The purpose of this study was to examine the status of eating out or using food delivery and related factors among young adults. This study was conducted using a cross-sectional survey applying the theory of planned behavior (TPB).
The questionnaire was developed based on literature reviews and was composed of scales measuring the perceived advantages or the disadvantages of eating out or using food delivery, significant others influencing on eating out behavior, and factors that make it easy or difficult for eating out or using food delivery. Subjects were college students or graduate students attending nine universities in Seoul, and they responded to the online survey by self-report. The survey was taken during April to June 2022. This study was approved by the IRB of Seoul women's university (IRB-2022A-3). After excluding subjects who eat out or use food delivery more than twenty-one times a week and those who did not meet the age category, the data of 327 subjects (97.6%) out of 335 young adults were used for statistical analysis. The t-test and the chi-square test were used to examine the differences in variables between the two groups according to the frequency of eating out or using food delivery. The association of factors in the TPB with the frequency of eating out or using food delivery was analyzed by the multiple regression analysis. Statistical analysis were performed using SPSS Statistics version 24.0.
Subjects were classified into two groups by the frequency of eating out or using food delivery: Low use group (LUG ≤4 times per week) and High use group (HUG >4 times per week). Subjects who were classified into the LUG were 51.1% and those who were grouped into the HUG were 48.9%. On average, subjects were 22.2 years old.
Total score of eating behaviors was 23.3 points (possible score: 12-36), on average. The HUG scored significantly lower on the total score of eating behaviors than the LUG (24.0 vs 22.6, p<0.01). The HUG, compared to the LUG, had less desirable eating behaviors, including unbalanced diet (p<0.05) and enjoying undesirable eating behaviors (p<0.001). Four out of twelve items were significantly different between the LUG and the HUG.
Mean score of behavioral beliefs was 43.2 points (possible score: 15-75). Total score of behavioral beliefs was not significantly different between the LUG and the HUG. The HUG, compared to the LUG, scored significantly higher on the subscale of beliefs regarding advantages about saving time and effort (p<0.05). Two out of fifteen items of behavioral beliefs were significantly different between the LUG and the HUG. Mean score of normative beliefs and motivation to comply was 45.7 points (possible score: 0-150). The HUG was more influenced by friends for eating out or using food delivery than the LUG (p<0.05). Mean score of perceived behavioral control was 46.0 points (possible score: 15-75). Total score of perceived behavioral control in the HUG was significantly lower than the LUG (48.9 vs 43.1, p<0.001), indicating that the HUG, compared to the LUG, perceived less confidence in controlling the eating out behavior. Specifically, the HUG had lower confidence in perceived control regarding facilitators of eating out or using food delivery (p<0.001), perceived control in situations of controlling eating out or using food delivery (p<0.001), and perceived lacks in knowledge and skills (p<0.01). Ten out of fifteen items of perceived behavioral control were significantly different between the LUG and the HUG.
Multiple linear regression results indicated that perceived behavioral control (p<0.001) were significantly related to eating out or using food delivery, while behavioral beliefs and subjective norms were not (model adjusted R² = 0.118, p<0.001). In the other model, intentions to control the eating out behavior and perceived behavioral control were significantly related to actual behavior of eating out or using food delivery (model adjusted R² = 0.249, p<0.001).
In conclusion, the HUG, compared to the LUG, agreed more strongly with the advantages on the eating out or using food delivery, had more influence by significant others, and perceived less confidence in controlling the eating out or using food delivery. Thus, nutrition education and counseling should focus on increasing control beliefs. For example, it is needed to introduce menu with easy and simple recipes for subjects to use when they are not willing to cook, tired or sick, and feel lack of meal preparation time. For the adequate use of eating out or using food delivery, it is necessary to present not only simple nutrition knowledge but also action guidelines applicable in daily situations when planning nutrition education.