Healthy Option Preferences of Rural Restaurant Customers

Abstract

In preparation for an intervention study in three rural Iowa restaurants, 250 customers were surveyed regarding their interest in dietary change, perceptions of the restaurant, and interest in healthy options. Customers were ages 18 to 88, with a mean age of 52, and 53% were women. Most agreed that the restaurant offers healthy meals. Options customers stated they were most likely to order if available included meat that is baked or broiled, whole-wheat bread, fresh fruit or steamed vegetables, and regular salad dressing on the side. They were least interested in low-fat sour cream, low-fat salad dressing, low-fat milk, low-calorie dessert, and holding high-fat ingredients. Women were more likely to indicate interest in healthy options than were men. Interest in several options was also positively associated with age. Increasing the healthy options in restaurants may be especially effective in changing the dietary intake of women and older adults.

Community-Based Interventions in Prepared-Food Sources: A Systematic Review

“…Of the 13 interventions ( 15 – 49 ) that met the inclusion criteria, 12 interventions ( 15 – 18 , 21 , 22 , 24 – 35 , 37 – 41 , 45 – 48 ) were described in peer-reviewed publications. Personal communications (e-mail correspondence, telephone interviews) (n = 11) ( 15 – 27 , 30 , 31 , 37 – 49 ), informal documentation (reports, intervention materials) (n = 5) ( 19 , 20 , 26 , 43 , 44 , 49 ), and websites (n = 5) ( 23 , 36 , 42 , 43 , 49 ) were also sources of information ( Table 1a , 1b , 1c , 1d ).…”

“…The remaining 8 interventions did more extensive formative research, including qualitative (eg, focus groups, in-depth interviews) and quantitative (eg, surveys) data collection. Some interventions published separate reports on their formative research ( 15 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 25 , 28 , 41 , 45 , 46 , 49 ).…”

Promoting Healthy Choices in Non-Chain Restaurants

“…The baseline questionnaire included items assessing the level of customer interest in a list of healthy options, the results of which were shared with owners to aid in their decision making regarding the study. These items were not repeated in the follow-up questionnaire and are described in detail in a previous publication (Nothwehr et al, 2010). Follow-up questionnaires included these items: “As you came into the restaurant, did you notice a sign in the window/entry about healthy options offered here?” (yes/no); “Before you ordered, did you notice a sign on the table listing available healthy options?” (yes/no); “If you noticed the window sign or the table sign about healthy options, how much did it affect your decisions about your food order?” (not at all/somewhat/a lot); and “Please explain how or why it affected your order” (blank space offered).…”

“…Inevitable menu changes over time require a reassessment of which items can be considered healthy. Owners of restaurants with small profit margins also resist making changes to their menus for fear of losing customers, thereby limiting the number of healthy items available (Nothwehr, Snetselaar, Dawson, Hradek, & Sepulveda, 2010; Richard et al, 1999). It is clear that non-chain restaurant interventions must be acceptable to both owners and patrons, and to be disseminated widely, they must also be simple and inexpensive.…”

The Rural Restaurant Healthy Options Program

“…It was intended to be simple, low cost, and low risk in order to maximize the likelihood of future dissemination. Results from previous phases of the restaurant study are described elsewhere (Nothwehr, Snetselaar, Dawson, Hradek, & Sepulveda, 2010; Nothwehr, Snetselaar, Dawson, & Schultz, 2012). Final results from the dissemination phase in terms of program maintenance are currently being analyzed.…”