| Literature DB >> 34876781 |
Maria Piochi1, Federica Buonocore2, Francesco Spampani2, Luisa Torri1.
Abstract
Italy was the first European country struck by the COVID-19 epidemic and experienced a national lockdown. This study explored the effect of lockdown on the perception of any meals prepared and/or conducted at home (home meals) and investigated which variables played a role in this. A group of Italians (n = 3,060) not suspected/diagnosed as having COVID-19 (18-91 years old; 33% males) completed an online survey during the first lockdown (April 2020). Liking for home meals either increased (51% of the population) or did not vary (43%), while it decreased for only 6% of respondents. Total meal intake similarly either increased (51%) or remained unchanged (33%). Core variables describing meal perception (Liking for meal, Pleasure in meal preparation, Meal duration, Meal Time, Overall food intake, Snack intake) were positively associated with each other. Two clusters with different perceptions of home meals were found, characterised by an increased appreciation (Cl1, 61%) and an unchanged appreciation (Cl2, 39%), respectively. In the acute phase of lockdown, increased meal pleasure was associated with home togetherness (not living alone), cooking with others more often, having high cooking dynamism (use of different kitchen tools, engaging in online food-related activities like using online recipe/website for cooking, use of ready-to-eat meal delivery), and being young, a student or a worker (Cl1). Conversely, Cl2 showed an unchanged meal pleasure, and it was mostly associated with living alone (before and during lockdown), being elderly, retired, widowed, having a low degree of cooking-related activities and dedicating a small weekly budget to food. Variables strictly describing the meal were discussed. Lockdown did not homogenously affect the population in terms of meal pleasure, and high enjoyment of meals was related to high meal involvement. Younger subjects seemed to be more resilient and appreciated meals more due to high cooking dynamism, food-related activities and togetherness. Public health policies could consider these outputs to set up interventions that use meal-dedication activities to increase meal pleasure in vulnerable targets or in subjects experiencing poorly appreciated diets in similar future stressful situations.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Conviviality; Cooking dynamism; Food engagement; Liking; Meal
Year: 2021 PMID: 34876781 PMCID: PMC8639481 DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104488
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Qual Prefer ISSN: 0950-3293 Impact factor: 5.565
Distribution of core variables (related to home meal liking) in the population (n = 3060).
| Variable | Decreased* (↓) | Unchanged (=) | Increased* (↑) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liking for meals | 172 (6) | 1323 (43) | 1565 (51) |
| Pleasure in meal preparation | 246 (8) | 1105 (36) | 1709 (56) |
| Overall meal intake | 496 (16) | 1000 (33) | 1564 (51) |
| Snack intake | 702 (23) | 1449 (47) | 909 (30) |
| Meal duration | 194 (6) | 1526 (50) | 1340 (44) |
| Meal time | 706 (23) | 1507 (49) | 847 (28) |
Note: percentages are expressed in brackets. *For the variable ‘Meal time’, 'decreased' and 'increased' were respectively 'anticipated' and 'postponed'.
Fig. 1Sign and values of the standardized residuals from Pearson Chi-square between liking for domestic meal and other core variables. In the figure symbols are used that identify: ‘↑’ for increased (anticipated for Meal Time), ‘↓’ for decreased (postponed for Meal Time), ‘=’ for unchanged. Positive residual values (blue) specify a positive association between the corresponding row and column modalities. Negative residuals (red) imply a negative association between the corresponding row and column modalities. The dimension and the color intensity of the circles are proportional to the values of residuals. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 2Percentage variation (Δ%) in food-related behaviours comparing before and during the lockdown (a-b) and overall trends (d).
Fig. 3Biplots of the Dim1 and Dim3 from MCA, depicting the relationships among the levels of the meal-related variables and all other variables. The dimensions were selected based on the v-test and were the two mostly representative in explaining the variability in the clusters considering home meals perception. Note: symbols (↓), (=), and (↑) indicate respectively: ‘decreased’, ‘unchanged’ and ‘increased’ for the considered variable’s level. Variables identified with the letter ‘L’ referred to the condition ‘during the lockdown’ while the others refer to the normal situation (before the lockdown).
Food-related activities, home meal dedication and meal perception in clusters.
| Cluster/Level* | Level/Cluster** | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core variables: meal perception during lockdown | Liking of home meal | ↑ Liking for meals | 78 | 22 | 65 | 29 | 51 | |
| ↓ Liking for meals | 29 | 71 | 3 | 10 | 6 | |||
| = Liking for meals | 45 | 55 | 32 | 61 | 43 | |||
| Pleasure in meal preparation | ↑ Pleasure in meal preparation | 76 | 24 | 70 | 34 | 56 | ||
| ↓ Pleasure in meal preparation | 33 | 67 | 4 | 14 | 8 | |||
| = Pleasure in meal preparation | 43 | 57 | 26 | 52 | 36 | |||
| Overall intake | ↑ Overall meal intake | 75 | 25 | 63 | 32 | 51 | ||
| ↓ Overall meal intake | 42 | 59 | 11 | 24 | 16 | |||
| = Overall meal intake | 48 | 52 | 26 | 43 | 33 | |||
| Snack intake | ↑ Snack intake | 73 | 28 | 35 | 21 | 30 | ||
| = Snack intake | 55 | 45 | 43 | 55 | 47 | |||
| Meal time | ↓ Meal time | 66 | 34 | 25 | 20 | 23 | ||
| ↑ Meal time | 74 | 26 | 33 | 19 | 28 | |||
| Meal duration | ↑ Meal duration | 80 | 20 | 58 | 23 | 44 | ||
| ↓ Meal duration | 23 | 77 | 2 | 13 | 6 | |||
| Food online engagement | Frequency of ordering ready-to-eat meals for home delivery | L_ High ready-to-eat meal delivery user | 90 | 10 | 54 | 9 | 36 | |
| Social media channels used to decide what to buy when grocery shopping | L_High online recipe/website user for cooking | 80 | 20 | 33 | 13 | 25 | ||
| L_High influence of online recipe/social media on grocery shopping choices | 81 | 19 | 17 | 6 | 13 | |||
| L_Low influence of online recipe/social media on grocery shopping choices | 58 | 42 | 83 | 94 | 87 | |||
| L_High influence of advertising on grocery shopping choices | 89 | 11 | 53 | 10 | 36 | |||
| L_Low influence of advertising on grocery shopping choices | 45 | 55 | 47 | 90 | 64 | |||
| L_High ready-to-eat meal delivery use | 85 | 16 | 15 | 4 | 11 | |||
| Meal dedication & cooking activity | Social cooking/eating | L_Frequently cooking together | 82 | 18 | 57 | 19 | 42 | |
| Cooking alone always | 32 | 68 | 12 | 40 | 23 | |||
| Cooking together rarely | 69 | 32 | 31 | 22 | 28 | |||
| Cooking together often | 75 | 25 | 20 | 10 | 16 | |||
| >1 h daily meal preparation time | 58 | 42 | 45 | 51 | 48 | |||
| >2 h daily meal preparation time | 71 | 29 | 8 | 5 | 7 | |||
| L < 1 h daily meal preparation time | 22 | 78 | 6 | 32 | 16 | |||
| L_2-3 h daily meal preparation time | 84 | 17 | 33 | 10 | 24 | |||
| L_>3 h daily meal preparation time | 87 | 13 | 7 | 2 | 5 | |||
| Kitchenware usage | L_High gas cooker/Induction or infrared hob user | 76 | 24 | 88 | 45 | 71 | ||
| L_Low gas cooker/Induction or infrared hob user | 25 | 76 | 12 | 56 | 29 | |||
| L_High kneading machine user | 84 | 16 | 40 | 12 | 29 | |||
| L_High microwave user | 62 | 38 | 97 | 91 | 94 | |||
| L_Low microwave user | 37 | 64 | 4 | 9 | 6 | |||
Note: *‘Cluster/Level’= If reading each row, Cluster/level will give the percentage of subjects out of the whole population belonging to each cluster (the combination of Cluster/Level of the two clusters will give 100% = the whole population); **‘Level/Cluster’= If reading in column of each variable, the Level/Cluster will give the composition as a percentage of how much the variable’s level is represented within each cluster (composition within cluster); ‘Global’ is the percentage of subjects distributed in the whole population. For each variable, the modalities that are not depicted in the table must be intended as not being included in the segmentation due to a low contribution in explaining differences between clusters.
Composition of the subject clusters regarding socio-demographic data.
| Cluster/Level* | Level/Cluster** | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Modalities | Cl1 | Cl2 | Cl1 | Cl2 | Global | |
| Body mass index (BMI) | Underweight | 73 | 27 | 5 | 3 | 5 | |
| Normal weight | 64 | 36 | 64 | 57 | 61 | ||
| Overweight | 56 | 44 | 24 | 30 | 26 | ||
| Obese | 50 | 50 | 7 | 10 | 8 | ||
| Age | 18–29 years old | 83 | 17 | 26 | 8 | 19 | |
| 30–64 years old | 63 | 37 | 73 | 66 | 70 | ||
| ≥65 years old | 9 | 91 | 2 | 26 | 11 | ||
| Marital status | Married/cohabitant | 69 | 31 | 67 | 48 | 60 | |
| Never married/single | 55 | 45 | 24 | 30 | 27 | ||
| Divorced/separated | 32 | 68 | 4 | 15 | 8 | ||
| Widowed | 12 | 88 | 0 | 5 | 2 | ||
| I prefer not to declare this | 72 | 28 | 4 | 2 | 3 | ||
| Subjects composing the household | Alone at home | 20 | 80 | 6 | 37 | 18 | |
| 3 subjects in household | 76 | 25 | 26 | 13 | 21 | ||
| 4 subjects in household | 84 | 16 | 30 | 9 | 22 | ||
| >5 subjects in household | 89 | 11 | 8 | 2 | 6 | ||
| Subjects composing the household during lockdown | L_Alone at home | 17 | 83 | 5 | 36 | 17 | |
| L_3 subjects in household | 74 | 27 | 27 | 15 | 23 | ||
| L_ >4 subjects in household | 87 | 13 | 37 | 9 | 26 | ||
| Occupation | Worker | 66 | 34 | 78 | 62 | 72 | |
| Student | 86 | 15 | 14 | 4 | 10 | ||
| Retired | 7 | 93 | 1 | 27 | 11 | ||
| Unpaid position§ | 51 | 49 | 3 | 4 | 3 | ||
| Occupation during lockdown | L_smartworker | 69 | 31 | 54 | 38 | 48 | |
| L_non-working | 79 | 22 | 15 | 6 | 12 | ||
| Physical activity during lockdown | L_physical activity 3–4 times per week | 67 | 34 | 20 | 16 | 18 | |
| L_weekly expense | L_weekly expense ≤ 50€ | 30 | 70 | 6 | 23 | 13 | |
| L_weekly expense 101-150€ | 72 | 29 | 33 | 21 | 28 | ||
| L_weekly expense 151-200€ | 75 | 25 | 20 | 10 | 16 | ||
| L_weekly expense > 200€ | 76 | 24 | 8 | 4 | 6 | ||
| Frequency of consumption of fresh food | Low fresh food eater | 44 | 56 | 6 | 11 | 8 | |
| High fresh food eater | 62 | 38 | 95 | 89 | 93 | ||
| Frequency of consumption of local food | Low local food eater | 56 | 44 | 21 | 26 | 23 | |
| High local food eater | 63 | 38 | 79 | 74 | 77 | ||
Note: *‘Cluster/Level’= If reading each row, Cluster/Level will give the percentage of subjects out of the whole population belonging to each cluster (the combination of Cluster/Level of the two clusters will give 100% = the whole population); **‘Level/Cluster’= If reading in column of each variable, the Level/Cluster will give the composition in percentage of how much the variable’s level is represented within each cluster (composition within cluster); ‘Global’ is the percentage of subjects distributed in the whole population. For each variable, the levels that are not depicted in the table must be intended as not being included in the segmentation due to a low contribution in dimensions of MCA. § Unpaid position included unemployed or stay at home parents.