BackgroundChildren’s fruit and vegetable intake in the UK is low. Changing intake is challenging. Gardening in schools might be a vehicle for facilitating fruit and vegetable intake.ObjectivesTo undertake the first clustered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of a gardening intervention. To evaluate the impact of a school gardening programme, the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) Campaign for School Gardening, on children’s fruit and vegetable intake.MethodsPrimary school children aged 8–11 years from eight London boroughs were included in one of two related RCTs. Trial 1 consisted of 23 schools, randomised to receive either a RHS-led or teacher-led intervention. Trial 2 consisted of 31 schools, randomised to either the teacher-led intervention or a comparison group. A 24-hour food diary [the Child And Diet Evaluation Tool (CADET)] collected baseline and follow-up dietary intake. Questionnaires measured children’s knowledge and attitudes towards fruit and vegetables and assessed intervention implementation. Data were collected by fieldworkers who were blind to the original allocation of the school. The primary outcome was change in fruit and vegetable intake analysed using a random effects model, based on intention to treat.ResultsTotal sample size at baseline for both trials (2529 children) was lower than the original aim of 2900 children. The final sample size was 1557, with 641 children completing trial 1 (RHS-led,n = 312; teacher-led,n = 329) and 916 children completing trial 2 (teacher-led,n = 488; control,n = 428). The response rate at follow-up for the two combined was 62%.Baseline analysis of children’s fruit and vegetable intake showed that eating a family meal together, cutting up fruit and vegetables, and parental modelling of fruit and vegetable intakes were all associated with higher intakes of fruit and vegetables in children.The primary trial outcome, combined fruit and vegetable intake, showed that in trial 1 the teacher-led group had a mean change in intake of 8 g [95% confidence interval (CI) –19 to 36 g], compared with a mean of –32 g (95% CI –60 to –3 g) in the RHS-led group. However, this difference was not significant (intervention effect –43 g, 95% CI –88 to 1 g;p = 0.06). In trial 2, the teacher-led group consumed 15 g (95% CI –36 to 148 g) more fruit and vegetables than the comparison group; this difference was not significant. No change was found in children’s knowledge and attitudes. However, if schools improved their RHS gardening score by three levels, children had a higher intake of 81 g of fruit and vegetables (95% CI 0 to 163 g;p = 0.05) compared with schools with no change in gardening score.ConclusionResults from these trials provide little evidence that school gardening alone can improve children’s fruit and vegetable intake. In both trials, gardening levels increased across all groups from baseline to follow-up, with no statistically significant difference between groups in terms of improvement in gardening level. This lack of differentiation between groups is likely to have influenced the primary outcome. However, when the gardening intervention was implemented at the highest intensities there was a suggestion that it could improve children’s fruit and vegetable intake by a portion. Analysis of the baseline data showed that family support for fruit and vegetable intakes was associated with higher intakes of fruit and vegetables in children. This study highlights the need for more sophisticated and accurate tools to evaluate diet in children. Future intervention designs should include a greater level of parental involvement in school interventions, along with related components such as cooking, to substantially improve children’s fruit and vegetable intake. In addition, the home environment has been demonstrated to be an important focus for intervention.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN11396528.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full inPublic Health Research; Vol. 2, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence, severity, coping strategies and precipitating factors of food insecurity in university students in a large multi‐campus Australian university during the COVID‐19 lockdown in 2020, in context of providing information to inform institutional support. This was a cross‐sectional analysis which was part of a larger university‐led research project, the Thrive@Home study conducted at Monash University during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The main outcome measures included: Sociodemographic characteristics, PROMIS anxiety, PROMIS depression and the six‐item US Department of Agriculture Household Food Security Survey Module. All variables were reported according to the four levels of food security status (high (H), marginal (M), low (L) and very low (VL)). Chi‐squared tests were used to compare all categorical variables including demographic, mental health and food security status. A multivariable regression was conducted between food security status and mental health variables. Overall, n = 1315 students were included in the analysis. Of which, 5% were classified as having VL food security, 13% L, 14% M and 68% H. As food security worsened the likelihood of being unemployed looking for work, living alone and deteriorating physical health, diet quality and mental health increased. As food security status deteriorated the prevalence of needing to ask family or friends for food, shopping at multiple outlets for discounts, accessing emergency food relief, subsidised meals and financial assistance from organisations increased ( p < 0.002). In regression models adjusting for covariates, depression (b (95%CI): VL = 7.2(4.1–10.3), L = 3.7(1.7–5.7), M = 2.0(0.1–3.8)) and anxiety (VL = 7.4(4.5–10.4), L = 3.5(1.5–5.4) and M = 2.0(0.3–3.8)) were positively associated with worsening food security. Food insecurity during COVID‐19 was associated with worsening mental health. This paper provides targets for future university‐led initiatives to promote student food security and supporting better access to physical and mental health services.

Background Childhood obesity is a pertinent public health problem in the UK. Consumption of free sugars has been associated with the development of obesity. In 2018, the Change 4Life (C4L) 100 cal snack campaign was launched with the slogan ‘100 calorie snacks, two a day max’, aiming to encourage parents to choose lower sugar, fat and calorie snacks for their children. This study aimed to examine how the campaign has been perceived by parents. Methods An online survey was developed to explore parent awareness, perceptions and understanding of the C4L 100 cal snack campaign. Respondents were recruited via Leeds City Council, posters displayed at primary schools and children’s centres across Leeds and via social media. Paper surveys were also shared with voluntarily led playgroups. Survey data was analysed using descriptive statistics. Thematic analysis was performed on open text responses. Results Three hundred forty-two 342 respondents completed the survey. Just over half of the respondents had come across the campaign, most seeing the leaflet or a television advert. Over two-thirds of respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that the campaign caught their attention. A similar proportion ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that the campaign informed them about 100 cal snacks and just over a half thought it was memorable. Most respondents used positive language to describe the campaign, but there was no clear consensus of a perceived positive impact on healthier snack purchasing, nor preparing more 100 cal snacks at home. Respondents provided examples of how the campaign could be improved to positively impact eating behaviours: better publicity and information delivery; healthier snack examples made more visible; improved nutritional labelling and access to healthier products in supermarkets (availability, promotion, display, choice). Conclusions The C4L 100 cal snack campaign was perceived positively by parents and carers, with many agreeing that the campaign was informative and memorable. However, there was no agreement in terms of the parents reporting an impact of the campaign on behaviour change and healthier snack habits. Future social marketing campaigns could be improved through more formal pilot testing to assess the understanding and acceptance of the campaign amongst the target audience.

Objective: To synthesize peer-reviewed literature that utilize co-creation principles in healthy food retail initiatives.Methods: Systematic review of six databases from inception to September 2021.Screening and quality assessment were carried out by two authors independently.Studies were included if they were conducted in food retail stores, used a collaborative model, and aimed to improve the healthiness of the food retail environment.Studies excluded were implemented in restaurants, fast food chains, or similar or did not utilize some form of collaboration. Extracted data included the type of stakeholders engaged, level of engagement, stakeholder motivation, and barriers and enablers of the co-creation process.

ObjectiveSchool food intake makes a considerable contribution to children's overall diet, especially fruit and vegetable intake. Comparing differing school food provision systems can provide novel insights for intervention and improved nutrition policy. This study compared school day food in children from Australia and England.DesignChildren completed food frequency questionnaires reporting school day food intake, breakfast intake and family evening meals. Differences in food consumed over the school day between Australian and English children were evaluated. Multinomial logistic regressions compared fruit and vegetable intake, family dinner frequency and breakfast in Australian and English children adjusting for confounders: age, sex, ethnicity and parent education.Setting27 Primary schools in Adelaide, Australia and 32 in London, England.SubjectsN = 772 children aged 8–11 years from the Australian REACH study (n = 347) and UK RHS School Gardening Trial in England (n = 425).ResultsConsiderably more English children reported consuming vegetables at school than Australian children (recess/lunchtime Australian children 3.4%/6.1%; English children recess/lunctime 3.6/51.1%). However, Australian children were more likely to consume vegetables daily (OR = 4.1; 1.3, 12.5), and have family evening meals everyday [OR = 4.01; 1.88, 8.55], and were less likely to consume breakfast (OR = 0.26; 0.08, 0.79) than English children.ConclusionsFindings indicate that provision of a school lunch meal, compared to a packed lunch from home, may be more supportive of children's vegetable intake. However, without a supportive home environment that encourages vegetable intake, children will not be able to consume sufficient amounts of vegetables.