Search

Popular commercial meal kit subscription services (MKSSs) may support families to overcome barriers to cooking and eating at home, and facilitate improved vegetable consumption. The global meal kit market has expanded rapidly creating a gap in our understanding of the health-promoting potential of MKSSs. This paper describes the contemporary MKSS market in Australia and provides a vegetable-specific content analysis of a sample of recipes. A 1-week subscription was purchased for all Australian-based MKSSs (n  = 9) and websites were systematically reviewed to document key characteristics and recipe features. Vegetable content of all available recipes within a 1-week period were analysed. Our findings highlight the rapid expansion and evolution of MKSS market offerings over the past decade and their potential to support family vegetable consumption. Across all analysed recipes (n  = 179), MKSSs provided a median of 2.5 vegetable serves per person (range 0.7–7.5 serves) and a median of 3 different types of vegetables from 2 vegetable subgroups (i.e. dark green, red and orange, starchy, legumes and all other vegetables). This suggests that MKSSs may support family vegetable consumption if families select recipes with a greater number and variety of vegetables. However, an opportunity remains for MKSSs to improve both vegetable quantity and variety to positively influence population health. Further research is required to describe how families use meal kits promoting a greater understanding of their potential to improve family nutrition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of healthy eating habits in childhood is essential to reducing later risk of obesity. However, many parents manage fussy eating in toddlerhood with ineffective feeding practices that limit children's dietary variety and reinforce obesogenic eating behaviours. Understanding parents' feeding concerns and support needs may assist in the development of feeding interventions designed to support parents' uptake of responsive feeding practices. A total of 130 original posts by parents of toddlers (12–36 months) were extracted from the online website Reddit's 'r/Toddlers' community discussion forum over a 12‐month period. Qualitative content analysis was used to categorise the fussy eating topics that parents were most concerned about and the types of support they were seeking from online peers. The most frequently raised fussy eating concerns were refusal to eat foods offered, inadequate intake (quantity and quality), problematic mealtime behaviours and changes in eating patterns. Parents were primarily seeking practical support (69.2%) to manage emergent fussy eating behaviours. This consisted of requests for practical feeding advice and strategies or meal ideas. Nearly half of parents sought emotional support (47.7%) to normalise their child's eating behaviour and seek reassurance from people with lived experience. Informational support about feeding was sought to a lesser extent (16.2%). Fussy eating poses a barrier to children's dietary variety and establishing healthy eating habits. These results suggest parents require greater knowledge and skills on 'how to feed' children and support to manage feeding expectations. Health professionals and child feeding interventions should focus on providing parents with practical feeding strategies to manage fussy eating. Supporting parents to adopt and maintain responsive feeding practices is vital to developing healthy eating habits during toddlerhood that will continue throughout adulthood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor about the management of kidney stone disease in New South Wales is presented.

Objective: This study aimed to examine the theoretical potential of meal kit subscription services in Australia to promote parental food literacy using the retrospective application of behaviour change frameworks., Design: A one-week subscription was purchased for all Australian-based meal kit subscription services ( n 9) to access content and features available to subscribers. Behaviour change techniques (BCTs) identified in the subscription and meal planning features, meal kit delivery (i.e. ingredients and recipes) and website were coded using the behaviour change technique taxonomy (BCTTv1) and associated behaviour change frameworks. Identified BCTs were mapped to the theoretical domains framework to identify potential mechanisms of action for influencing parental food literacy development., Setting: Australia., Results: Thirty-five BCTs were identified across the nine meal kit services reviewed, ranging from nineteen to twenty-nine BCTs per company. Sixteen BCTs were common to all meal kits services, from the hierarchical clusters of 'goals and planning', 'shaping knowledge', 'social support', 'natural consequences', 'comparison of behaviour', 'repetitions and substitution', 'associations', 'reward and threat', 'antecedents' and 'regulation'. Across the meal kit services, the most frequently identified mechanisms of action were motivation ( n 27) and capability ( n 19)., Conclusion: These findings support the applicability of behaviour change frameworks to commercial meal kit subscription services and provide a theory-informed process for identifying BCTs that may be relevant for promoting parental food literacy within this context. Further research is required to explore how families engage with meal kit subscription services to determine the exposure and delivery of identified BCT content and to evaluate the potential influence on food literacy development.

Introduction: Early life parent-focused interventions can effectively improve infant and child nutrition and movement (physical activity and sedentary behavior) as well as parents' health behaviors. Scale-up of such interventions to real-world settings is essential for population-wide benefits. When progressing to scale-up, intervention components may be modified to reflect contextual factors and promote feasibility of scale-up. The INFANT program, an efficacious early life nutrition and movement behavioral intervention began as a randomized controlled trial (RCT), was modified after a small-scale translation, and is currently being scaled-up in Victoria, Australia. This study mapped and compared discrete intervention components of both the original RCT and the scaled-up version of INFANT to examine modifications for scaling up., Methods: Discrete intervention components, specifically the target behaviors (child-related and parent-related behaviors), delivery features and behavior change techniques (BCTs) from the RCT and the scaled-up program were coded and mapped using established frameworks and taxonomies. Publications and unpublished materials (e.g., facilitator notes, handouts, videos, app) were coded. Coding was performed independently in duplicate, with final coding validated in a meeting with interventionists. Interventionists reported the rationale for modifications made., Results: The INFANT RCT and scaled-up version targeted the same obesity prevention-related nutrition and movement behaviors. Key modified delivery features at scale-up included reduced number of sessions, a broader range of professionals facilitating groups, the addition of a mobile app for parents replacing hard-copy materials and tangible tools (e.g., pedometers), and broadening of content (e.g., early feeding, updated 24-h movement guidelines). BCTs used across the RCT and scale-up sessions were unchanged. However, the BCTs identified in the between-session support materials were almost double for the scale-up compared with the RCT, primarily due to the reduced number of sessions and the app's capacity to include more content., Conclusions: INFANT is one of few early life nutrition and movement behavioral interventions being delivered at scale. With INFANT as an example, this study provides critical understanding about what and why intervention components were altered as the RCT was scaled-up. Unpacking these intervention modifications provides important insights for scale-up feasibility, outcome effects, and how to optimize implementation strategies for population-level benefits., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Marshall, Johnson, Hesketh, Campbell, Fraser, Love, Denney-Wilson, Salmon, McCallum and Laws.)