The contribution of Australian fathers in getting food on the table among families with young children

The contribution of Australian fathers in getting food on the table

among families with young children

Konsita Kuswara

*, Helen Vidgen

, Penelope Love

, Rachel Laws

and

Karen J Campbell

School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University,

Burwood, VIC Australia:

Queensland University of Technology (QUT), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences,

Faculty of Health, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia

Submitted 4 July 2022: Final revision received 22 July 2023: Accepted 10 August 2023: First published online 25 August 2023

Abstract

Objective: To explore how fathers with young children contributed to healthy

home food provisioning and the factors enabling or inhibiting their involvement in

family food tasks.

Design: Cross-sectional study using purpose-designed online survey. The survey

assessed the level of responsibilities and practices in family food tasks, food agency

(Cooking and Food Provisioning Action Scale), and us e of resources to support

involvement in family food tasks. Data collection took place over 3 weeks in

November–December 2020 when various COVID-19-related restrictions were in

place. Descriptive and regression analyses were used to assess psychosocial

factors influencing responsibilities in family food tasks and food agency.

Setting: Online survey.

Participants: Included in the analysis were 435 Australian fathers with children

aged under 5 years.

Results: Between 75 and 77 % of fathers in this study reported having at least half of

the responsibilities in meal planning, shopping, and cooking. Health was

frequently considered when deciding what to eat, but few used nutrition or food

labels when shopping, tried new recipes or modified recipes to make them

healthier. Involvement in family food tasks was promoted by a higher food agency,

but time spent in employment was a significant barrier to reported food agency and

greater involvement in food tasks. There was a high interest in resources to support

healthy home food provisioning.

Conclusions: The findings suggest the need to consider father-specific strategies to

overcome time barriers and opportunities to enhance their capabilities for healthy

home food provisioning.

Keywords

Fathers role

Cooking

Food literacy

Young children

Family meals

Food agency

The early childhood period (0–5 years) is an opportune

time to cultivate children’s healthy eating habits. Parents

have an important influence in promoting these habits by

shaping the family food environment

(1)

. Studies examining

parental influence on children’s eating habits in early

childhood have predominantly focused on mothers

(2)

While mothers often have a greater responsibility in family

food-related tasks and child feeding

(3)

, it is likely that

fathers could influence family food practices and diet

through the way they engage (or not) with healthy food

provisioning at home

(4)

. Child development, including

nutrition, is shaped by all layers of the Social Eco logical

Model of Health

(5)

. Fathers are a distinct and essential part

of the microsystem influencing the young child’s develop-

ment through their interactions with the child and the

child’s mother, for example, in responsive caregiving, role

modelling, and providing a nurturing environment

(6)

Taking a father-inclusive approach could enhance the

effectiveness of family-based programmes to improve child

health outcomes

(7)

There is growing evidence of fathers’ influence on

young children’s eating behaviours, over and above the

influence of mothers

(8,9)

. A systematic review of predomi-

nantly observational studies reported positive correlations

between fathers’ weight, dietary intake and feeding

practices, and their children’s food intake, weight and

Public Health Nutrition: 26(12), 2826–2835 doi:10.1017/S1368980023001817

*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]

the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use,

distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023001817 Published online by Cambridge University Press

eating behaviours

(8)

. For example, children were more

likely to be affected by overweight or obesity if the father

experienced overweight or obesity; fathers’ use of control

and restriction of food was associated with higher child

weight, but reinforcement of healthy eating promoted

children eating more nutrient-dense foods

(8)

. The associ-

ation between father and young children’s eating behav-

iour and dietary intake is likely mediated partly through

role modelling and feeding practices

(9)

. Longitudinal

evidence from a cluster-randomised controlled trial

showed that fathers’ influence on their child’s dietary

intake commenced in the first 2 years of life and continued

through to 5 years of age, even after adjusting for maternal

factors

(10)

. Given that the majority of children aged under 5

years live in two-parent hous eholds

(11)

, and the likely

influence of both parents, it is important to understand how

to engage and support both parents to promote healthier

eating habits in young children.

Engaging fathers in home food provisioning is likely to

be important with changing societal trends encouraging

more women in paid work. Recent Australian labour force

data (2022) showed that the majority (71 %) of couple

families with dependent children have both parents in

employment, and increasingly, both parents in full-time

employment (31 %)

(12)

. Concurrently, families where the

father was employed and the mother was not have stea dily

declined from 37 % in 1990 to 20 % in 2022

(11)

. While overall

women’s participation in employment has increased, the

pattern remains gendered in couple households with

children aged under 5 years, where more women work

part-time (39 %) compared to men (13 %)

(12)

. In contrast,

fathers’ employment patterns and work hours changed

little by the age of the youngest child

(12)

The gendered pattern among Australian families with

young children is further reflected in the time spent on

home duties. Analysis of nationally representative longi-

tudinal data from the 2018 Household, Income and Labour

Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey showed that in

coupled households with dependent children, women

spent more than double the time than men on housework

and childcare (54 v. 26 h/week) and less than half the time

on paid employment (22 v. 47 h/week)

(13)

. The gap in

unpaid housework between men and women widens

significantly when children are born and persists as they

grow older

(13)

. International studies found similar trends in

other Western countries except for Nordic countries

(14,15)

Becoming a parent seems to promote a long-term pattern of

a highly gendered division of unpaid labour driven by

changes in identity upon becoming parents, and social

structures that favour traditional gendered roles

(16)

. Social

and economic challenges, including workplace norms, the

gender pay gap and career disruption, may discourage

fathers from taking parental leave and may further entrench

traditional gender roles upon childbirth

(17)

. These studies

suggest that fathers of young children are less likely to be

involved in family food tasks at a time when their

engagement could have the most influence on their young

children’s eating habits.

Fathers’ documented lack of engagement in family foo d

tasks, including planning, procuring and preparing meals,

has been associated with perceptions of food tasks as

‘women’s work’

(18)

and a lack of capacities

(19)

. Qualitative

studies suggest that Australian fathers perceived they have

an impo rtant role in sharing the responsibilities of

providing for and role modelling healthy lifestyle habits

for their young children

(19,20)

. However, perceived lack of

work flexibility, low levels of cooking skills and enjoyment

were barriers to greater involvement in family food

tasks

(19)

. Furthermore, fathers felt they lacked the knowl-

edge to respond to their children’s nutrition and physical

activity needs and were unsure how to access credible

nutrition information

(20)

. These studies suggest that rather

than being disengaged, fathers may be motivated and

committed but need support in managing barriers around

time, knowledge, skills and confidence to provide a healthy

food environment in the home.

Enabling a healthy home food environment includes

possessing the ability to plan meals, manage resources for

food, select healthy foods, prepare and eat healthy meals,

herein referred to as ‘family food tasks’

(21)

. Executing family

meals require a series of cognitive and physical tasks that

are interrelated and dynamically influenced by the people

involved, their beliefs and feelings and the outcomes of the

food work

(22)

. An individual’s food agency, that is internal

motivation, knowledge and skills to complete the neces-

sary steps to produce the meals envisioned within a given

context, is an important factor in the performance of family

food tasks

(23)

. Increased competencies to perform family

food tasks have been linked with greater abilities and

confidence in healthy home food provisioning

(24)

Previous studies examining fathers’ behaviour around

family food tasks have focused on their participation in

generic housework (including food shopping and cook-

ing)

(3)

and their roles and influence on family food

practices

(4)

. However, no studies have examined their

practices to support healthy food provisioning. This study

aims to explore the family food tasks performed by fathers

and the barriers and enablers to fathers contributing to

healthy family food provisioning.

Methods

Study design and participants

This study used a cross-sectional survey administered online

using Qualtrics (Provo, UT). The survey measured percep-

tions and views of responsibilities in family food tasks,

practices in family food tasks, food agency, physical barriers

to performing food tasks, interest in resources to support

family food provision and sociodemographic details.

Recruitment was conducted through paid Facebook

advertising from 10 November to 4 December 2020.

Fathers’ involvement in family meal provision 2827

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023001817 Published online by Cambridge University Press

During this time, various COVID-19-related restrictions were

in place. The advertisement targeted males aged 18 years

and older in Australia. Interested participants clicked on the

study link in the advertisement and were directed to

determine their eligibility: 18 years and older, expecting a

child or whose oldest child was aged under 6 years. Eligible

participants were then presented with detailed information

about the study and provided consent to participate online.

The survey took approximately 10 min to complete. At the

end of the survey, participants could choose to go in a draw

to win a $100 gift voucher from Bunnings

hardware store.

Using the principle of at least ten events per variable for

logistic regression analysis

(25)

, and accounting for nine

independent variables of 2–3 categories each, the minimal

sample required for this study was 270.

Measures

Perceptions and views of responsibilities in family food

tasks

To assess perceived responsibilities in family food tasks, we

purpose-designed six questions asking participants if they

had any responsibilities in planning/shopping/preparing

family meals. Response options included ‘Yes, all/a lot/

equal/a little responsibility’ or ‘No responsibility’.

Participants were also asked to indicate what they thought

about their responsibilities for each task with response

options including ‘I would like to be more involved’, ‘My

current responsibilities are enough’ and ‘I have too many

responsibilities and want to share’.

This study was conducted during the COVID-19

pandemic when various degrees of lockdowns were in

place. To determine usual practice, participants were asked

if their responsibilities around family food tasks had

changed because of COVID-19-related restrictions with

response options of ‘increased/fewer responsibilities’ or

‘no change ’.

Practices in family food tasks

Practices in family food tasks were measured using an

eleven-item tool previously developed to evaluate a food

literacy programme in Western Australia (Food Sensations

for Adults)

(26)

. Participants were asked how often they had

planned meals, managed resources for food, selected or

prepared healthy meals in the home (‘never, sometimes,

most of the time, always’). Responses were scored 1

(‘never) to 4 (‘always’), multiplied by the factor loading for

each question and summed to calculate the factor score for

each of the three sub-scales, ‘Plan and Manage’, ‘Selection ’

and ‘Preparation’

(26)

Food agency

Food agency was measured using the previously validated

Cooking and Food Provisioning Action Scale (CAFPAS)

tool

(27)

consisting of twenty-eight items measuring self-

efficacy (thirteen items, e.g. ‘I feel limited by my lack of

cooking knowledge’), attitude (ten items, e.g. ‘I find

cooking a very fulfilling activity’) and structural/social

barriers (five items, e.g. ‘My job responsibilities prevent me

from having the time to prepare meals’). Participants were

asked to indicate how much they agreed with the

statements on a seven-point Likert scale. The tool was

modified from a seven-point to a five-point Likert scale

(strongly disagree (1)–strongly agree (5)) to be consistent

with other questions in this study.

As per CAFPAS protocol, the score of each subscale was

determined by reversing negatively worded items, adding

the coded response items (1–5) and dividing by the

standard deviation. The overall food agency score was the

sum of standardised scores of all three subscales. Higher

scores indicate a greater capacity to complete the

necessary steps to produce the meals desired. The

(unstandardised) mean score per item was also calculated

by adding the item scores and dividing by the number of

items. The mean scores per item indicate the average

response along the five-point Likert scale.

Physical barriers to performing family food tasks

To assess physical barriers to practising food-related tasks,

participants were also asked if they had reliable access to

adequate food preparation facilities (yes/no) and if they

had any disabilities preventing them from planning,

shopping and preparing meals (yes/no).

Interest in resources to support family food provision

Participants were asked to indicate their perception of the

usefulness of a list of ten common support tools or

resources (e.g. meal kits, shopping guides, cooking

lessons, quick meal ideas and recipes). The response

options included ‘already using’, ‘would like to use’,

‘maybe’ and ‘not interested’. A free text option was

provided for participants to enter other tools or resources

that would be helpful.

Sociodemographic details

Sociodemographic questions included indicators of socio-

economic status (postcode, highest education level and

employment status), marital status, date of birth, cultural

background (country of birth, indigenous status and main

language spoken at home), and number and ages of their

children. Postcodes were categorised using the Index of

Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage and organised into

quintiles (1 most disadvantaged to 5 least disadvantaged) to

produce the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA)

(28)

SEIFA provides a measure of the socio-economic level of

the geographic area. Fathers who did not live with the

biological parent of their children were asked how often

(days per month) they had caring responsibilities for their

children.

Participants’ work conditions potentially impacting their

availability in being involved in family food tasks were

assessed. These included shift work requirements (yes/no)

and frequency of travelling and staying away from home

2828 K Kuswara et al.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023001817 Published online by Cambridge University Press

for work (none, less than once a month, 1–2 times per

month, 3–4 times per month or more).

Survey validity and reliability

The survey was first piloted with a small convenience

sample of people in the target group with a mix of

demographic characteristics, including couple and single

fathers, culturally diverse fathers, and a range of educa-

tional levels. Pilot participants provided feedback to clarify

the wording and order of several questions. These changes

were inco rporated to improve the clarity and flow of the

survey.

The tool measuring practices in family food tasks was

previously validated among a predominantly female

sample. We performed further confirmatory factor analysis

to assess the fit of the original structure with the male

sample in this study. The confirmatory factor analysis

showed that the original factor structure did not perform

well with our data (RMSEA 0·083; CFI 0·873; TLI 0·830;

SRMR 0·059)

(29)

. It is likely that there are gender differences

in conceptualisations regarding food literacy

(30)

, hence the

poor fit among our male participants. Consequently, these

items were not analyse d as a scale but were described

individually.

The CAFPAS tool had good construct and criterion

validity, and internal reliability in the original study among

a diverse sample of the US population

(27)

. Further

confirmatory factor analysis showed that the tool had an

acceptable fit for this study population (RMSEA 0·06; CFI

0·895; TLI 0·886; SRMR 0·064)

(29)

and high internal

consistencies (α 0·71–0·90)

(31)

The reliability of the survey across time was assessed

through the test–retest method where a subset of sixty-six

participants was invited to complete the survey around 2

weeks after first completion

(32)

. Cohen’s κ

(33)

was used to

measure the degree of agreement between the two time

points, and coefficients were interpreted using cut-off

values suggested by Landis and Koch

(34)

The reliability of the measures of levels of responsibility

in family food tasks and attitudes towards their respon-

sibilities were mostly ‘substantial’ (κ 0·57–0·74); practices in

family food tasks were mostly ‘moderate’ (κ 0·42–0·68); and

perceived usefulness of tools to support food provision

were ‘fair to moderate’ (0·32–0·51). The CAFPAS tool had

‘fair to moderate’ reliability (κ 0·25–0·58), except for one

item showing ‘substantial’ reliability (κ 0·64).

Statistical analysis

Descriptive analyses were used to describe the proportion

of perceived responsibilities and views of family food tasks,

practices in family food tasks, mean scores on CAFPAS

scale and subscales, and preferred tools to support family

food tasks.

Ordered logistic regression was used to examine the

relationships between perceived responsibilities in food

tasks (‘food shopping’ and ‘meal preparation’) and key

factors including sociodemographic characteristics (age,

country of birth, education, employment status (full-time/

other)), SEIFA, work conditions (shift work, frequen cy of

working away from home (none/other)), number of

children (1, 2, 3 or more), self-efficacy, attitude and

structural barrier subscales. For ‘meal planning’, the

assumption of proportional order could not be satisfied;

hence, multinomial logistic regression was used with ‘little

or no responsibility’ set as the referent group. Multiple

linear regression was used to assess if there are any

relationships between food agency and sociodemographic

characteristics, work conditions, and the number of

children.

All models were checked for colli nearity (none

detected). Statistical significance was set at 0·05. Data

analyses were performed using Stata version 17.0 software.

Results

Participants’ characteristics

Four hundred and seventy-one fathers participated in the

study, but thirty-six were excluded due to missing all

demographic data (n 34) or providing duplicate responses

(n 2). Complete responses were available for 435

participants, and their demographic characteristics are

presented in Table 1. Participants were on average 36 years

old (

5 years), tertiary-ed ucated (58 %), working full time

(78 %) and on average had one (45 %) or two children

(47·2 %). Most participants were in partnered relationships

(98 %), born in Australia (83 %) and spoke English at home

(98 %). Over one in four (28 %) participants lived in two of

the most disadvantaged SEIFA quintiles areas. Most

participants did not do shift work (82 %) or travel regularly

for work (76 %). All participants had reliable access to food

preparation facilities, and none had physical barriers

preventing them from being involved in food tasks.

Perceptions and views of responsibilities in family

food tasks

Between 75 and 77 % of participating fathers reported

having equal or more responsibilities than their partner for

family food tasks. Coronavirus pandemic restrictions did

not impact the levels of responsibility on family food tasks

for most (75 %) participants, while 21 % had increased and

5 % fewer responsibilities. Fathers’ level of res ponsibility

varied with each task. More than 40 % of fathers reported

having ‘all or most of the responsibilities’ for meal

preparation (48 %), food shopping (46 %) and meal

planning (41 %). Meal planning was the task with the

highest proportion of fathers reporting shared (35 %) or

little (25 %) responsibility.

Most participants were satisfied with their levels of

responsibility for food shopping (81 %), meal planning

(75 %) and meal preparation (72 %). Some fathers reported

Fathers’ involvement in family meal provision 2829

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023001817 Published online by Cambridge University Press

wanting more involvement in meal preparation (18 %),

meal planning (17 %) and food shopping (13 %). A small

proportion of fathers indicated they had too many

responsibilities with meal preparation (10 %), meal plan-

ning (8 %) and food shopping (6 %). Detailed results are

presented in Supplemental Tables 1(a) and (b).

Practices in family food tasks

Table 2 details the self-reported frequency of family food

tasks participants conducted in the last month. Tasks

reported as practised most of the time or always were

cooking healthy meals (87 %), cooking a variety of meals

(81 %) and thinking about healthy choices when deciding

what to eat (83 %). Many fathers also used a shopping list

(74 %), planned meals (53 %) and planned meals to include

most or all food groups (66 %). Tasks reported as practised

never or sometimes were reading food labels including the

nutrition information panel to make food choices (75–

78 %), trying a new recipe (75 %) or changing recipes to

make them healthier (71 %).

Food agency

The mean overall CAFPAS score and mean scores per item

are presented in Table 3. Overall, the results indicated that

participants had an above-average food agency (mean

score per item 3·7 (range 1–5)) driven by a high self-

efficacy in food provisioning and cooking abilities (mean

score per item 4·1 (

0·5)), generally positive attitude

towards food and cooking (mean score per item 3·4 (

0·6)), and some perception of structural barriers to food

provisioning (mean score per item 3·13 (

0·7)). The Self-

efficacy Subscale had the highest average score per item,

followed by the Attitude Subscale and Structure Subscale.

Descriptive results of the items in the Self-efficacy

Subscale (see online Supplemental Table 2) indicated most

participants (55–97 %) were confident in their ability to

decide what to eat, shop for the ingredients and choose

between similar ingredients, use the available kitchen

equipment to prepa re meals, prepare meals using

purchased ingredients and troubleshoot cooking prob-

lems. The Attitude Subscale items showed that while 63–

66 % of participants reported enjoying cooking for

themselves and family and friends, there was ambivalence

in choosing to cook if other people could prepare meals of

equal standard. Similar ambivalence was shown in

preference for time spent cooking over other activities.

Time barriers associated with employment responsibilities

(but less so with family or social responsibilities) were

apparent. Half of the participants wished they had more

time to plan meals, and 40 % of participants reported

difficulties in finding enough time to produce the foods

desired.

The influence of food agency and

sociodemographic factors on perceived

responsibilities in food tasks

Meal planning

Fathers were more likely to have most or all meal planning

responsibilities if they were older (RRR 1·08; 95 % CI (1·01,

1·15); P = 0·024) , not working or working part-time

(RRR = 5·60; 95 % CI (1·67, 18·75); P = 0·005), had higher

self-efficacy scores (RRR = 1·20; 95 % CI (1·1 2, 1·29);

P < 0·001), more positive attitudes (RRR 1·11; 95 % CI

(1·03, 1·19); P = 0·007) and lower perception of structural

barriers (1·10; 95 % CI (1·00, 1·21); P = 0·044). Fathers were

less likely to have most of the meal planning responsibil-

ities if they lived in moderately disadvantaged areas (SEIFA

quintile 3) (RRR 0·38; 95 % CI (0·15, 0·97); P = 0·043)

Table 1 Participants’ characteristics (n 435)

Characteristics Mean

Paternal age, years 36 5

n %

Education level

Below tertiary 184 42·3

Tertiary education or higher 251 57·7

Marital status

Married 341 78·4

De facto relationship 87 20

Divorced/separated/widowed 7 1·6

Country of birth

Australia 360 82·8

Other 75 17·2

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ status

Yes 8 1·8

No 427 98·2

Main spoken language at home

English 424 97·5

Other 11 2·5

Socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA)

1st quintile (most disadvantaged) 51 11·8

2nd quintile 69 15·9

3rd quintile 88 20·3

4th quintile 103 23·7

5th quintile (least disadvantaged) 123 28·3

Employment status

Full time 337 77·5

Part time 63 14·5

Not working 35 8·05

Shift work (n 401)

Yes 72 18

No 328 82

Regularly away from home (if employed)

None 302 75·5

Less than once a month 57 14·3

1–2 times/month 29 7·3

3–4 times/month 12 3

Number of children

1 194 44·7

2 205 47·2

3 or more 35 8·1

Children’s ages

Expecting (child in utero) 94 13·2

0–6 months 80 11·3

7–12 months 83 11·7

13–24 months 123 17·3

2–3 years 201 28·3

4–5 years 130 18·3

2830 K Kuswara et al.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023001817 Published online by Cambridge University Press

compared to those living in most disadvantaged areas

(SEIFA quintiles 1–2). There were no statistically significant

associations between having major responsibility for meal

planning and country of birth, education level, the number

of children, or whether fathers do shift work or travel away

from home for work.

Food shopping

Fathers with higher self-efficacy scores had higher odds

(OR 1·07; 95 % CI (1·03, 1·12); P < 0·001) of having most of

the responsibilities in food shopping. Those living in

moderately disadvantaged areas had lower odds (OR 0·56;

95 % CI (0·32, 0·996); P = 0·048) of having major respon-

sibilities in food shopping compared to those living in most

disadvantaged areas. The odds of having a major

responsibility for food shopping were not influenced by

age, country of birth, education level, employment statu s,

number of children, shift work, travel away from home for

work, level of perceived structural barriers and attitudes in

food provisioning.

Meal preparation

Fathers had higher odds of having most responsibilities in

preparing meals if they had higher self-efficacy scores (OR

1·14; 95 % CI (1·09, 1·20); P < 0·001), more positive attitude

(OR 1·06; 95 % CI (1·01, 1·11); P = 0·028), and lower

perception of structural barriers (OR 1·08; 95 % CI (1·01,

1·14); P = 0·021) and were working part-time or not

working (OR 1·99; 95 % CI (1·09, 3·65); P = 0·025). The

odds of having a major responsibility for meal preparation

were not influenced by age, country of birth, education

level, SEIFA, number of children, shift work or travel away

from home for work. All regression models assessing

responsibilities in each food task are detailed in

Supplemental Table 3.

Sociodemographic factors influencing food agency

Higher food agency scores were significantly associated

with working part-time or not working (β 4·51; 95 % CI

(0·79, 8·23); P = 0·018) and older age (β 0·27; 95 % CI (0·00,

0·54); P = 0·047). Being born in countries other than

Australia was associated with lower food agency (β −4·09;

95 % CI (−7·71, −0·48); P = 0·026). Further analyses on

each subscale showed that older fathers had higher self-

efficacy (β 0·15; 95 % CI (0·01, 0·30); P = 0·031) and fathers

who worked part-time or not working had lower

perceptions of structural barriers (β 1·22; 95 % CI (0·25,

2·21); P = 0·014). Fath ers who were born outside Australia

had lower self-efficacy (β −2·03, 95 % CI (−3·93, −0·14);

P = 0·035) and poorer attitudes (β −1·89; 95 % CI (−3·48,

−0·28); P =

0·021) compared to their Australian born

counterparts. The overall regression model of the full food

agency was statistically significant explaining about 3 % of

the variation in food agency scores (adjusted R

0·035).

Detailed results of the regression models can be found in

Supplemental Table 4.

Table 2 Father self-reported frequency of performing family food tasks in the previous month

Items*

Never Sometimes

Most of the

time Always

n % n % n % n %

Plan family meals ahead of time 21 4·83 177 40·69 172 39·54 65 14·94

Make a list before you go shopping 28 6·44 83 19·08 140 32·18 184 42·30

Plan meals to include most/all food groups 33 7·59 117 26·90 202 46·44 83 19·08

Think about healthy choices when deciding what to eat 6 1·38 70 16·09 230 52·87 129 29·66

Manage the amount of money that can be spent on family food 63 14·48 127 29·20 145 33·33 100 22·99

Use the Nutrition Information Panel to make food choices 148 34·02 191 43·91 76 17·47 20 4·60

Use other parts of food labels to make food choices 76 17·47 251 57·70 87 20·00 21 4·83

Cook meals at home using healthy ingredients 3 0·69 53 12·18 298 68·51 81 18·62

Cook a variety of meals for the family 8 1·84 75 17·24 240 55·17 112 25·75

Try a new recipe 20 4·60 307 70·57 90 20·69 18 4·14

Change recipes to make them healthier 60 13·79 249 57·24 116 26·67 10 2·30

*Items from evaluation tool for food literacy programmes

(26)

Table 3 Mean scores of the cooking and food provisioning action scale (CAFPAS) and subscales

(27)

No. of items Standardised mean scores

Unstandardised mean scores per item*

Full CAFPAS† 28 17·6 2·3 3·7 0·5

Self-efficacy subscale† 13 7·5 1 4·1 0·5

Attitude subscale† 10 5·6 1 3·4 0·6

Structure subscale‡ 5 4·4 1 3·13 0·7

*The mean per item scores indicate the average response on the five-point Likert scale (1 – strongly disagree, 5 – strongly agree).

†Higher scores indicate higher food agency/self-efficacy or a more positive attitude.

‡Higher score indicates a lower perception of structural barriers.

Fathers’ involvement in family meal provision 2831

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023001817 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Supports to facilitate fathers’ involvem ent in family food

tasks

Most fathers reported they had not used the listed resources

to support their involvement in family food tasks (see

online Supplemental Table 5). The resources most fathe rs

were using include d online cooking lessons (14 %) and

meal kits (11 %). The resources most fathers reported they

would like to/may use included quick meal ideas and

recipes (80 %), healthy eating guide (79 %), menu plan

(67 %), shopping guide (62 %) and eating out food

selection guide (61 %). Resources fathers expressed the

least interest in using were shopping guides on pre-made

meals (65 %), meal kits (57 %), face to face (56 %) or online

(44 %) cooking lessons, and food budgeting tools (47 %).

Twenty participants provided further comments on

resources. Resources that participan ts found helpful were

recipes or cooking shows, and access to more convenient

ways to shop such as online ordering and delivery services.

Some participants commented wanting more guidance

around providing and feeding children such as planning

meals for toddlers, meal ideas and recipes for children, and

ideas to cater for children with food allergies. Comments

also showed that cost and lack of flexibility prohibited

greater use of meal kits.

Discussion

This is one of the first studies to examine how Australian

fathers of young children contribute to healthy food

provisioning at home, key promoters and barriers, and

potential resources to facilitate fathers’ involvement in

family food tasks. We found that most fathers shared at least

half of the responsibilities to plan, shop, and cook meals,

were confident, and satisfied with their food-related

responsibilities. Many fathers also considered health when

cooking and planning meals, but few fathers used nutrition

and food labels when making food choices, tried new

recipes or modified recipes to make them healthier. Study

participants also had a relatively high food agency, which

was associated with higher involvement in family food

tasks. However, having perceived limited time due to work

responsibilities negatively impacted food agency and

involvement in food tasks, especia lly in meal planning

and preparation. Participants indicated high interest in

resources to support general and children-specific healthy

meal planning, food shopping, and cooking such as quick

meal ideas and recipes, shopping guide, and cooking

lessons.

The level of perceived responsibilities in family food

tasks among fathers in this study was almost double that

previously reported in the literatur e. Studies in Australia

and the USA have reported about 42–50 % of fathers with

young children were highly involved in family food

tasks

(35,36)

. Evidence suggests that fathers’ involvement in

food tasks has increased over time, but mothers continue to

bear the major responsibilities in food tasks

(37)

. The

significantly higher proportion of fathers in our study

who were highly involved in food tasks could be related to

self-selection bias where fathers who are interested and

engaged in health or food tasks were more likely to

participate in the study. Also, data for this study were

collected when various COVID-19 lockdowns were in

place, which contributed to increased food-related respon-

sibilities for some fathers. Compared to similarly aged

(25–44 years) men in the 2021 Australian Census, our

sample had higher proportions of fathers who were

married (78 % v. 44 %), tertiary-educated (58 % v. 45 %),

born in Australia (83 % v. 59 %) and spoke mainly English

(98 % v.70%)

(38)

. There is some evidence suggesting that

higher education is associated with more time spent on

housework

(39)

. Despite the wide variation in levels of

involvement, fathers with young children were engaged in

healthy food provisioning which presents an early

opportunity for nutrition and feeding interventions.

While fathers’ increased level of participation in food

tasks is encouraging, their involvement appears to be

secondary to mothers. It appears that while men are

involved, women may be carrying a heavier cognitive load

in managing overall household labour, including food-

related tasks

(40)

. This is echoed in other studies which

showed that Australian fathers regarded their contribution

to family food as important and are committed to more

equally sharing the tasks, but that their roles were limited to

assisting due to a lack of time and cooking capabilities

(19)

Our study also found lower participation in tasks that

require a higher mental load or knowledge such as meal

planning or food and nutrition label reading or recipe

modification. The finding may suggest that fathers were

comfortable contributing to managing family meals within

a well-established food provisioning system, but it is

unclear how well they could respond to deviations, for

example, when their partner is unable to do food tasks or

changes in children’s nutritional requirements or food

preferences. In addition to supporting fathe rs’ involvement

in food tasks, increasing literacy on food and nutrition may

be important to support their resilience to environmental or

social factors that threaten healthy food provisioning

(21)

Among fathers in this study, higher food agency and

spending less time in paid employment were associated

with higher perceived responsibilities in food tasks,

particularly meal planning and preparation. Food agency

constructs are likely related to individual capacity,

opportunity and motivation which are common predictors

of behaviour

(41)

. Another study reported similar findings

showing positive associations between parental food

agency and healthier cooking and eating practices

(42)

Fathers in the current study had a relatively high food-

related self-efficacy, which is in contrast to other studies

among Australian fathers reporting a lack of confidence in

preparing family meals

(19)

. This might be explained by a

biased study sample and/or that there were other factors

2832 K Kuswara et al.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023001817 Published online by Cambridge University Press

contributing to fathers’ food-related self-efficacy not

explored in this study such as child fussy eating behaviour,

the role of their partner in managing family food tasks and

fathers’ experience in food tasks. Mastery and social

modelling are key contributors to self-efficacy

(43)

. It is also

likely that men who have engaged in food tasks prior to

becoming fathers have had more time to experiment and

develop their skills and mastery.

Time availability was an important overall theme in our

findings related to both fathers’ food agency and

involvement in family food tasks. Working part-time or

being unemployed was a significant predictor of both food

agency scores and fathers’ involvement in meal planning

and meal preparation. Employment status may be a proxy

for the time and flexibility available for fathers to contribute

to these tasks. Greater involvement in these tasks over time

may lead to higher self-efficacy and more positive attitudes,

which in turn promotes continued involvement, creating a

positive reinforcing cycle

(44)

. This is in line with literature

examining the relationship between the length of paternity

leave and fathers’ increased involvement in child-rearing

tasks. Longitudinal studies have shown that longer periods

of paternity leave are associated with more frequent

responsibility and engagement of fathers in development

and caretaking tasks in the first few years of their child’s life,

and this is partially mediated by fathers’ attitudes

(45)

. This

highlights the important influence of paternity leave and

flexible work arrangements for fathers that allow greater

shared care of child-rearing and other family tasks

including healthy family food provisioning.

In addition to employment status, other sociodemographic

factors influencing food agency scores were age and country

of birth. Older fathers had high food agency scores, and this

mayreflectgreaterknowledgeand skills with food-related

tasks over time

(42)

. Lower food agency scores amongst fathers

born outside of Australia may reflect a difference in gender

roles associated with food provisioning tasks across

cultures

(46)

. Immigrant men may need to prioritise employ-

ment given that they were often the principal applicant in the

Australian skilled migration scheme

(47)

.Asaresult,womenas

secondary/spouse applicants by default may take on more

responsibilities in the home

(47)

. This may be the case for

immigrants from culturally and linguistically diverse back-

grounds, as evidence showed these immigrant groups had the

largest gender gap in housework

(48)

.Furtherresearchis

needed to understand the household dynamics and healthy

food provisioning within culturally and linguistically diverse

families.

In this study of fathers who had a relatively high food

agency, there was a high interest in using resources to support

meal planning, shopping and cooking. Specifically, fathers

were interested in resources to help with producing healthy

food simply and quickly such as quick meal ideas and recipes

and healthy eating guides. This finding is similar to a previous

qualitative study of Australian fathers with young children

reporting fathers’ desire to access evidence-based resources

to support their children’s eating and physical activity

(20)

Furthermore, given that few fathers in this study used food

labels to guide food choices, adapted recipes to make them

healthier or tried new recipes, targeted online resources

(49)

nutrition label reading and recipe adaptation may further

enhance fathers’ capacities in healthy food provisioning

(50)

Participants’ interests in using supporting resources present

an opportunity for intervention that could be explored further.

In addition, the finding that most fathers in this study were not

interested in using commercial meal kits is of interest given the

rapidincreaseinthemealkitsmarket.Incontrasttofathers’

views, research has indeed found that mothers report meal

kits to be attractive as they reduced the cognitive load

associated with planning and preparing healthy home-

cooked meals

(51)

. Given the finding in our study that fathers

tended not to engage in planning meals, it is perhaps not

surprising that the value of meal kits was not embraced.

Regardless, the potential for meal kits to provide an

opportunity to support fathers’ participation in family meal

provisioning provides an opportunity for further research.

Strengths and limitations

A strength of this study was the use of more granular

measures of family food practices enabling a more nuanced

understanding of fathers’ practices related to meal planning,

shopping and preparation. However, the items could not be

reduced to factors representing concepts of meal planning/

shopping/cooking and assess their relationships with key

predictors. This reflects the lack of appropriate tools to

measure practices on family food tasks among fathers,

which represents an important area for future research.

The study sample under-represented fathers experiencing

socio-economic disadvantage, Australian Indigenous people,

and those with culturally and linguistically diverse back-

grounds. Additionally, the self-selection recruitment method

mayhaveintroducedasamplebiasbyattractingfatherswho

were interested and involved in food tasks. Evidence suggests

that Facebook

was the most feasible method to recruit

‘hard to reach’ populations and tended to result in a similarly

representative sample as traditional recruitment methods

(52)

To overcome selection bias, purposive sampling of under-

represented subgroups may be necessary, for example,

through specific targeting strategies and/or tailoring the

wording or image of the advertisement. Furthermore, all the

measures in this study were self-reported and may be limited

by social desirability and recall bias. Hence, the findings need

to be interpreted and applied with care. Possible ways to

validate self-reported measures of involvement in food tasks

could be through: collecting and comparing data from couple

dyads; conducting follow-up interviews with a subsample of

fathers and their partners discussing the management of food

tasks in the family; or through participant observations using

wearable cameras. Finally, we acknowledge that in the

contemporary society, there are diverse family types that may

not always include a father. Further longitudinal studies with a

Fathers’ involvement in family meal provision 2833

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023001817 Published online by Cambridge University Press

more representative sample, including diverse family types,

will be needed to confirm the direction and strength of the

relationships between perceived responsibilities for family

food tasks and food agency.

In summary, this study suggests that fathers with young

children are receptive to making positive contributions to

healthy home food provisioning. Increasing time avail-

ability and/or strategies to enable healthy food provision-

ing when time is limited appeared to be essential strategies

in enhancing fathers’ food agency and involvement in

healthy food provisioning at home.

Conclusion

Fathers’ engagemen t and practices around food impact the

family food environment with implications to young

children’s dietary intake. This study found that fathers’

involvement in family food tasks was promoted by a

greater sense of food agency, but a perceived lack of time

availability due to employment prevented greater involve-

ment and food agency. Given the cross-sectional design

and likely non-representative sample, these findings need

to be interpreted with care. Encouraging more flexible and

balanced working arrangements and uptake of paternity

leave as well as how food tasks can be better shared to

promote greater food agency among fathers are likely to be

important strategies.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Associate Professor

Andrea Begley for permission to use the evaluation tool of

the food literacy programme and Dr Adam Walsh for input

into the study concept.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding

agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest .

Authorship

All authors contributed to the design of the study. K.K.

collected and analysed the data and wrote the first draft

with contributions from all authors. All authors reviewed

and commented on subsequent drafts of the manuscript.

All authors have reviewed and approved the final version

for submission.

Ethics of human subject participation

This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid

down in the Declaration of Helsinki, and all procedures

involving research study participants were approved by the

Human Ethics Advisory Group, Faculty of Health, Deakin

University, HEAG-H 167_2019. Written informed consent

was obtained from all subjects/patients.

Supplementary material

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit

https://doi.org/10.1017 /S1368980023001817

References

1. Savage JS, Fisher JO & Birch LL (2007) Parental influence on

eating behavior: conception to adolescence. J Law Med

Ethics 35,22–34.

2. Spence A, Campbell K & Hesketh K (2010) Parental

correlates of young children’s dietary intakes: a review.

Australas Epidemiol 17,17–20.

3. Baxter J & Smart D (2011) Fathering in Australia Among

Couple Families with Young Children (FaHCSIA Occasional

Paper No.37). https://ssrn.com/abstract=1776522 (accessed

October 2021).

4. Fielding-Singh P (2017) Dining with dad: fathers’ influences

on family food practices. Appetite 117,98–108.

5. Bronfenbrenner U (1977) Toward an experimental ecology

of human development. Am Psychol 32, 513.

6. Cabrera NJ, Fitzgerald HE, Bradley RH et al. (2014) The

ecology of father-child relationships: an expanded model.

J Fam Theory Rev 6, 336–354.

7. Abbass-Dick J, Brown HK, Jackson KT et al. (2019) Perinatal

breastfeeding interventions including fathers/partners: a

systematic review of the literature. Midwifery 75,41–51.

8. Litchford A, Savoie Roskos MR & Wengreen H (2020)

Influence of fathers on the feeding practices and behaviors of

children: a systematic review. Appetite 147, 104558.

9. Rahill S, Kennedy A & Kearney J (2020) A review of the

influence of fathers on children’s eating behaviours and

dietary intake. Appetite 147, 104540.

10. Walsh AD, Cameron AJ, Crawford D et al. (2016) Dietary

associations of fathers and their children between the ages of

20 months and 5 years. Public Health Nutr 19, 2033–2039.

11. Baxter J (2016) The Modern Australian Family (Facts Sheet).

https://aifs.gov.au/publications/modern-australian-family

(accessed October 2021).

12. Baxter J (2023) Employment Patterns and Trends for Families

with Children. https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-05/

Employment%20patterns%20and%20trends%20for%C2 %

A0families%20with%20children.pdf (accessed June 2023).

13. Wilkins R & Lass I (2018) The Household, Income and Labour

Dynamics in Australia Survey: Selected Findings from

Waves 1 to 16. Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic &

Social Research, University of Melbourne. https://melbourne

institute.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/2874177/

HILDA-report_Low-Res_10.10.18.pdf (accessed March 2022).

2834 K Kuswara et al.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023001817 Published online by Cambridge University Press

14. Solera C & Mencarini L (2018) The gender division of

housework after the first child: a comparison among

Bulgaria, France and the Netherlands. Community Work

Fam 21, 519–540.

15. Altintas E & Sullivan O (2017) Trends in fathers’ contribution

to housework and childcare under different welfare policy

regimes. Soc Polit 24,81–108.

16. Baxter J, Buchler S, Perales F et al. (2014) A life-changing

event: first births and men’s and women’sattitudesto

mothering and gender divisions of labor. Soc Forces 93,

989–1014.

17. Workplace Gender Equality Agency (2019) Designing and

Supporting Gender Equitable Parental Leave: Insight Paper.

https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/

Insight_paper_designing_and_supporting_gender_equitable_

parental_leave.pdf (accessed November 2021).

18. Brown JL & Miller D (2002) Gender role preference and

family food chores. J Nutr Educ Behav 34, 100–108.

19. Jansen E, Harris H & Rossi T (2020) Fathers’ perceptions of

their role in family mealtimes: a grounded theory study.

J Nutr Educ Behav 52,45–54.

20. Walsh AD, Hesketh KD, van der Pligt P et al. (2017) Fathers’

perspectives on the diets and physical activity behaviours of

their young children. PLOS ONE 12, e0179210.

21. Vidgen HA & Gallegos D (2014) Defining food literacy and its

components. Appetite 76,50–59.

22. Middleton G, Golley RK, Patterson KA et al. (2022) The family

meal framework: a grounded theory study conceptualising the

work that underpins the family meal. Appetite 175, 106071.

23. Trubek AB, Carabello M, Morgan C et al. (2017) Empowered

to cook: the crucial role of ‘food agency’ in making meals.

Appetite 116, 297–305.

24. Wijayaratne SP, Reid M, Westberg K et al. (2018) Food

literacy, healthy eating barriers and household diet. Eur J

Mark 52, 2449–2477.

25. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E et al.

(1996) A simulation

study of the number of events per variable in logistic

regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 49, 1373–1379.

26. Begley A, Paynter E & Dhaliwal SS (2018) Evaluation tool

development for food literacy programs. Nutrients 10, 1617.

27. Lahne J, Wolfson JA & Trubek A (2017) Development of the

cooking and food provisioning action scale (CAFPAS): a new

measurement tool for individual cooking practice. Food Qual

Prefer 62,96–105.

28. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016) Census of Population and

Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia,

2016. https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/

2033.0.55.001MainþFeatures12016?OpenDocument (accessed

September 2021).

29. Kline RB (2015) Principles and Practice of Structural

Equation Modeling, 4th ed. New York: Guilford.

30. Fernandez MA, Desroches S, Marquis M et al. (2019) Which

food literacy dimensions are associated with diet quality

among Canadian parents? Br Food J 121, 1670–1685.

31. Bland JM & Altman DG (1997) Statistics notes: Cronbach’s α.

BMJ 314, 572.

32. Giraudeau B & Mary J (2001) Planning a reproducibility

study: how many subjects and how many replicates per

subject for an expected width of the 95 per cent confidence

interval of the intraclass correlation coefficient. Stat Med 20,

3205–3214.

33. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.

Educ Psychological Measurement 20,37–46.

34. Landis JR & Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer

agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174.

35. Mallan KM, Nothard M, Thorpe K et al. (2014) The role of

fathers in child feeding: perceived responsibility and

predictors of participation. Child Care Health Dev 40,

715–722.

36. Guerrero AD, Chu L, Franke T et al. (2016) Father

involvement in feeding interactions with their young

children. Am J Health Behav 40, 221–230.

37. Davison KK, Haines J, Garcia EA et al. (2020) Fathers’ food

parenting: a scoping review of the literature from 1990 to

2019. Pediatr Obes 15, e12654.

38. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021) 2021 Census of

Population and Housing General Community Profile.

https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/community-

profiles/2021/AUS (accessed July 2023).

39. Chesters J (2012) Gender attitudes and housework: trends

over time in Australia. J Comp Fam Stud 43, 511–526.

40. Daminger A (2019) The cognitive dimension of household

labor. Am Sociol Rev 84, 609–633.

41. Michie S, van Stralen MM & West R (2011) The behaviour

change wheel: a new method for characterising and

designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci

6, 42.

42. Wolfson JA, Lahne J, Raj M et al. (2020) Food agency in the

United States: associations with cooking behavior and dietary

intake. Nutrients 12, 877.

43. Bandura A, Freeman WH & Lightsey R (1999) Self-efficacy:

the exercise of control. J Cogn Psychother 13, 158–166.

44. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav

Hum Decis Process 50, 179–211.

45. Petts RJ & Knoester C (2018) Paternity leave-taking and father

engagement. J Marriage Fam 80, 1144–1162.

46. Beagan B, Chapman GE, D’Sylva A et al. (2008) ‘It’s just

easier for me to do it’: rationalizing the family division of

foodwork. Sociology 42, 653–671.

47. Boucher A (2007) Skill, migration and gender in Australia and

Canada: the case of gender-based analysis. Aust J Polit Sci 42,

383–401.

48. Ting S, Perales F & Baxter J (2016) Gender, ethnicity and the

division of household labour within heterosexual couples in

Australia. J Sociol 52, 693–710.

49. Jansen E, Harris H, Daniels L et al. (2018) Acceptability and

accessibility of child nutrition interventions: fathers’ per-

spectives from survey and interview studies. Int J Behav Nutr

Phys Act

15, 67.

50. Croker H, Packer J, Russell S J et al. (2020) Front of pack

nutritional labelling schemes: a systematic review and

meta-analysis of recent evidence relating to objectively

measured consumption and purchasing. JHumNutrDiet

33, 518–537.

51. Fraser K, Love P, Campbell KJ et al. (2022) Meal kits in the

family setting: impacts on family dynamics, nutrition, social

and mental health. Appetite 169, 105816.

52. Thornton L, Batterham PJ, Fassnacht DB et al. (2016)

Recruiting for health, medical or psychosocial research using

Facebook: systematic review. Internet Interv 4,72–81.

Fathers’ involvement in family meal provision 2835

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023001817 Published online by Cambridge University Press