Unhealthy dietary behaviours are risk factors for the development of chronic diseases and high mortality rates worldwide(1). In the Netherlands, adherence to the dietary guidelines is low(Reference Rossum, Buurma-Rethans and Vennemann2). Food literacy (FL) has emerged as an important modifiable determinant of dietary behaviour(Reference Velardo3). FL encompasses the knowledge, skills and behaviours necessary for a healthy diet(Reference Vidgen and Gallegos4), and includes four key domains: Planning food intake (e.g., making a grocery list), Selecting food (e.g., reading food labels), Preparing food (e.g., basic hygiene principles), and Eating food (e.g., social aspect of eating)(Reference Vidgen and Gallegos4). Thus, FL captures the complexity of healthy eating: from beliefs and knowledge about healthy eating, to the skills and sub-behaviours needed to consume a healthy meal. Previous studies have shown a positive association between FL and dietary intake(Reference Cabezas and Nazar5). For example, positive associations have been found between higher levels of FL and fruit, vegetable and fish consumption in Dutch adults(Reference Poelman, Dijkstra and Sponselee6) and with healthy dietary intake in general(Reference Vaitkeviciute, Ball and Harris7). This makes FL a promising target for nutrition interventions(Reference Cabezas and Nazar5,Reference O’Brien, MacDonald-Wicks and Heaney8) .
Cooking interventions have been successful in reaching and engaging adults and families(Reference Flego, Herbert and Waters9–Reference Cunningham-Sabo, Lohse and Smith12). They can involve children in meal preparation(Reference Herbert, Flego and Gibbs13), which can lead to improved eating enjoyment(Reference van der Horst, Ferrage and Rytz14) and family meal frequency(Reference Woodruff and Kirby15). Furthermore, beneficial effects have been found on FL(Reference Garcia, Reardon, McDonald and Vargas-Garcia16) and on cooking confidence, knowledge, skills, diet quality and health status(Reference Reicks, Kocher and Reeder17). To our knowledge, there is limited research on FL cooking interventions in the Dutch setting. This study explores the effects of a food literacy cooking intervention: ‘Up for Cooking (UfC) online’. It examines the associations between UfC online and changes in parental FL, knowledge and self-efficacy, and whether families changed their cooking behaviour at home.
Methods
Study design and setting
This study was conducted in the Netherlands. A mixed-methods approach combined parental pre-questionnaires (one week before participation) and post-questionnaires (one-two weeks after participation) with interview data (after participation). The Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Science Research Ethics Committee of Maastricht University has approved this study (FHML-REC/2020/067). A more detailed description of the intervention and measurements can be found in the Open Science Framework Repository at https://osf.io/4mdsh/.
Intervention
UfC online consisted of four 1.5-hour online cooking sessions for five to eight families. A trained course leader (CL) guided parent-child pairs through a recipe, while offering practical tips and preparing the meal herself. Prior to each session, participants received a grocery bag with the ingredients, recipes, homework assignments and access to the videoconferencing software (Zoom Business). Recipes differentiated tasks for parents and children. Homework assignments used easy-to-read language, pictures and step-by-step tasks.
Participants
Primary schools recruited families through the children (generally aged 8–12). Recruitment was aimed at one parent and one child per family (i.e., parent-child pairs), but other family members could be present and participate. The research team invited participating parents to complete the questionnaires and, if they attended at least 3 out of 4 cooking sessions, for an interview.
Measurements
Questionnaires assessed FL, socio-cognitive determinants, self-reported impact and demographic characteristics. FL included 14 items derived from a validated FL behaviour checklist, covering the FL domains planning, selecting and making (Reference Begley, Paynter and Dhaliwal18). Items asked how often participants performed the listed behaviours (e.g., trying a new recipe) in the past month, ranging from [1] ‘never’ to [4] ‘always’. Self-reported knowledge about healthy eating was assessed by a single item, and four items addressed self-efficacy, both ranging from [1] ‘No, definitely not’, to [5] ‘Yes, definitely’. Lastly, demographic measures included the respondent’s age, country of birth, family status, highest level of education completed, postal code, and the number and age of children in the household. Semi-structured interviews assessed self-reported impact on family cooking behaviours at home.
Data processing and analyses
Single FL items were assigned to one of the FL domains based on Begley (2018)(Reference Begley, Paynter and Dhaliwal18). Scale reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, using a cut-off of α ≥ 0.5, as acceptable given the small sample size(Reference Portney19). Items were deleted from the scale if this improved Cronbach’s alpha to above the cut-off. Sum scores were calculated and divided by the number of scale items. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare pre- and post-questionnaire scores.
The qualitative interviews were transcribed verbatim, anonymised, and coded using inductive thematic analysis in NVivo 12 (QSR International, Doncaster, Victoria, Australia). The first author analysed all interviews. A second researcher (LV) independently coded 18% (two out of eleven) of the interviews, for which intercoder reliability was found to be 0.98.
Results
Participants, response rate and demographics
Of the 73 participating families, 54 (74%) completed the pre-questionnaire and 39 (53%) completed both pre- and post-questionnaires. Dropout analyses revealed significant differences in parental age (F(1, 52)= 5.35, p=0.025) and neighbourhood SES score (F(1, 49)=4.71, p=0.035). Parents who completed both questionnaires were older (41.6 compared to 37.6 years) and came from neighbourhoods with higher SES scores (–0.8 compared to –1.8) than parents who completed only the pre-questionnaire. Eleven parents (15%) participated in semi-structured interviews, of whom two completed only the pre-questionnaire.
The mean age of the respondents was 41.6 (SD=6.2) years. The neighbourhood SES score ranged from –3.6 to 0.9, with a negative score indicating a lower SES as the national average is zero. The majority of respondents were born in the Netherlands (94.7%) and had an average of 2.4 (SD=1.0) children in their household.
Food literacy
Changes in parental FL are shown in Table 1, described in more detail below and supplemented by parent quotes from the interviews in Table 2.
Parents’ food literacy, knowledge and self-efficacy before and after participation in Up for Cooking online (n=39)
Abbreviations: SD: standard deviation.
aCalculated over post-scores. bCalculated as post-pre mean scores due to missing data, and rounded.cBased on negative ranks, see Supplementary Table. dScored from [1] ‘Never’ to [4] ‘Always’. eSum scale not calculated due to unreliable scale. fScored from [1] ‘No definitely not’ to [5] ‘Yes, definitely’. Significance levels in Wilcoxon Signed-rank test.
Impact at home from quotes by parents (n=11)
No significant changes in planning were found (Table 1). Planning meals in advance and making a grocery list seems to already be part of daily routines. Significant increases were found in selecting. More specifically, interviews indicated that the homework assignment on food labels was appreciated (n=7), with explicit mention of the ‘back’ of food packaging (n=3), expiration dates (n=2), and proper refrigeration of food products (n=4). Although parents reported that they reviewed the homework assignment with their children, one parent preferred more in-depth information (Table 2). Two single items concerning making showed significant improvements. Interviews often referred to the different cutting techniques and healthy food swaps (i.e., wholemeal products). None of the parents reported trying new recipes, but instead applied the lessons learned instead.
Knowledge, self-efficacy and family cooking behaviours
Knowledge of healthy eating and self-efficacy in cooking with their child improved statistically significant (Table 1). Parents considered it a learning experience to cook together with their child, reinforced by the separate parent and child cooking tasks in the recipes and instructions. Others missed information such as tips on different preparation methods (Table 2).
The fixed date and time helped parents to prioritise cooking with their child and to overcome barriers. Although parents often saw cooking or baking together as a weekend activity when they had more time, children initiated changes by preparing recipes or wanting to help parents. Overall, children initiating change was a recurring theme in the interviews, whether by reminding their parents of tips from the CL, UfC materials, food labels on products, or asking to be in charge of plating the food. Several parents also reported a ripple effect to others, including grandparents joining for dinner, classmates and friends coming to help during the sessions, or other household members curious about the next recipe (Table 2).
Discussion
This study explored whether UfC online was associated with changes in parental FL, knowledge and self-efficacy, and whether families changed their cooking behaviour at home. Mixed results were found and direct effects were all relatively small. Self-reported impact at home showed increased involvement of children and other family members in cooking.
Despite the limited session duration, UfC online resulted in small positive changes in using nutrition information panels (i.e., selecting), making recipes healthier (i.e., making) and knowledge about healthy eating. This is comparable with findings from other cooking interventions(Reference West, Lindberg, Ball and McNaughton20) and FL interventions(Reference Begley, Paynter, Butcher and Dhaliwal21–Reference Tartaglia, Jancey and Scott23). No changes were found in planning healthy meals and parental self-efficacy towards cooking and eating healthy meals, potentially due to high pre-questionnaire scores with limited room for improvement. By providing families with a grocery bag containing the necessary ingredients, the practice of planning meals was eliminated. Other strategies, such as action planning, may be needed to achieve observable changes(Reference Begley, Paynter, Butcher and Dhaliwal21,Reference Tartaglia, Jancey and Scott23) .
UfC online supported parents in cooking with their child and promoted children’s involvement in cooking at home. This is important as it has been shown to have a positive effect on children’s dietary intake(Reference van der Horst, Ferrage and Rytz14,Reference Chu, Storey and Veugelers24) . Cooking in their own kitchen, using their own equipment, and the child-friendly explanations may have contributed to this. It may have reduced parental concerns about safety issues (e.g., using a knife) or lack of control in the kitchen (e.g., children are a distraction, kitchen is a mess)(Reference Hollywood, Issartel and Gaul25,Reference Olfert, Hagedorn and Leary26) . Indeed, children themselves emphasise the need for age-appropriate tasks(Reference Olfert, Hagedorn and Leary26). Parents and children experienced UfC online as valuable family time, which has also been observed in other cooking interventions(Reference Lavelle, Mooney and Coffey27), overcoming competing schedules and affordability(Reference Olfert, Hagedorn and Leary26,Reference Lavelle, McGowan and Spence28,Reference Wolfson, Bleich, Smith and Frattaroli29) . The ripple effect on other family members and friends is consistent with findings from other interventions(Reference Saxe-Custack and Egan30).
Strengths of the present study include the mixed-methods approach, the FL items derived from a validated questionnaire(Reference Begley, Paynter and Dhaliwal18), and the fact that data-saturation was reached in the interviews. Limitations include the lack of a control group, prohibiting the interpretation of intervention effectiveness as changes observed may have been caused by something other than the intervention. Collecting the post-questionnaire directly after the intervention may also have influenced the observed changes, given that participants were asked to reflect on the previous month. Finally, although the study achieved the required sample size to detect differences in FL, the small number of participants meant that adjustments for characteristics could not be made. The findings should be interpreted with caution. The effectiveness of UfC online should be further investigated with a longer follow-up, in a larger sample, including a control group.
Despite the increased interest in online (cooking) interventions since COVID-19, there are only a limited number of studies evaluating the impact of such interventions(Reference Tartaglia, Jancey and Scott23,Reference Adedokun, Bastin and Plonski31,Reference Panichelli, Middleton, Kestner and Rees32) . This evaluation, as well as another online cooking intervention that reported a waiting list of families willing to participate(Reference Saxe-Custack and Egan30), confirms that virtual live interventions may be a new step in nutrition interventions.
In conclusion, this study provides preliminary evidence that participation in UfC online was associated with short-term changes over time in parents’ FL, knowledge about healthy eating, and self-efficacy for cooking with their child. The intervention also seemed to lead (indirectly or directly) to changes in family cooking behaviour at home, such as involving other family members in meal preparation.
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/jns.2025.10034
Data availability statement
Datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the teachers, school principals, social workers and other stakeholders who supported the development and implementation of Up for Cooking. Special thanks go to Hanneke Philipsen for co-developing and implementing the intervention, and to Evelyne Linssen and Truusje Diepenmaat for their advice and support in scaling up the intervention. We would also like to thank Lieve Vonken for her support in the qualitative data analysis. We would like to thank all parents and children who participated in this study and in Up for Cooking in general.
Author contributions
Conceptualisation, LH and KB; Methodology, LH and KB; Formal Analysis, LH; Investigation, LH; Resources, LH and KB; Data Curation, LH; Writing — Original Draft Preparation, LH; Writing — Review & Editing, JG, PvA, SG and KB; Visualisation, LH; Supervision, JG, PvA, SG and KB; Project Administration, KB; Funding Acquisition, KB. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by Jong Leren Eten Limburg.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Ethical approval and informed consent
All research activities were conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Maastricht University Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee (FHML-REC/2020/067). Participants gave written informed consent for the questionnaires and verbal consent for voice recording of interviews.
Open access
