beyond program completion.
The interviews provided insights into changes in cooking confidence, revealing that the
experience of the program altered participants’ self-image in relation to their cooking
capacity. This showed that although social and environmental influences across the life
course had helped to shape their cooking self-identity, these relatively stable self-images
[75]
were altered by the JMoF experience. This is consistent with the findings of other qualitative
studies relating to development of food identities within a sociocultural context and over
the life course,14,33-35 and with the qualitative results of the Ipswich evaluation.17,19
Improved healthy eating behaviours
Participants reported in interviews that followed the program that they were now willing to
eat foods they would previously have avoided. This is consistent with the findings of the
evaluation of the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program.36 It also reflects the
extensive evidence that food neophobia, particularly for children, may be overcome by
increased familiarity, information and tasting12,37-39 and indicates that cooking programs can
be a helpful means of overcoming food neophobia.
Adequate consumption of fruit and vegetables is considered important for health and
preventing diseases such as cardiovascular disease, stroke and some cancers.40 The 2011–12
Victorian Population Health Survey showed that the intake of most Victorians was
inadequate.41 Only 7.2% of Victorians met the recommended guidelines for vegetable intake
and 45.3% for fruit.41 A major component of JMoF program is the inclusion, appreciation
and knowledge of vegetables as a core meal component. Key messages conveyed and
recipes taught within the program reinforced the importance of daily consumption of
vegetables and of fruit.
It should be noted that, at baseline, the mobile kitchen evaluation participants were already
consuming significantly more fruit (1.77 serves compared with the Victorian average of 1.62
(p = 0.02)) and vegetables (2.52 daily serves of vegetables compared with the Victorian
average of 2.26 (p = 0.04)) than the Victorian average.
The JMoF mobile kitchen program resulted in statistically significant improvements in fruit
and vegetable consumption. The increase in average vegetable consumption by half a serve
was still evident six months later. The control group participants also improved their
vegetable intake, although by less than half of the amount of intervention group (0.22
serves per day increase). Intervention participants also significantly improved their fruit
consumption (by 0.36 serves per day) and sustained it over time; these changes were not
evident in the control group.
This meant that six months after program completion the mobile kitchen participants were
consuming, on average, almost one serve more per day (0.81 serves; p < 0.01) of vegetables
and more than half a serve more of fruit per day (0.61 serves; p < 0.001) compared with the
statewide average (p < 0.001). Despite these gains, however, the mean daily intakes were
still below the recommended Australian guidelines, which advise two serves of fruit and five
of vegetables daily.42 The participants in the Geelong fixed kitchen also reported similar
significant improvements in their mean intake of fruit (0.37 serves; p = 0.01) and vegetables
[76]
(0.57 serves; p < 0.001) but did not show significant improvements in the number of times
per week vegetables were consumed with the main meal.
The previous Ipswich evaluation likewise showed a sustained increase in vegetable
consumption, with participants consuming quantities exceeding the state average by a
mean 0.7 serves per day.18
In Ipswich, however, there was no improvement in the control group’s consumption.
Improvements in the control group intake evident in the Victorian evaluation may be a
product of the other healthy eating activities occurring concurrently within the communities
hosting the mobile kitchen.
Mobile kitchen program participants also made small reductions in their take-away food
consumption by 0.20 times per week, which were sustained six months post program. This
reiterates the Ipswich and Geelong findings.
Small sustained improvements in cooking knowledge,
attitudes, beliefs and practices
Overall, while there were small sustained improvements for the mobile kitchen sites in
cooking behaviours, knowledge and beliefs, in most instances, there was no significant
group by time interaction effect, meaning no significant difference between intervention
and control group and over time. In other words, the control group also displayed a change
in a positive direction. For example, between T1 and T2, both the intervention and control
groups significantly increased the frequency of preparing a main meal from basic
ingredients, and the intervention group continued to sustain this behaviour over time (to
T3). Both groups significantly increased their belief in their own ability to prepare a meal
from scratch in 30 minutes, moving in a positive direction from the ‘agree’ to ‘strongly
agree’ category. There were significant improvements at the Geelong site in other attitudes
and beliefs around cooking and healthy eating such as finding it easy to change eating
habits, and eating enough fruit and vegetables, which reiterate the Ipswich findings. Of
particular note were the improvements made in cooking the main meal from basic
ingredients, which increased by a mean of 0.44 times per week between T1 and T2 – nearly
double that of the mobile kitchen (0.28 times). Findings perhaps indicate the benefits of the
increased intervention dose from the 10-week course.
Positive family impacts
Family connection and family roles were primary triggers for enrolment, reflecting the
importance of family influence, the role of caregivers and the desire to provide healthy,
homemade meals.8,9 Participants reported increased capacity to provide healthy, diverse,
affordable and quick meals for their families. For those who had limited skills initially, the
[77]
course was often a transformative experience, impacting on family life as well as their selfimage as a provider. This reflects the Ipswich findings19 and other qualitative studies that
report on the pressure associated with cooking to provide for and please family members
while balancing other work, budget and family commitments.8-10,43
Mobile kitchen participants showed small statistically significant reductions in the frequency
of eating a meal in front of the television per week; however, these changes were not
sustained at follow-up. There were significant increases made by the intervention group
over time in its frequency of eating up at the table, which reiterate similar improvements
found in both the Geelong and Ipswich fixed kitchens.
Enhanced cooking enjoyment and satisfaction
Analysis of the interview data revealed a process of engagement with the JMOF program
that was described as enjoyable and affirming and that also influenced participants’
attitudes to cooking. Changes in cooking enjoyment and satisfaction levels between the
mobile kitchen intervention and control groups were not statistically significantly different
over time. However, the enhanced cooking enjoyment and satisfaction of the intervention
group was still evident six months after program completion. The fixed kitchen participants
also significantly improved their cooking and satisfaction levels following program
attendance. However, as in the Ipswich evaluation, enjoyment and satisfaction levels were
already high at baseline. Small improvements in cooking enjoyment reflect the JMoF
program’s emphasis on appreciating and enjoying food to be shared with others. In
addition, successful cooking experiences through improved cooking self-efficacy are likely to
contribute to higher levels of cooking enjoyment.44
[78]
Positive changes in food purchasing patterns
While there was no group by time interaction effect, both the intervention and control
groups in the mobile kitchen evaluation significantly reduced their total weekly food and
drink expenditure (by an average of $12.66 in the control group and $9.75 in the
intervention group). The intervention group also showed significant changes in their
spending on fruit and vegetables (increase of $2.31) and take-away food (decrease of
$3.00), and showed significant and sustained improvements in the belief they could prepare
a meal that was low in price, while there was no change among control participants.
Food purchasing results from the Geelong program reflect the Ipswich findings. While there
was no significant change in their weekly food and drink expenditure, take-away spending
fell by $2.78 per week after the program. Weekly fruit and vegetable spending also
increased by $2.43, although this was not statistically significant. Participants attending the
Geelong fixed kitchen also showed significant improvements in cooking quickly and cheaply.
[79]
Marginal improvements in health outcomes
Global self-esteem improved significantly among both groups in the mobile kitchen
evaluation. However, the gains in the intervention group had dissipated by the end of the
follow-up period. Interestingly, the control group showed significant improvements in selfesteem as they approached the beginning of their JMoF program. This change in control
group was not reported in the Ipswich control group, which had a longer wait-list time of 10
weeks.
The qualitative evaluation revealed the relevance of the program for a wide range of
cooking levels. However, the transformative experiences described by some interview
participants reflected the additional benefits for those with limited cooking experience,
skills and confidence. This differential impact would not be evident in the quantitative
results.
In terms of general health, there was no significant difference between the mobile kitchen
groups between T1 and T2. However, the intervention group members improved their
general health over time, moving from the ‘fair’ to ‘good’ category, which was sustained six
months after the program. A slightly greater improvement in general health was reported
by the fixed kitchen participants.
There was no significant change found in the body mass index (BMI) of mobile kitchen
participants after attending the five-week program. On the other hand, there was some
improvement among participants in the longer 10-week Geelong program where the change
in BMI was trending towards significance (p = 0.054). It should be noted that the mean BMI
for all Victorian JMoF participants was in the overweight category. Realistically, a shift in
weight status would not be expected after a 10-week program, let alone a five-week
program.45
Factors impacting on results
Overall, the evaluation results from the Victorian JMoF mobile kitchen program were
positive and reinforced the findings of the earlier Ipswich evaluation. Changes in the right
direction were demonstrated for most of the variables tested. However, there were two key
differences found in the quantitative results, which are indicative of other factors at play.
First, for many variables, there was no significant group by time interaction effect, with both
groups experiencing positive changes between T1 and T2. Second, where there was a
significant change among intervention participants, it was often quite small and sometimes
not sustained to the six-month follow-up time point. While changes in key outcomes such
cooking confidence, fruit and vegetable consumption and cooking the main meal from basic
[80]
ingredients were sustained, some changes in behaviour and belief (for example, fruit and
vegetable spending and finding it easy to change habits) appeared not to be embedded and
waned over time.
The first difference may be explained by the context in which the mobile kitchen operated in
each of the sites. The JMoF program in Victoria was placed within a larger systems-driven
initiative – Healthy Together Victoria (HTV) – that aimed to encourage and create
opportunities for healthy eating and active living within the whole community.15 During the
time of the mobile kitchen’s presence within a community, there was a range of initiatives
occurring at a broader community level, which were driving changes in the local food
environment and may have triggered both intervention and control participants to alter
their eating patterns. For example, during the time of the kitchen’s presence in Mildura,
HTV activities included, among other things, The Achievement Program, The Health
Champions initiative and changes to sporting club canteens, food hubs and breakfast
programs.46 All of the mobile kitchen sites had a similar backdrop of activities focused on
healthy living. As a consequence, the behaviour of control participants was potentially
confounded during their period of waiting to start the JMoF program.
The shorter length of the mobile kitchen program is also likely to be a factor in the fact that
the evaluation results are not as strong as those for Ipswich. This is supported by interview
participants’ comments. In the latter 10-week program there were also stronger and more
consistent differences between the intervention and control groups and a close alignment
between the quantitative behavioural outcomes and qualitative findings. All findings
suggested the 10-week program influenced many aspects of participants’ cooking,
confidence, knowledge, attitudes and beliefs around cooking, which led to sustained
behavioural changes in healthy eating, cooking practices, food shopping practices and eating
activities at home.
While results from the mobile kitchen program indicate some significant changes, they are
not as internally consistent as the Ipswich findings. The findings suggest that the program
length of five weeks may be insufficient to produce immediate changes in behaviour. While
the literature does not suggest the ‘ideal’ length of a cooking intervention to achieve
healthy eating changes, there is evidence to show that the number of classes attended is an
important factor in sustaining behavioural change. Findings from a seven-week cooking skills
intervention in the United States have shown that participants attending more than five
sessions had sustained improvements in dietary outcomes compared with participants who
attended four or fewer sessions.47 The study indicated that participants made changes after
attending only four sessions; however, these were not sustained four months after the
intervention. 47
The qualitative findings showed both the short and long versions of the program were
valued by participants, although there was a particular interest from participants in the five[81]
week course to extend the experience into another course. No other differences were
apparent between participants who attended the five-week and the 10-week program.
The demonstrated accessibility and relevance of the program to participants with a wide
range of cooking skills and life circumstances can be attributed to both the Jamie Oliver
brand and the content and delivery of the course itself, which is able to simultaneously
provide an inclusive social environment, a sense of achievement for inexperienced cooks
and valued skills for experienced cooks.
The methods used to evaluate the mobile kitchen replicate strengths and limitations
previously reported for the Ipswich evaluation, as the methods used were the same.
Strengths include the large sample sizes, the use of mixed modelling analysis techniques to
facilitate use of all available data and the use of a wait-list control group.17 The
questionnaire included validated questions or questions drawn from population health
surveys. Limitations of the quantitative study include the use of self-reported measures;
however, previous evaluations have indicated that more objective measures may be a
barrier to participation.23 The qualitative component captured a diverse range of
participants and multiple settings. However, it is acknowledged that the selection process
may potentially have introduced bias, and the varied methods of data collection may have
influenced responses.
While acknowledging that the evaluation of the fixed kitchen in Geelong was a less rigorous
(pre–post study, with no control), the results suggest the program was able to replicate the
findings found in Ipswich. Overall there were statistically significant changes in primary
outcome of cooking confidence and in daily vegetable and daily fruit intake, with similar
results to Ipswich suggesting the program is transferable to a different state and results
could be expected to be replicated.
[82]
Conclusion
This evaluation has demonstrated that Jamie’s Ministry of Food Victoria has been successful
in achieving its primary outcome: cooking confidence. It also made significant and sustained
improvements to fruit, vegetable and take-away food consumption. It was experienced by
participants as enjoyable, affirming and, for many, transformative. Both the fixed and
mobile kitchen delivery models reiterated the results shown in the Ipswich evaluation;
however, to a lesser extent in the mobile kitchen delivery model. Results appear to be
influenced by confounding factors that may relate to community activities occurring
concurrently in the area. This raises some questions regarding the desirable length of the
program and how many sessions are required in order to ensure that behaviour change in
healthy eating practices is embedded and sustained.
[83]
References
1.
Sassi F, Devaux M, Cecchini M, Rusticelli E. The obesity epidemic: analysis of past and
projected future trends in selected OECD countries. Paris: OECD, 2009 Report No.: OECD
Health Working Paper No. 45.
2.
World Health Organization. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases:
report of a joint WHO/FAO expert consultation. WHO technical report series. Geneva: World
Health Organization, 2003 January Report No.: 916.
3.
Dauchet L, Amouyel P, Hercberg S, Dallongeville J. Fruit and vegetable consumption
and risk of coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. The Journal of
Nutrition. 2006;136(10):2588-2593.
4.
Swinburn BA, Sacks G, Hall KD, McPherson K, Finegood DT, Moodie ML, Gortmaker
SL. The global obesity pandemic: shaped by global drivers and local environments. The
Lancet. 2011;378(9793):804-814.
5.
World Health Organization. Globalization, diets and noncommunicable diseases.
Geneva:
World
Health
Organisation
2002
Available
from:
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/9241590416.pdf.
6.
Larson NI, Perry CL, Story M, Neumark-Sztainer D. Food preparation by young adults
is associated with better diet quality. Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
2006;106(12):2001-2007.
7.
Connors M, Connors CA, Bisogni J, Sobal CM, Devine. Managing values in personal
food systems. Appetite. 2001;36(3):189-200.
8.
Slater J, Sevenhuysen G, Edginton B, O'Neil J. 'Trying to make it all come together':
structuration and employed mothers' experience of family food provisioning in Canada.
Health Promotion International. 2012;27(3):405-15.
9.
Harman V, Cappellini B. Mothers on display: lunchboxes, social class and moral
accountability. Sociology. 2015;Online
10.
Fulkerson JA, Kubik MY, Rydell S, Boutelle KN, Garwick A, Story M, Neumark-Sztainer
D, Dudovitz B. Focus groups with working parents of school-age children: What’s needed to
improve family meals? Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 2011;43(3):189-193.
11.
Bisogni C, Bisogni M, Jastran L, Shen C, Devine. A Biographical Study of Food Choice
Capacity: Standards, Circumstances, and Food Management Skills. Journal of Nutrition
Education and Behavior. 2005;37(6):284-291.
12.
Lähteenmäki L, Arvola A. Food Neophobia and Variety Seeking — Consumer Fear or
Demand for New Food Products. In: Frewer L, Risvik E, Schifferstein H, editors. Food, People
and Society: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 2001. p. 161-175.
[84]
13.
Greene GW, Rossi SR, Rossi JS, Velicer WF, Fava JL, Prochaska JO. Dietary
applications of the stages of change model. Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
1999;99(6):673-678.
14.
Wethington E, Johnson-Askew WL. Contributions of the Life Course Perspective to
Research on Food Decision Making. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2009;38(Suppl 1):S74S80.
15.
Victorian Government. Healthy Together Victoria [cited May 12 2015]. Available
from: http://www.healthytogether.vic.gov.au/.
16.
Department of Health. Healthy Communities Initiative Australian Government; 2013
[cited
2014
20
February].
Available
from:
http://www.healthyactive.gov.au/internet/healthyactive/publishing.nsf/Content/healthycommunities.
17.
Flego A, Herbert J, Gibbs L, Waters E, Keating C, Swinburn B, Moodie M. The
evaluation of Jamie’s Ministry of Food, Ipswich: final evaluation report. Melbourne Deakin
University, 2014 Available from: http://www.jamieoliver.com/jamies-ministry-of-foodaustralia/.
18.
Flego A, Herbert J, Waters E, Gibbs L, Swinburn B, Reynolds J, Moodie M. Jamie's
Ministry of Food: quasi-experimental evaluation of immediate and sustained impacts of a
cooking skills program in Australia. PloS One. 2014;9(12).
19.
Herbert J, Flego A, Gibbs L, Waters E, Swinburn B, Reynolds J, Moodie M. Wider
impacts of a 10-week community cooking skills program - Jamie’s Ministry of Food,
Australia. BMC Public Health. 2014;14 (1):1161.
20.
Flego A, Herbert J, Gibbs L, Swinburn B, Keating C, Waters E, Moodie M. Methods for
the evaluation of the Jamie Oliver Ministry of Food program, Australia. BMC Public Health.
2013;13(1):411.
21.
Barton KL, Wrieden WL, Anderson AS. Validity and reliability of a short questionnaire
for assessing impact of cooking skills interventions. Journal of Human Nutrition and
Dietetics. 2011;24(6):588–595.
22.
Keller HH, Gibbs A, Wong S, Vanderkooy P, Hedley M. Men can cook! Development,
implementation, and evaluation of a senior men's cooking group. Journal of Nutrition for
the Elderly. 2004;24(1):71-87.
23.
Wrieden W, Anderson A, Longbottom P, Valentine K, Stead M, Caraher M, Lang T,
Gray B, Dowler E. The impact of a community-based food skills intervention on cooking
confidence, food preparation methods and dietary choices ? an exploratory trial. Public
Health Nutrition. 2007;10(2):203-211.
24.
Stata Press. Stata User's Guide Release 12 Texas: StataCorp LP; 2011.
25.
Chinn S. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in metaanalysis. Statistics in Medicine. 2000;19(22):3127-3131.
[85]
26.
Department of Health & Human Services. 2012 LGA profiles data 2013 [cited 2015
August
7].
Available
from:
https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/getfile/?sc_itemid=%7b29FBF5AC-5AB7-4C66-995608EC83E2793C%7d&title=2012%20LGA%20profiles%20data.
27.
Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter; 1967.
28.
Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: grounded theory procedures and
techniques. London: Sage Publications; 1990.
29.
Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory. Silverman D, editor. London: SAGE; 2014.
30.
Short F. Domestic cooking practices and cooking skills: findings from an English
study. Food Service Technology. 2003;3(3-4):177-185.
31.
Stead M, Caraher M, Wrieden W, Longbottom P, Valentine K, Anderson A. Confident,
fearful and hopeless cooks: Findings from the development of a food-skills initiative. British
Food Journal. 2004;106(4):274-287.
32.
Winkler E, Turrell G. Confidence to cook vegetables and the buying habits of
Australian households. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2010;110(5,
Supplement 1):S52-S61.
33.
Bisogni C, Bisogni M, Connors C, Devine J, Sobal. Who We Are and How We Eat: A
Qualitative Study of Identities in Food Choice. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior.
2002;34(3):128-139.
34.
Bugge A. Cooking–as identity work. National Institute for Consumer Research. 2003.
35.
Devine CM. A Life Course Perspective: Understanding Food Choices in Time, Social
Location, and History. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 2005;37(3):121-128.
36.
Gibbs L, Staiger PK, Johnson B, Block K, Macfarlane S, Gold L, Kulas J, Townsend M,
Long C, Ukoumunne OC. Expanding children’s experience of food: the impact of a schoolbased kitchen garden program. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior.
2013;45(2):137-146.
37.
Martins Y, Pliner P. Human food choices: An examination of the factors underlying
acceptance/rejection of novel and familiar animal and nonanimal foods. Appetite.
2005;45(3):214-224.
38.
Aldridge V, Aldridge T, Dovey JCG, Halford. The role of familiarity in dietary
development. Developmental Review. 2009;29(1):32-44.
39.
Cooke L. The importance of exposure for healthy eating in childhood: a review.
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics. 2007;20(4):294-301.
40.
Boeing H, Bechthold A, Bub A, Ellinger S, Haller D, Kroke A, Leschik-Bonnet E, Müller
MJ, Oberritter H, Schulze M. Critical review: vegetables and fruit in the prevention of
chronic diseases. European Journal of Nutrition. 2012;51(6):637-663.
[86]
41.
Department of Health. Victorian population health survey 2011-12: Selected
findings. Melbourne: State Government Victoria 2014
Available from:
http://docs.health.vic.gov.au/docs/doc/Victorian-population-health-survey-2011-12:Selected-findings--2-Modifiable-health-risk-factors.
42.
NHMRC. Australian Dietary Guidelines. Canberra: National Health and Medical
Research
Council,
2013
Available
from:
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/n55.
43.
Stead M, Caraher W, Wrieden P, Longbottom K, Valentine A, Anderson. Confident,
fearful and hopeless cooks. British Food Journal. 2004;106(4):274-287.
44.
Baranowski T, Perry CL, Parcel GS. How individuals, environments and health
behaviors interact. In: Glanz K, Rimer B, K., Frances ML, editors. Health Behavior and Health
Education. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2002.
45.
Hall KD, Sacks G, Chandramohan D, Chow CC, Wang YC, Gortmaker SL, Swinburn BA.
Quantification of the effect of energy imbalance on bodyweight. The Lancet.
2011;378(9793):826-837.
46.
Victorian Government. Healthy Together Mildura 2013 [cited 2015 May 21].
Available from: http://healthytogethermildura.com.au/.
47.
Shankar S, Klassen AC, Garrett-Mayer E, Houts PS, Wang T, McCarthy M, Cain R,
Zhang L. Evaluation of a nutrition education intervention for women residents of
Washington, DC, public housing communities. Health Education Research. 2007;22(3):425437.
[87]