Study by first author [Ref. ID] | Country setting | Pheno-menon of interest (outcome) | Sampling and participants | Child socio-demographics: A: sex. B: age. C: school year. D: SEP. E: ethnic background. | Data collection methods and no. of FGs or interviews | Theoretical framework | Analytical method/approach | Main topics related to FV intake |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baranow-ski et al. 1993 [29] | US | FV intake | School-based (1 school): 235 schoolchildren, 15 parents, 8 teachers, 4 school food service workers. | A: no info. B: no info. C: 4 & 5. D: pre-dominantly lower SEP. E: more than 50% Afro-Americans and the rest mostly Anglo-Americans. | FG discussions: 5 year 4 schoolchild FGs, 5 year 5 schoolchild FGs, 2 parent FGs, 2 teacher FGs, 1 school food service worker FG. | Social cognitive theory: reciprocal determinism. | No clear description of analytical procedures. Theory-based interpretation of data. Results are categorised by aspects of reciprocal determinism. | Home and school FV availability, access to unhealthy food in school, sensory attributes (taste, appeal, appearance, smell, mouth feel), methods of preparation, preferences/liking, outcome expectancies, acceptance of national recommendations, food categorisation, preparation skills. |
Bauer et al. 2004 [57] | US | Healthy nutrition (and physical activity) | School-based (2 schools): 26 schoolchildren and 23 faculty and staff members. | A: mixed. B: no info. C: 7 & 8. D (school level): mixed composition. E: mixed composition (80% White, 20% either Asian- or African- Americans). | FG discussions: 7 grade- and gender-homogeneous schoolchild groups, 3 faculty and staff member groups and 10 individual interviews with key informants (e.g. school nurse, cafeteria manager, administratives). | Ecological models by Bronfenbrenner (1979), Stokols (1996), Story, Neumark-Stzainer & French (2002). | Grounded theory: 1st step: systematic coding of themes, 2nd step: identification of 3 mechanisms of influences on eating within the school environment based on data-developed concepts and theoretical framework. | School FV availability (quantity, variety, quality), School availability of unhealthy competitive food choices. |
Booth et al. 2008 [49] | Australia | Healthy food (Perceived causes of overweight and obesity) | School-based (3 secondary schools): 58 schoolchildren. | A: mixed, B: 12-17. C: 7-11. D (area level): areas selected to reflect a wide range of SEP differences. E: No info. | 9 gender- and school year-homogeneous FGs (year 7+8, year 9+10, year 11). | No info. | No clear description of analytical procedures. Coding of themes. | School FV availability (price, quality, presentation). |
Campbell 2009 [30] | US | Dietary choices | School-based (1 school): 12 schoolchildren. | A: mixed. B: 14-16. C: 9 & 10. D: pre-dominantly low-income families. E: mixed (Hispanic, African-American, Eurasian and combination of these). | FG discussions: one group interviewed twice, during lunch and immediately after. | Developmental psychology by Piaget and Erikson. | Content analysis, but no clear description of analytical procedures. | Home and school FV availability, parental influence, availability, liking, methods of preparation, knowledge, food categorisation. |
Cullen et al. 1998 [25] | US | FV con-sumption | Community-based: 99 urban boy scouts and 39 parents. | A: boys. B: 10-14. C: elementary school. D: no info. E: mainly African-American (88%). | 13 FGs with boy scouts and 7 FGs with parents. | Social cognitive theory concept of reciprocal determinism. | No clear description of analytical procedures. Transcripts were coded and quantified. | Preferences, outcome expectancies, sensory attributes (taste, mouth feel), snack food purchases, price, parental-, peer-, and media influence, preparation skills, home accessibility, school availability. |
Cullen et al. 2000 [48] | US | FJV intake | School-based (6 schools): 180 schoolchildren and 40 parents. | A: no info. B: 9-12. C: 4-6. D: mixed. E: mixed: 3 Afro-American schools, 1 Euro-American school, 2 Mexican-American schools. | School year and ethnically homogeneous FG discussions: 6 African-American schoolchild FGs, 6 Euro-American schoolchild FGs, 5 Mexican-American schoolchild FGs, and 8 Parent FGs. | Social cognitive theory: reciprocal determinism. | Data-based analysis. Systematic coding of transcripts and comparisons of results by ethnicity. Data-based variable names assigned to text passages. | Home availability/accessibility (variety), peer-, parental-, and media influence, sensory attributes (taste), food categorisation. |
Cullen et al. 2007 [26] | US | School food | School-based (6 schools): schoolchildren, school staff and district school food administrators (no. of participants not provided). | A: no info. B: 11-14. C: middle school. D (school-level): at least 50% of schoolchild population received free or reduced price meals. E (school-level): at least 50% of schoolchild population was African- American and Hispanic. | 11 FGs with schoolchildren/school staff. Interviews with 7 district school food administrators. | No info. | No clear description of analytical procedures. | School V availability (variety, freshness). |
Evans et al. 2006 [40] | US | Healthful eating | 48 adolescents from two middle schools and one recreation & parks centre. | A: mixed. B: 10-14. C: 6 & 7. D: low income. E: Mainly Black (81%). | 3 male and 2 female FGs. | Social cognitive theory | Systematic analysis based on pre-specified coding scheme (categorisation of data according to gender, location, and motivational theme) and standardised procedures. | Nutritional knowledge/outcome expectations (misconceptions), home availability (access to competitive food choices), peer pressure/symbolic value of food, school availability (appearance, appeal, freshness), FV availability at restaurants. Gender differences. |
Fitzgerald et al. 2009 [41] | Australia | Eating behaviour (and physical activity) | School-based (1 school): 37 schoolchildren. | A: mixed. B: no info. C: kindergarten & year 1-6. D: low SEP community. E: no info. | 3 FGs: kindergarten + year 1-2, year 3-4, year 5-6. | The socio-ecological approach is cited in the introduction. | Open coding/thematic analysis of transcripts. | Outcome expectancies, adult-, peer- and media influence, symbolic value of food, sensory attributes (taste), convenience, access to unhealthy food in local area, time limitations. |
Gellar et al. 2007 [31] | US | Healthy eating | 140 youth from diabetes camp. | A: mixed. B: 7-16 (mean age: 11.8). C: no info. D: mixed. E: mixed (71% white, 18% Black, 6% Hispanic). | 12 female and 6 male FGs (almost similar age). | No info. | Content analysis: Systematic coding of transcripts using a pre-specified coding system. | Preferences, sensory attributes (taste), knowledge, outcome expectancies, school FV availability (appeal, methods of preparation/form, competitive unhealthy food choices), convenience, home availability of unhealthy food, peer- and parental influence. |
Goh et al. 2009 [53] | US | Healthy eating (and physical activity) | School-based (2 schools): 119 schoolchildren, 63 parents, and 28 key stakeholders. | A: mixed. B: mean age: 12. C: 7 & 8. D: no info. E: mixed (58% Latino). | 6 male and 8 female schoolchild FGs, 8 parent FGs, interviews with 28 key stakeholders. | No info. | Systematic content analysis. | School availability (accessibility, appearance, methods of preparation, visibility, braces-friendly FV, unhealthy food), knowledge, parental influence. |
Hill et al. 1998 [32] | New Zealand | FV con-sumption | Community-based: 20 teenagers and their parent. | A: mixed. B: 13-16. C: no info. D: mixed. E: Pakeha (European ancestry). | 20 interviews: Separate interviews with teenager and parent responsible for food preparation. | No info. | Cross-household analysis. The analysis focus on interaction between teenager and parent-shopper in each household. No clear description of analytical procedures. | Situational norms, convenience, FV preparation skills, FV availability at home, school, and in local area (appeal, quality, parental facilitation, price, variety), peer-, parental- and media influence, preferences, outcome expectancies, knowledge. Age and gender differences. |
Husby et al. 2008 [51] | Denmark | Meals & snack consumption | Children with a healthy diet (N = 9) and a less healthy diet (N = 8) were recruited through a dietary survey among their parents. | A: mixed. B: 10-11. C: no info. D: mixed. E: no info. | 17 photo-elicited, semi-structured individual interviews. | Meals are examined as social events. Meals involve the establishment and re-establishment of the family unit. | Template analysis (pre-specified themes) and comparative analysis. | Peer influence (food swapping), snack, outcome expectancies, FV preparation skills, parental facilitation, food rules. Gender differences. |
Keim et al. 2001 [33] | US | FV intake | Community-based: 27 Caucasian and 30 Mexican-American healthy, low income children from public school, migrant worker summer schools and community centres. | A: mixed. B: 8-11. C: 3. D: low income. E: Caucasian- and Mexican-American. | FG discussions: 4 FGs of Caucasian children and 6 FGs of Mexican-American children. | Social cognitive theory | Transcripts analysed and coded within the context of Social cognitive theory. | Parental facilitation, FV preparation skills, FV shopping, price, home availability/accessibility (visibility, convenience, variety, unhealthy food), parental- and peer influence, preferences, sensory attributes (taste, mouth feel, appearance, quality, freshness, methods of preparation, familiarity), outcome expectancies, knowledge. Ethnic differences. |
Khunti et al. 2008 [50] | UK | Healthy lifestyle | School-based: Pupils (no. not provided but can be estimated to maximum 144) and school staff. | A: mixed. B: 11-15. C: 7-10. D: schools located in a very deprived area. E: mixed: In the overall sample 77% of the pupils were of South Asian origin. | Action research approach. Baseline: 18 schoolchild- and 5 staff FGs. Follow-up: 8 schoolchild- and 5 staff FGs. Observational visits at all schools. | No info. | Open coding (in line with the 1st analytical step of grounded theory) of data. A process of progressive focussing is used to develop a thematic framework. | Peer influence (image), cost & risk of wasting money, hunger satisfaction. |
Kim et al. 2007 [42] | US | Dietary practices/FV intake (and physical activity) | Community-based: Low-income Hmong American parents (N = 44) and youth (N = 40). Key informants (N = 5) in Hmong communities. | A: mixed. B: 11-14. C: no info. D: low-income. E: Hmong Americans. | 8 FGs with adults and youths and 5 individual interviews with key informants. | No info. | No clear description of analytical procedures. The transcripts were coded and organised. | Outcome expectancies, knowledge, preferences, parental influence, sensory attributes (smell, freshness), time/occasions for eating FV, school availability. |
Kirby et al. 1995 [34] | US | FV intake | School-based (6 schools from 3 regions): 398 schoolchildren, 108 parents, 43 teachers, 29 school food service workers. | A: no info. B: no info. C: 4-5. D (region level): mixed. E: mixed. 2 schools of predominantly white. Caucasian ethnic composition (1 high and 1 middle SEP) and 4 schools of non-white (African-, Asian-, Hispanic American, other or multi-ethnic) composition (2 Low and 2 very low SEP). | FG discussions: 15 schoolchild- (school year homogeneous), 11 parent-, 6 teacher- and 6 Food service worker-FGs. | Social learning theory: reciprocal determinism. | Systematic, theory-guided coding of transcripts. The assigned variable names were developed based on the discussion guide and theoretical framework. | Home availability/accessibility (variety, parental facilitation), preparation skills, price, preferences (variety liked), sensory attributes (taste, mouth feel), food categorisation, knowledge, convenience, methods of preparation, outcome expectancies, time/occasions for eating FV (restaurants), peer influence, availability in local area/restaurants. SEP differences. |
Kubik et al. 2005 [35] | US | Dietary practice (and physical activity) | School-based (7 Alternative High Schools): 70 schoolchildren. | A: mixed. B: no info. C: 9-12. D: (school-level): mixed composition: 46% of schoolchildren qualified for free reduced lunch program. E: mixed composition: 36% of schoolchildren were of non-Caucasian origin (American-Indian, African-American, Hispanic, Asian). | 7 schoolchild FGs. | Ecological theory and social learning theory. | Systematic 3-step analytical process as described by Miles & Huberman (1994). | Convenience, home and school FV availability/accessibility, access to unhealthy competitive food in school and local area, price, quality, preferences, cooking skills. |
Lauten-schlager & Smith 2007 [36] | US | Dietary behaviour (values, beliefs and gardening & cooking behaviours) | Community-based: 40 inner-city youth. Two subgroups: involved in Youth Farm Garden Program (N = 26) and not involved (N = 14). | A: mixed. B: 9-15. C: no info. D: no info. E: mixed: white (15%), African-American (30%), Hispanic (17%), Asian (27%), Somali (7%), other or multiracial (14%). | 6 FGs: 3 with garden program participants and 3 with youth not involved in garden program. | Theory of planned behaviour | Application of systematic, content analysis procedures by Miles & Huberman (1994). | Sensory attributes (flavour/taste, mouth feel/texture, appearance) convenience, preferences, method of preparation, outcome expectancies, knowledge, availability in the neighbourhood (seasonality, quality, quantity, supply), parental-, peer- and media influence. |
Libman 2007 [43] | US | Food conscious-ness and V eating habits | Community-based: 10 schoolchildren from a children garden program, four mothers and one father. | A: mixed. B: 10-14. C: no info. D: no info. E: African-American, Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Guyanese. | Schoolchildren: 1 FG, 10 semi-structured seated interviews, 6 walking interviews (youth-led garden tours). 5 parent telephone interviews. Observations of program and material. | Developmental psychology by Lev Vygotsky. | Systematic coding for themes relevant to research questions (Miles & Huberman 1994). | Sensory attribute (taste, methods of preparation), cooking skills, food consciousness/knowledge, home FV availability (appearance, freshness, safety of organic FV). |
McKinley et al. 2005 [44] | England and Northern Ireland | Healthy eating | School-based (11 schools):106 schoolchildren. | A: Mixed, B: 11-12. C: 1st year of post-primary school. D (school level): mixed SEP backgrounds. E: mixed ethnic backgrounds: White Europeans (76%), Asian (18%), Afro-Caribbean (6%). | 11 FGs (2 discussion sessions per group). 4 of the FGs were gender-homogeneous as they were conducted at single-sex school. | No info. | Systematic coding of transcripts using the cut-and-paste technique described by Stewart & Shamdasini (1990). | Food categorisation, school availability (appearance, quality), sensory attributes (texture, mouth feel), convenience & time costs, cost & taste guarantee, cost & filling power, rebellion. Gender differences. |
Molaison et al. 2005 [37] | US | FV intake | Community-based: 42 southern, low-income black American adolescents recruited from National Youth Sport Program. | A: Mixed. B: 10-13. C: no info. D: low income. E: Black Americans. | 6 gender- and age-homogeneous FGs. | Social cognitive theory | Theory guided the analysis. Transcripts were coded by content analysis methods and codes/themes were assigned to the theoretical framework. | Sensory attribute (taste, method of preparation, form (canned vs. fresh)), allergies, preferences, variety (vegetable boredom), outcome expectancies, food preparation skills, home and neighbourhood availability, appropriate settings for FV, family- and peer influence, self-efficacy. Gender differences. |
Monge-Rojas et al. 2005 [28] | Costa Rica | Healthful eating | School-based (3 schools): 108 schoolchildren. | A: mixed. B: 12-18. C: 7-11. D (school-level): mixed (2 public high schools and 1 private high school). E: Costa Rican. | 12 gender- and age- homogeneous FGs (3 sessions per group). | Conceptual model for adolescent eating behaviours based on Social cognitive theory and ecological perspective proposed by Story et al. (2002). | The transcripts were reviewed systematically for emerging themes. Themes were identified according to the theoretical framework. | Knowledge, school availability of FV and unhealthy food, home availability, parental facilitation, peer influence/norms (gender roles, symbolic value of food), cost & satiety value, sensory attributes (taste, methods of preparation), convenience & time considerations, outcome expectations, parental- and media influence. Gender differences. |
Neumark-Stzainer et al. 1999 [45] | US | Food choices and eating behaviours | School-based (2 schools): 141 schoolchildren. | A: mixed. B: 12-14 (mean age: 12.6) & 15-19 (mean age: 16.0). C: 7 & 10. D: no info. E: mixed composition: white (40%), Asian-American (25%), African-American (21%), multiracial (7%), Hispanic (6%), Native American (1%). | 21 age- and gender-homogeneous FGs. | Social cognitive theory is included in the discussion. | Systematic analytical approach using the constant comparative method of grounded theory. | Sensory attributes (taste, appeal, appearance, methods of preparation), convenience & time considerations, hunger satisfaction & costs, availability at home, school and fast food restaurants (visibility, accessibility). Gender differences. |
Nicklas et al. 1997 [27] | US | FV intake | School-based (4 schools): 55 high school schoolchildren. | A: mixed. B: no info. C: 9. D: no info. E: mixed. Participants drawn from a student cohort of mainly Caucasian background (79%). The rest are of Hispanic, African-American, Asian or Native American origin. | 4 FGs (white male, white female, black male, black female) - unclear if FGs mix schoolchildren from different schools. | The intervention is based on the PRECEDE model of health education (6 levels of behaviour change). | No clear description of analytical procedures. | Outcome expectancies, sensory attributes (taste), inconsistency in taste, home & school FV availability (visibility, variety, presentation/appearance), cost, access to competitive unhealthy food in school and local area. |
O'Dea 2003 [52] | Australia | Healthful food (and physical activity) | School-based (34 schools): 213 schoolchildren and 38 school principals. | A: mixed. B: 7-17. C: 2-11. D & E: a representative mix of SEP and ethnicity. | 38 FGs. | Theory of planned behaviour and social learning theory. | Content analysis (Miles & Huberman), systematic approach. | Outcome expectancies, food categorisation, knowledge, home availability (unhealthy competitive food choices), convenience & time costs. |
Ross 1995 [46] | Scotland | Food choices and preferences | School-based (one school): 46 schoolchildren. | A: mixed. B: 10-12 (mean age: 11). C: primary 7 year. D (area): School situated in catchment area encompassing all SEP groups. E: schoolchildren were predominantly white (only a few from ethnic minority backgrounds). | FG discussions: 2 male FGs, 3 female FGs and 2 mixed-gender FGs. Planned observations during lunch time were not feasible because of the fact that lunch occurred in several sites simultaneously and only one researcher being involved in the project. | No info. | Grounded theory approach | Sensory attributes (taste, texture), peer norms/influence (food swapping, socially acceptable food), affordability. |
Steven-son et al. 2007 [47] | Ireland | Healthy eating | School-based (no info. on number of schools): 73 adolescents. | A: mixed. B: 12-15. C: second level schools. D: mixed. E: no info. | 12 age- and gender-homogeneous FGs. | Socio-ecological approach. | Systematic coding of transcripts and deviant case analysis. | Sensory attributes (taste), parental influence. |
Walker et al. 1973 [16] | US | FV intake | Schoolchildren and parents (primarily mothers). No. not provided, but can be estimated to maximum 220 participants. | A: mixed. B: 9-12 & 13-17. C: elementary and high school. D: middle and low income families. E: no info. | FG discussions (school year-gender-SEP homogeneous): 8 elementary schoolchild FGs (2 boy- & 2 girl-low income FGs and 2 boy- & 2 girl-middle income FGs), 8 high school student FGs, and 6 parent groups (3 low and 3 middle income FGs). | No information. Study conducted by social psychologists. | No clear description of analytical procedures. | Availability/exposure to FV at home and in local area (variety), price, parental style/attitude, preferences, sensory attributes (appearance, colour, texture, taste, odour, form, method of preparation), food prejudices. |
Wind et al. 2005 [38] | The Netherlands and Belgium-Flanders | FV intake | School-based: 3 schools from the Netherlands, 60 schoolchildren. 32 schoolchildren from Belgium, no. of schools not provided. | A: mixed. B: 10-11. C: 5-6. D: no info. E: Netherlands: In two of the schools almost all children were from ethnic minority groups, in one school all except one child had both parents born in the Netherlands. Belgium-Flanders: 4 children had parents born in a foreign country. | FG discussion: Netherlands: 2 boy FGs, 1 girl FG, 5 mixed gender FGs. Belgium-Flanders: 1 boy FG, 1 girl FG, 2 mixed gender FGs. | Health belief model, theory of planned behaviour, social ecological models. | No clear description of analytical procedures. Determinants are analysed separately for fruit and vegetables. Determinants classified as personal, home- or school environmental factors. | Outcome expectancies, food categorisation, sensory attributes (taste, appearance, texture), preferences, knowledge/awareness, preparation skills, situational/social norms (time/settings for eating FV), convenience, home and school availability/accessibility (visibility, family rules, parental facilitation), unhealthy food shopping, peer-, parental and teacher influence. Ethnic and international differences. |
Zeinstra et al. 2007 [39] | The Netherlands | FV preferences | School-based (1 school): Schoolchildren representing 3 different stages of cognitive development. | A: mixed. B: 4-5 (group A), 7-8 (group B) and 11-12 (group C). C: 1st, 4th and last school year of primary school. D: no info. E: no info. | 4 + 4 duo interviews with group A and B and 4 FGs with group C. | Cognitive theory (Piaget). | Transcripts were coded systematically using a coding framework based on research aims, the interview guide and previous findings in the literature. | Preferences, sensory attributes (taste, texture, appearance, methods of preparation, familiarity, food categorisation), outcome expectancies, appropriate time and occasions for eating FV. Age differences. |