evaluation of the fresh choice restaurant … · designed to increase the availability and...

EVALUATION OF THE "FRESH CHOICE" RESTAURANT-BASED NUTRITION PROGRAM

M. PATRICIA FITZPATRICK

B.Sc, The University of Prince Edward Island, 1990

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCES

in

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

(School of Family and Nutritional Sciences)

We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

April 1995

© M. Patricia Fitzpatrick, 1995

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced

degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it

freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive

copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my

department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or

publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written

permission.

egpartment of family a\^cK / V M T H boval Sciences

The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada

DE-6 (2/88)

\

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

Nutrition programs in restaurants, designed to influence food selection behaviour

at the point of purchase, are becoming a popular form of nutrition intervention. The

"Fresh Choice" restaurant-based nutrition intervention program, developed from a

partnership between the Vancouver Health Department, the Restaurateur and

Foodservices Association of Greater Vancouver and the B.C. Chefs' Association, was

designed to increase the availability and accessibility of good-tasting, lower fat menu items

and to enable restaurateurs and customers to make informed choices about nutrition.

Through the collaborative efforts of chefs and dietitians menu items prepared with little or

no added fat were produced. These items and participating restaurants were promoted

during the intervention month of June, 1993. The objective of this research was to

evaluate the "Fresh Choice" program by first assessing customer satisfaction with

restaurant menu items and second, assessing the acceptance of and response to the "Fresh

Choice" program. In the first component, the restaurant population in eight Vancouver

restaurants was surveyed during the fourth week of the intervention. A total of 686

patrons responded to a one page questionnaire and rated their satisfaction with 1127 menu

items. Statistical tests indicated significantly greater overall satisfaction with "Fresh

Choice" menu items than regular items. Satisfaction did not vary by the type of menu item

(soup, salad, entree, dessert), meal type, or respondent's frequency of eating out, reason

for eating out, eating pattern, gender or age. The most frequent reason for selecting all

menu items, whether "Fresh Choice" or regular, was that they were favorites or

preferences.

In the second component of the study nine restaurant patrons who were recruited

from participating restaurants during the intervention were interviewed. Interviewees

indicated that eating out was a reward and an indulgence if done for the self and if there

was freedom of selection. Also conveyed was that restaurants fulfilled many needs, both

ii

ABSTRACT

emotional and physical, that arose from living and work situations which in turn affected

the frequency of and reason for eating out. Restaurant and menu item selections were

influenced by frequency of and reason for eating out as well as previous satisfying

experiences with restaurants and menu items. Patrons identified similar determinants of

satisfaction and reasons for menu item selection as the questionnaire respondents.

Determinants of satisfaction were preparation, presentation, taste, freshness, portion size,

lack of fat, temperature, value for price. They interpreted the "Fresh Choice" logo and

name as denoting healthy, fresh and fun menu item choices. "Fresh Choice" added to the

indulgent experience of eating out because it increased menu variety and selection of

desired foods. However, when it was perceived that "Fresh Choice" reduced freedom of

choice by advocating vegetarian and diet dishes over regular dishes, that meat dishes or

substantial meals were not available, or that "Fresh Choice" meant less food, patrons were

less interested in "Fresh Choice". Patrons also wanted healthier choices to be identified on

the menu but did not want nutrition information anywhere near the menu. Nutrition

information in general, excepting the "Fresh Choice" pamphlet, which was non-obtrusive

and easy to read, was perceived by restaurant patrons to detract from the eating out

experience by advocating what patrons should choose. "Lower fat" was a more acceptable

descriptor of "Fresh Choice" dishes than "lighter fare" because the latter indicated less

food to interviewees.

The research indicated that customers were more satisfied with "Fresh Choice"

versus regular menu items, implying that "Fresh Choice" and other nutrition intervention

programs can be successful in providing healthier choices that are satisfying as well.

Customers were receptive to "Fresh Choice" except when it was perceived that "Fresh

Choice" was a vegetarian program which did not meet their needs and therefore

iii

ABSTRACT

"Fresh Choice" program planners should promote all food groups equally to make it a

program for all patrons. Results also indicated that patrons liked the "Fresh Choice"

promotional materials which conveyed messages df fun, taste and health. Other nutrition

interventions also could benefit by focusing on the pleasurable aspects of eating out and

downplaying the factual aspects of nutrition.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ii

T A B L E OF CONTENTS v

LIST OF TABLES viii

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T x

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. BACKGROUND and LITERATURE REVIEW 4 2.1. Nutrition Programs in Restaurants 4

2.1.1. Rationale for Restaurant-Based Nutrition Programs 4 2.1.1.1. Prevalence of Eating Out 6 2.1.1.2. Public's Interest in Nutrition 8 2.1.1.3. Theoretical Justification for Nutrition

Point-of-Purchase Programs 10 2.1.2 Evaluation of Restaurant and Cafeteria-Based Nutrition Programs 10

2.1.2.1. Evaluation of Restaurant-Based Nutrition Programs 11 2.1.2.2. Evaluation of Nutrition Information in Restaurants 15 2.1.2.3. Evaluation of Cafeteria-Based Programs 16 2.1.2.4. Conclusions 18

2.2. Understanding Customers' Restaurant Choices and the Importance of Satisfaction 19 2.2.1. Customers' Satisfaction with Meals in Foodservice Operations 20

2.3. "Fresh Choice" Nutrition Program 21 2.3.1. History and Process 22 2.3.2. Menu Items and Program Promotion 24 2.3.3. Study Objectives 25

3. DESIGN AND METHODS 27 3.1. Design Overview 27 3.2. Quantitative Evaluation of Customer Satisfaction

with "Fresh Choice" Menu Items 27 3.2.1. Questionnaire Development and Pre-Testing 28 3.2.2. Questionnaire Implementation 29 3.2.3. Data Analysis 29

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

3.3. Qualitative Evaluation of Customer Attitudes to "Fresh Choice" Program 30 3.3.1. Interview Guide Development 31 3.3.2. Pilot Testing and Interviewer Training 31 3.3.3. Recruitment of Interviewees 31 3.3.4. Data Collection 32 3.3.5. Data Analysis 32

4. RESULTS 34 4.1. Satisfaction Questionnaires 34

4.1.1. Descriptive Results 36 4.1.2. Customers' Satisfaction with Characteristics of "Fresh Choice"

and Regular Menu Items 41 4.1.3. Intercorrelations Among Satisfaction Descriptors and Overall

Satisfaction Scale 46 4.1.4. Satisfaction with "Fresh Choice" and Regular Menu Items by Meal

and Demographic Categories 48 4.2. Interviews 53

4.2.1. The Interviewees 5 3 4.2.2. The Role of Eating Out in Participants' Lives 57

4.2.2.1. The Meaning of Eating Out 57 4.2.2.2. Eating Out in Relation to Work and Home Contexts 64

4.2.3. Customers' Restaurant and Menu Selections and Satisfaction with Selections 68 4.2.3.1. Influences on Restaurant Selections 68 4.2.3.2. Influences on Menu Item Selections 71

4.2.4. Opinions on "Fresh Choice" and Nutrition Information in Restaurants 72 4.2.4.1. "Fresh Choice" Concepts 76 4.2.4.2. Nutrition Information Pamphlet 78 4.2.4.3. Response to the Use of "Lighter Fare" and "Lower Fat" 79 4.2.4.4. Promotion of the "Fresh Choice" Program 82

5. DISCUSSION 83 5.1. Satisfaction with Restaurant Dining 83 5.2. The Context of Restaurant Dining 85 5.3. Response to "Fresh Choice" and Nutrition in Restaurants 91 5.4. Limitations 94

6. CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATIONS 95

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 98

vi

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

8. APPENDICES APPENDIX A "Fresh Choice" Participation Agreement, Logo and

Pamphlet, Table Talker Insert, "Fresh" Special Sheet and Consumer Information Sheet 104

APPENDIX B Qualitative Questionnaire and Results 112 APPENDLX C "Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items" Pretest

Questionnaire and Questionnaire Evaluation 115 APPENDIX D "Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items" Questionnaire 117 APPENDIX E Waitstaff Tip Sheet on Research Requirements 118 APPENDLX F Interview Guide 119 APPENDLX G Interviewee Recruitment Form 122 APPENDIX H Interviewee Consent Form 123 APPENDIX I Waitstaff Questionnaire for Response Rate 124 APPENDIX J Correlation Matrices and Two-Way A N O V A Tables 125

vii

LIST O F T A B L E S

LIST O F T A B L E S

Table 2.1 Seating Capacity and Average Number of Customers per Day at Participating "Fresh Choice" Restaurants. 24

Table 4.1 Menu Items Rated in Satisfaction Questionnaires. 37

Table 4.2 Reasons for Choosing "Fresh Choice" and Regular Menu Items. 38

Table 4.3 Descriptions of Dining Occasions in Which Questionnaires Were

Completed. 39

Table 4.4 Description of Diners Who Completed Questionnaires. 40

Table 4.5 Satisfaction with "Fresh Choice" Versus Regular Menu Items. 41

Table 4.6 Satisfaction with Menu Items Correctly and Incorrectly Classified as "Fresh Choice" by Customers. 43

Table 4.7 Satisfaction with Regular Menu Items Correctly and Incorrectly

Classified by Customers 44

Table 4.8 Satisfaction with Menu Items Classified Correctly by Customers 45

Table 4.9 Correlation Coefficients Among Components of Satisfaction Scales within all Menu Items. 47

Table 4.10 Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items Grouped by Menu Item Classification and Menu Item Type. 49

Table 4.11 Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items Grouped Menu Item Classification and Meal Type. 49

Table 4.12 Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items Grouped by Menu Item Classification and Frequency of Eating Out. 50

Table 4.13 Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items Grouped by Menu Item Classification and Reason for Eating Out. 50

Table 4.14 Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items Grouped by Menu Item Classification and Eating Pattern. 51

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.15 Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items Grouped by Menu Item Classification and Specific Diet. 51

Table 4.16 Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items Grouped by Menu Item Classification and Gender. 52

Table 4.17 Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items Grouped by Menu Item Classification and Age. 52

Table 4.18 Profiles of the Nine Interviewees and the Restaurants Where Recruited. 54

Table 4.19 Patterns of Interviewees' Eating Habits, Nutrition, Exercise and Health. 56

Table 4.20 Comparison of the Characteristics of Eating Out and "Grabbing

Some Food". 63

Table 4.21 Determinants of Restaurant Selection. 70

Table 4.22 Determinants of Menu Item Selection. 71

Table 4.23 Awareness of and Willingness to Try "Fresh Choice" Menu Items. 74

Table 4.24 Influence of Availability of "Lighter Fare" and "Lower Fat" Items on Menu Item and Restaurant Selections. 81

ix

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T

This research project was accomplished under the supervision of Dr. Gwen Chapman, Division of Human Nutrition, University of British Columbia, whose excellent guidance, good humour, and unfailing support and encouragement contributed greatly to the successful completion of my degree. It was a pleasure to work with her and an honour to have been her first graduate student. Many thanks to my other committee members Dr. Susan Barr, Division of Human Nutrition, University of British Columbia, and Dr. Susan Crawford for their generous assistance and direction. As well, a special thanks to Lynne Sawchuk for her infectious enthusiasm and support during the initial stages of the research with the "Fresh Choice" program and in the final stages as a research committee member. I also extend gratitude to Dr. Linda McCargar, Division of Human Nutrition, University of British Columbia, and to Deb Jones for serving as my members of the examining committee.

I wish to acknowledge the contributions of the Vancouver Health Department and the Restaurant and Foodservices Association of Greater Vancouver who partially funded the research. I would also like to thank the "Fresh Choice" committee members, especially Lezlie Wagman, for their understanding, patience and encouragement throughout the past two years.

This research could not have been completed without the cooperation of the restaurants' waitstaff and management, and the questionnaire and interview participants. I am extremely grateful to these individuals for the time spent in contributing toward this research.

To my fellow graduate students at Family and Nutritional Sciences thank you for your support, wisdom and friendship during these challenging years. Special thanks to Charitini, Lynn (and her wonderful family!), Elle, and Dorcas for welcoming me into their homes on countless occasions, and to Eileen and Sabina for their positive perspectives and good advice.

Finally, gratitude is expressed to my two families, in Prince Edward Island and in Vancouver Island, for their love and support. Very special thanks to Mark whose understanding, gentle wisdom, and frequent advice to "just get the job done" encouraged me to persevere and accomplish my goals.

x

INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION

Current dietary recommendations suggest that the Canadian diet should be

comprised of no more than 30% energy from fat and no more than 10% from saturated fat

(Nutrition Recommendations for Canadians, 1990). Lowering the average Canadian's fat

intake from the current 37% to the recommended level is a challenge faced by nutrition

educators (Action Towards Healthy Eating, 1990). Part of the challenge is to reach large

numbers of individuals in cost effective ways (Glanz, 1992; Mullis, 1990; Mayer, 1989).

Point-of-purchase programs in locations where people choose what they will eat such as

restaurants, cafeterias and grocery stores have shown success in influencing customers'

choices (Glanz, 1992; Zifferblatt, 1980).

Nutrition programs in restaurants have been suggested as an area of great potential

to influence the eating habits of the restaurant population (Glanz, 1992; Mayer, 1989).

National survey data indicate a growing trend for consumers to spend a larger share of the

food dollar in restaurants (The Consumer Price Index, 1992). This increased importance

of eating out is believed to be a result of the combined effects of greater numbers of

women in the work force, decreased size of households, increased numbers of restaurants

and marketing pressure to eat out, especially from the fast food industry (The Consumer

Price Index, 1992; Reiter, 1991; Zifferblatt, 1980). At the same time, consumer nutrition

awareness is high leading to consumer demand for restaurants to make available more

healthy alternatives (Tefft, 1995; Sneed, 1988). Finally, there is theoretical support from

the nutrition education, health promotion, and social marketing literature for the

effectiveness of point-of-purchase nutrition programs (Anderson, 1990; Dean, 1990;

Mullis, 1990; Glanz, 1989; Mayer, 1989; Granzin, 1988).

1

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Fresh Choice Program

"Fresh Choice" was a restaurant-based nutrition intervention and health promotion

program designed and developed through a partnership of the Vancouver Health

Department, the Restaurant and Foodservices Association of Greater Vancouver and the

British Columbia Chefs' Association. The aims of the program were to increase the

availability and accessibility of good-tasting, lower fat menu items in the Vancouver area

and to provide restaurateurs and consumers with information to make informed choices.

Chefs from participating restaurants, in consultation with dietitians, identified menu items

that would fit the criteria of the "Fresh Choice" program. These menu items were made

available and promoted during the "Fresh Choice" month which took place in June, 1993.

Study Aims

Evaluation research is a necessary component of a nutrition intervention or health

promotion program as it provides feedback from the targeted population to assess the

effectiveness or success of the program. The feedback provides program planners and

other stakeholders with information that will affect the continuation and future directions

of the program.

The purpose of this study was therefore to evaluate some indicators of the

effectiveness of the "Fresh Choice" restaurant-based nutrition intervention program. The

evaluation was comprised of two components: a) measuring customer satisfaction with

selected menu items and b) assessing restaurant patrons' acceptance of and attitude toward

the "Fresh Choice" program.

Customer satisfaction with menu items was selected as a predictor of effectiveness

for several reasons. First, customer satisfaction with a product, such as a menu item,

translates into a willingness to try that product again (Carsky, 1991; Johnston, 1991).

2

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Second, restaurant businesses that depend on return and regular customers will probably

be willing to continue with promotions that have been shown to satisfy customers

(Johnston, 1991; Beasley, 1990). Third, consumption of satisfying and available menu

items that provide continual, positive reinforcements of healthier eating may influence

customers' attitudes towards nutrition and effect a health behaviour change (Westbrook,

1991) . Therefore, use of customer satisfaction with menu items as a predictor of program

effectiveness was relevant to all "Fresh Choice" stakeholders: the restaurateurs, the

program planners, and other supporters of the program. Customer satisfaction with "Fresh

Choice" and regular menu items was assessed using a self-administered questionnaire.

Customers' response to the "Fresh Choice" program and their receptivity to

nutrition information when eating out were assessed in the second component of the

evaluation. Customers' acceptance of "Fresh Choice" and attitudes towards nutrition and

nutrition information when eating out were important factors in evaluating the success and

effectiveness of the program. In contrast to the first component, which was employed to

determine if the program did or did not work, the second component was employed to

gain some insight into how and why the program did or did not work. Qualitative

interviews allowed the customers' perspectives on nutrition in restaurants to be noted and

insight into customers' ideas, opinions, and perceptions about eating out and how it fit into

their lives was gained.

Historically, evaluation research has used quantitative measures and techniques to

obtain factual, reliable data on respondent awareness or behavioural change (Steckler,

1992) . How and why changes in awareness and behaviour occur, however, cannot be

adequately described using quantitative data alone. Thus there is a need for qualitative

research in evaluation measures (Steckler, 1992; Achterberg, 1988; Edwards, 1986).

3

BACKGROUND and LITERATURE REVIEW

2. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Because restaurant-based nutrition interventions are a relatively new approach to

nutrition education, the literature describing and evaluating such programs is not

extensive. The available reports are discussed in the first section of this chapter where the

rationale for nutrition programming is described, followed by a review of published

evaluations of nutrition interventions. The second section of the chapter focuses on the

rationale for using customer satisfaction as a measure of program effectiveness. The

"Fresh Choice" program is then described. The chapter concludes with a statement of the

study objectives.

2.1. Nutrition Programs in Restaurants

The central goal of nutrition education and nutrition programs is to promote

healthful eating patterns by giving the consumer information needed to make informed

choices about nutrition and by creating environments where this can be more easily

achieved (Glanz, 1992). Nutrition education in restaurants is a relatively new field of

public health interest (Granzin, 1988). It focuses on increasing the availability of healthful

foods that meet nutrition guidelines and on offering nutrition information through labeling

and promotional materials (Anderson, 1990; Mayer, 1989; Carlson, 1986). Nutrition

programs may also promote the restaurant as a location where more healthful foods can be

requested (Green, 1993).

2.1.1. Rationale for Restaurant-Based Nutrition Programs

The current nutrition recommendations for Canadians suggest that the Canadian

diet should include no more than 30% of energy as fat and no more than 10% as saturated

fat (Nutrition Recommendations for Canadians, 1990). A high fat diet is thought to be

4

B A C K G R O U N D and L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W

associated with increased risk for chronic diseases such as diabetes, coronary heart

disease, obesity and cancer (Mullis, 1990). Lowering fat intake from the average North

American consumption of approximately 37% (Kristal, 1990; Action Towards Healthy

Eating, 1990) to the recommended maximum intake of 30%, is thought to decrease

morbidity and mortality due to disease and increase health in general. Therefore, reduction

of fat intake is a common objective of many nutrition programs (Kristal, 1990; Mullis,

1990). Canada's "Guidelines for Healthy Eating" recommends that to reduce fat intake

Canadians should: enjoy a variety of foods but emphasize breads, cereals, vegetables and

fruits; choose lower fat dairy products, leaner meats, and foods prepared with little or no

added fat; and achieve and maintain a healthy body weight by exercising regularly and

eating wisely (Using the Food Guide, 1992; Action Towards Healthy Eating, 1990).

For nutrition educators' recommendations to have an effect on fat intake and the

health of Canadians, large numbers of individuals need to be reached in cost-effective

ways (Glanz, 1992; Mullis, 1990; Mayer, 1989). Nutrition interventions in locations where

people choose what they will eat such as grocery stores, cafeterias, and restaurants, have

been reported to influence many individuals at the same time, in a potentially cost-effective

manner (Glanz, 1992; Zifferblatt, 1980).

Three justifications for the use of restaurant-based nutrition intervention programs

are: the prevalence of eating out (Green, 1993; Granzin, 1992; Sneed, 1991; Regan,

1987); the public's increasing interest in nutrition (Granzin, 1992; Sneed, 1991; Anderson,

1990); and the body of theory and research supporting programs in nutrition education

(Granzin, 1992; Mullis, 1990; Glanz, 1989; Mayer, 1989). As consumers simultaneously

become more aware of the relationship between nutrition and health and increase food

consumption away from home, nutrition educators feel there is a need to provide healthier

choices and more nutrition information in restaurants (Bronner, 1991).

5


2.1.1.1. Prevalence of Eating Out

The frequency with which North Americans eat out has risen substantially over the

past two decades (Green, 1993; Weisbrod, 1991; Regan, 1987; Ries, 1987). Increasingly,

fewer foods are purchased from grocery stores and fewer meals are prepared at home

(The Consumer Price Index, 1992; Weisbrod, 1991). In Canada, expenditures on

restaurant meals as a proportion of the total food budget have increased two-fold from

12% in 1957 to 28% in 1986 (The Consumer Price Index, 1992). By 1992, expenditures

on restaurant meals had risen to 32% (Visions, 1994). A report from the Canadian

Restaurant and Foodservices Association suggests that the proportion of the food dollar

being spent in restaurants is even higher, stating that in 1988 Canadians spent

approximately 39% of their food dollar on meals eaten away from home, an increase from

35.5% in 1986 (Action Towards Healthy Eating, 1990).

Americans show greater tendencies for eating out in restaurants than Canadians. In

1988, 43% of their food dollar was spent on meals away from home, an increase from

25% in 1955 (ADA Reports, 1991(b); Weisbrod, 1991). In 1991 Americans ate an

average of 3.8 meals per week away from home and in 1993, spent 236.5 billion dollars in

commercial food service establishments (Warshaw, 1993). By the turn of the century the

share of the food budget being spent on meals away from home is predicted to increase to

two-thirds (Finkelstein, 1989; Ries, 1987).

In 1992 it was estimated that the Canadian foodservice industry served an average

of three million meals per day to a potential eating out population of 19.8 million adults

which suggests an average of just over one meal a week eaten out by Canadians (Eating

Out Quarterly, 1992). The same survey showed that men ate out more frequently than

women, respondents in the 18-24 age group ate out more than those in other age groups,

and respondents of higher socioeconomic status ate out more often than those in

6


lower income groups. An earlier survey in 1985, however, reported that the average

Canadian ate out 130 times a year, or two and a half times a week, suggesting a

decreasing trend in the prevalence of eating out (Forster-Coull, 1986). The earlier study,

however, surveyed "average" Canadians and the latter included all adults which may

explain the differences in the findings. In 1992 a Gallup Poll commissioned by the

Canadian Restaurant and Food Service Association reported that 67% of surveyed adults

had eaten out the week prior to the data collection. The majority of adults, (51%),

mentioned dinner as the last meal eaten away from home, while 42% had lunch, 6% had

breakfast and 5% had a snack (Eating Out Quarterly, 1992). In the same year, however,

the Consumer Price Index (1992) reported lunch as the meal most often eaten away from

home.

The increased food expenditure on commercial eating has caused concern about

the impact on the general public's nutrition and health status and thus increasing concern

from nutrition educators (Ries, 1987; Axelson, 1983). The United States Surgeon

General's report on nutrition and health noted the prevalence of eating away from home

and recommended that foodservice establishments make changes to improve nutritional

balance on their menus (ADA Reports, 1991(b)). Along the same lines, a National

Academy of Sciences'Tnstitute of Medicine panel suggested restaurants should be required

to provide nutrition information about the foods served (Skolnick, 1990). However, a

survey of restaurateurs' opinions (Sneed, 1991) about healthier foods in restaurants

showed they did not believe it was their responsibility to improve patrons' health or that

the availability of healthier foods would be a factor in a patron's restaurant selection. The

restaurateurs did believe, however, that they could provide healthier, more tasty menu

alternatives for customers (Sneed, 1991).

7


The increased expenditure on restaurant meals has been linked to increased

numbers of women in the labour force, increased family income, decreased family size, and

the associated rise in the number of one person households (Family Food Expenditures in

Canada, 1992; Shields, 1992; Ries, 1987). The Consumer Price Index Report of 1992

stated that the, proportion of the food dollar spent on food away from home varied quite

distinctly with the employment status of the woman in the household. The proportion was

highest in homes with women who worked full time in the labour force and lower for part

time and unemployed women. When both spouses had full-time jobs, greater value was

placed on free time and leisure activities, such as eating out (Consumer Price Index

Report, 1992). In addition, one person households in all income classes spent a

significantly greater proportion of the food dollar on restaurant meals compared to

households composed of two or more people. The number of children in a family appeared

to limit eating out (Family Food Expenditures, 1992).

2.1.1.2. Public's Interest in Nutrition

Consumer awareness of and concern about nutrition has risen dramatically over the

past decade. A nationwide survey in 1989, "Tracking Nutrition Trends", reported that

59% of Canadian adults considered nutrition to be extremely or very important when

choosing their food, while 71% were very to somewhat concerned about the amount of fat

in their diet (Beggs, 1993). To decrease fat intake, these respondents chose lower fat

products (29%), removed visible fat when preparing foods (22%) and ate less high fat

content foods (21%)(Beggs, 1993). More recently a National Institute of Nutrition study

(April, 1994) reported that nutrition was important to 87% of Canadians who indicated

concern about dietary fat 50% of the time when selecting food (Tefft, 1995). In the United

States, an American Dietetic Association poll (1990) reported that 95% of adult

8


Americans saw balance, moderation and variety as important for a healthy diet (ADA

Reports, 1991(b)). A 1989 National Restaurant Association (NRA) survey found that

60% of respondents claimed to have improved eating habits at home while 39% were

committed to healthier eating away from home (ADA Reports, 1991(b)). The latter figure

was an increase from 35% in an earlier NRA survey (1986)(ADA Reports, 1991(b)). The

1986 survey also reported that 42% of adults responded that they had tried, or were likely

to try, restaurants that offered healthful menus, a 2% increase from 1985 (ADA Reports,

1991(b)).

Restaurateurs and nutrition educators are becoming increasingly aware of

consumer interest in nutrition and the need to work together to satisfy restaurant patrons'

food and nutrition needs (Welland, 1993; ADA Reports, 1991(a)(b); Sneed, 1991). A

variety of restaurants are responding to consumer interest by having nutritious alternatives

available and by incorporating lower fat menu items and nutrition programs into their

foodservice (Tefft, 1995; Sneed, 1991; Eating Out Quarterly, 1992; Anderson, 1990;

Regan, 1987; Carlson, 1986).

Consumer interest, however, does not necessarily lead to healthier items being

ordered. Warshaw (1993) stated that "Americans talk thin and eat fat", indicating a vast

difference between nutrition interest and eating behaviour. Eating out in restaurants may

mitigate against dietary improvement (Weisbrod, 1991) because along with the increasing

interest in "lighter fare" and healthier alternatives, has been an increase in "all you can eat"

and "dessert" bars (Regan, 1987). As well, consumers may face barriers to healthier

choices by associating them with tasteless diet foods, higher prices, smaller sizes, and the

inconvenience or lack of availability of these items (Hendricks, 1993; Weisbrod, 1991).

9


2.1.1.3. Theoretical Justification for Nutrition Foint-of-Furchase Programs

Point-of-purchase programs are based on the marketing concept that the greatest

opportunity to influence a sale or to influence consumer behaviour is directly before the

decision is made to buy the product (Glanz, 1992; Carsky, 1991; Zifferblatt, 1980).

Application of this marketing strategy to a nutrition intervention program involves

providing the consumer with the necessary information at the point-of-purchase that is

easy to use to make an informed, confident decision on nutrition ( Hendricks, 1993; Glanz,

1992; Anderson, 1990; Glanz, 1989; Carlson, 1986). In such promotions, nutrition

information is communicated with the use of on-site promotional materials (table tents,

window decals, posters and menu labeling) in combination with media coverage in the

community (Albright, 1990; Anderson, 1990; Forster-Coull, 1989).

The social marketing of nutrition in restaurants creates an environment that is

conducive to enjoyable, healthy eating (Hendricks, 1993; A D A Reports, 1991(a)).

Positive, upbeat messages that minimize guilt and present food in the context of good

tasting, attractive nutrition address the motivators and barriers to healthful change

(Hendricks, 1993; A D A Reports, 1991(a); Colby, 1987; Regan, 1987). Successful

nutrition promotions have focused on variety, quality, taste, enjoyment of food, and

moderation, rather than deprivation and food avoidance (Hendricks, 1993; Granzin,

1988).

2.1.2. Evaluation of Restaurant and Cafeteria-Based Nutrition Programs

Evaluation research is essential to all facets of nutrition intervention programs,

including their development and implementation (Achterberg, 1988). It provides feedback

to program stakeholders who can then determine program progress and worth. Ultimately,

10


evaluation research may contribute to policy developments that influence lifestyle change

and advance the field of nutrition education (Achterberg, 1988).

Evaluations have been conducted for a number of nutrition programs in the United

States and in Canada that have targeted cafeteria patrons and restaurant diners (Green,

1993; Albright, 1990; Anderson, 1990; Mayer, 1989; Forster-Coull, 1988; Schmitz and

Fielding, 1986). Approaches to these evaluations have varied widely, including the use of

pre/post sales tracking, surveys, and observation and withdrawal designs. The following

section reviews a number of such evaluations, highlighting the methods used, the findings,

and the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation approach.

2.1.2.1. Evaluation of Restaurant-Based Nutrition Programs

A restaurant-based nutrition program was conducted in four family style

restaurants as a part of the Stanford Five City community-based cardiovascular risk

reduction study (Albright, 1990). The restaurant intervention employed heart symbols that

identified healthier items on posted menus, signs indicating that heart labeled items were

low fat and low cholesterol, and tip sheets identifying healthier offerings. A pre/post test

evaluation design was used to track sales during the intervention. In addition, restaurant

patrons' awareness of the program and selection of labeled entrees were assessed through

a one page survey administered on one day during the fourth week of the program.

Results showed that during the intervention period, two of the four restaurants had

significantly increased sales of lower fat foods, relative to baseline sales (p<0.05). There

were significant differences in the reasons for selecting menu items by customers who

chose the labeled items compared to those who did not (p< 0.001). Taste and wanting a

healthy meal were listed most frequently by patrons who chose a lower fat item (37% and

35%, respectively), while taste and wanting to try something different were the

11


most frequent responses from those who did not choose a labeled item (50% and 20%,

respectively). Overall strengths of the evaluation procedures used in the study included the

accuracy of sales tracking through computerized sales and careful monitoring of cashiers

by management. Limitations included administering the customer survey on only one day,

and lack of control in the experimental setting, including the unauthorized implementation

of the program in a control restaurant. In addition, lack of education for managers about

research requirements was a limitation.

"Dine to Your Heart's Delight" was a similar, four week restaurant-based

intervention. Heart decals on menus informed restaurant patrons about available low

fat/low cholesterol alternatives (Anderson, 1990). A total of 53 restaurants participated,

including 12 table service restaurants, 37 fast food outlets, and four cafeterias. A pre/post

test design tracked sales during the intervention and an opinion survey assessed

restaurateurs' receptivity to the program. Results showed that sales of ninety percent of

labeled menu items increased during the four weeks. As well, all 53 managers responded

positively to the program and reported that customers' comments were very favorable.

Strengths of the design included a testing period adequate to note changes in sales and to

control for novelty (and possibly seasonality) affects, and an open-ended opinion survey

that discovered weak areas of the program such as inadequate waitstaff education.

Limitations included the inability of 83% of restaurants to provide pre/post test data due

to sales confidentiality, insufficient time for record keeping, and evaluation delays caused

by new menus, staff turnover, management change. In addition, the lack of adequate

training for waitstaff and managers was a limitation. Dining room success of the program

was found to depend on waitstaff involvement, and managers' attitudes were important to

motivating staff. A recommendation for future research was to evaluate customer

satisfaction with restaurant-based nutrition intervention programs.

12


Two research studies used surveys to evaluate restaurant programs (Forster-Coull,

1988; Green, 1993). "To Your Heart's Delight", a six week nutrition program promoting

heart-healthy eating (foods low in fat, sugar and salt), was offered at twenty-one

downtown Halifax restaurants. Heart decals on menus and menu inserts identified targeted

items, table tents provided information on ways to reduce fat in restaurant meals, and tip

sheets helped staff answer questions about the program. Customers were surveyed as they

left two restaurants after lunch, pre/post nutrition intervention (Forster-Coull, 1988). They

were asked about selections and if they asked for sauces on the side. In addition, post

intervention customers were asked to identify heart healthy foods and recall labeled menu

items. Managers and waitstaff were also surveyed to determine their response to the

intervention material. The results showed a significant increase (pre/post intervention) in

the percentage of patrons having "heart healthy" foods for lunch (7% versus 22%) and a

significant increase in the number of patrons who asked for sauces on the side (18%

versus 32%). In addition, 70% of the post intervention respondents could identify one

heart healthy characteristic and 69% could recall one labeled item. Areas of concern were

identified by managers and waitstaff but overall, restaurant personnel and patrons

responded favorably to the program. A limitation of the evaluation included the inability to

analyze sales tracking data due to incomplete collection.

The Saskatchewan "Heart Smart" restaurant program is an on-going consumer-

driven restaurant promotion that identifies restaurants offering "Heart Smart" menu items

(Green, 1993). The goals of the program are to increase healthful, affordable choices in

tableservice restaurants and to encourage restaurant patrons to make those choices. At the

time of the evaluation, (after twenty-two months of program promotion in Saskatoon and

eight months in Regina), 56% and 68% of the eligible restaurants, in Regina and

Saskatoon respectively, were Heart Smart restaurants. A telephone survey was conducted

13


to assess restaurant compliance to the program, and consumer awareness, understanding,

and utilization of the program. Frequency of eating out and demographic information were

obtained as well. Results showed that 41% (Regina) and 22% (Saskatoon) of respondents

were aware of the "Heart Smart" program . One third of these knew how the program

worked in each city, but only 16% had made requests for "Heart Smart" items. The

availability of more healthful food choices was mentioned as important to restaurant

selection by only 4% of the respondents. The strengths of this evaluation were that areas

of weakness within the promotion such as the widespread misunderstanding of how the

program operates and lack of restaurant compliance to "Heart Smart" objectives were

illuminated.

"Dine to Your Heart's Content", a Virginia "Eating Away from Home" program,

was designed to enable restaurateurs to modify, develop, and promote menu items that

meet the American Heart Association's guidelines (Paul, 1989). The purpose of the

evaluation was to assess program development and obtain baseline data. Sixteen of the 26

eligible restaurants participated in the evaluation. Mailed-out questionnaires measured

patrons' frequency of eating out, reasons for choices when eating out, wants and needs

concerning menu items, knowledge of food composition, and opinions about the program.

In addition, restaurateurs' perspectives of the program were assessed by interview and

their knowledge of fats and oils assessed with a questionnaire. Results indicated that 57%

of patrons were aware of the program, 88% were interested in following a heart healthy

diet, and 55% were motivated by nutrition when making selections. A positive correlation

was found between frequency of eating out at heart healthy restaurants and awareness of

the program (p<0.001). Availability of the program appeared to increase restaurant

selection. A strength of the evaluation was the identification of program development

14


directions, including assistance for restaurateurs, program promotion in the community to

increase awareness, and waitstaff training.

Two smaller evaluations of restaurant-based nutrition programs focused on change

in sales of menu items. Incorporation of a "Help your Heart" menu did not result in a

significant change in total sales from the special menu over twelve months (Scott, 1979).

In contrast, use of a poster promoting a low fat/high fibre selection in a fast food

restaurant was associated with increased sales of the targeted item (Wagner, 1988).

2.1.2.2. Evaluation of Nutrition Information in Restaurants

Other evaluations of nutrition interventions in restaurants were concerned with the

effect of the nutrition messages used. The Pawtucket Heart Health Program's Four Heart

System (Colby et al, 1987) used three types of prompting messages to promote sales of

three daily specials. The messages used were: "healthful", (low in fat, sodium and

cholesterol); "flavourful, as well as healthy"; and finally, "daily special". During the 27 day

intervention 90% of patrons who chose the targeted daily specials responded to two

statements in a brief, self administered questionnaire. The first statement sought to

determine the main reason the special was selected and if the message influenced it. The

second statement determined whether the patron remembered the specific details of the

promotional message. Results indicated that taste had the strongest influence on selection

and the message combining flavour and health was most likely to be remembered by the

participants.

Almanza et al (1993) evaluated consumer preferences for the presentation of

nutrient information on menus. Three formats were used during different periods. An

apple symbolized that items met nutrition guideline standards; colored dots identified

choices low in fat, calories, and sodium; and numeric values were given for certain

15


nutrients (fat, cholesterol, sodium, and fibre) in pamphlet form. A brief, self-administered

questionnaire was completed after menu selections. The questionnaire sought

demographic information, and included nutrition knowledge questions that tested the

customer's recall of the information. It was found that nutrition information was read more

often when associated with colored dots and that healthier choices increased

significantly with pamphlet use (P=0.000). A follow-up study to assess customers' interest

in nutrition and opinions about the attractiveness, ease of use, clarity, and overall

preference for the three formats indicated that the apple and pamphlet formats were the

most attractive and clearest, thus the easiest to use (Almanza, 1995). Attractiveness was

the most important attribute for overall preference of any format.

2.1.2.3. Evaluation of Cafeteria-Based Programs

Programs in cafeterias differ from restaurant-based programs due to several

factors: first, cafeterias generally have a more stable population, especially those located in

the worksite (Schmitz, 1986); second, menus in cafeterias may be more limited than

restaurants (Albright, 1990), prices are lower, and customers serve themselves (Mayer,

1989); and third, management seems more amenable to promotions that increase

customers' health (Sneed, 1991). Evaluation research is therefore different in cafeterias

and usually more easily undertaken.

Six published evaluations of nutrition programs in cafeteria settings assessed the

use of food labels, nutritional information or incentives to cue healthier food selections.

Five of these studies used observation techniques (Mayer 1987; Mayer, 1986; Schmitz,

1986; Cincirpini, 1984; Dubbert, 1984) and the sixth used an inventory cash register

(Zifferblatt, 1980) to record foods selected during different phases. Dubbert et al (1984),

16


examined the additive effects of labeling the three lowest calorie choices in an attempt to

decrease caloric intake of foods selected. Zifferblatt (1980) used a nutrition game that

carried specific nutritional messages designed to decrease caloric content of foods chosen.

Both evaluations found significant increases in sales of some food items (p<0.05 and

p<0.001 respectively) but not of entrees. Only Zifferblatt found a significant decrease in

calories (p<0.001). Schmitz et al (1986), on the other hand, used cards to compare low

calorie and high calorie foods at the point-of-choice. In a pre/post test design, she found a

significant decrease (p<0.01) in calories per tray relative to baseline data. Mayer et al

(1986), found that using posters and food labels significantly increased sales of low fat

entrees during two phases of program intervention relative to baseline sales (p<0.001 and

p <0.005).

Cincirpini (1984) observed the effects of listing caloric values, labeling healthier

foods, and offering rebates for purchases of healthier foods to individuals classified as

obese, lean and normal. Mayer et al (1987) listed foods' caloric values, introduced specific

nutritional messages with a nutrition awareness game, and offered incentive raffles for the

selection of targeted foods. Both studies found that a combination of incentives and

labeling was associated with increased sales of targeted items, but labeling alone was not.

Davis-Chervin et al (1985) evaluated the effectiveness of a point-of-choice

program that offered only intangible incentives, such as the promise of better health. Two

dormitory cafeterias hosted the program for an academic year. One dorm displayed

posters which recommended healthy food changes and ways to make changes and cards

which provided caloric, fat and cholesterol values. The second cafeteria used only the

nutrient display cards. Patrons did not differ in food selection practices prior to

intervention but the additional information provided in the first dorm was associated with

enhanced behaviour change.

17


2.1.2.4. Conclusions

Most evaluations of point-of-purchase nutrition programs in restaurants and

cafeterias have used change in sales to assess effectiveness. This approach can be accurate

and reliable and does not intrude upon the patrons' dining experience. The test period must

be long enough to note changes in sales and to control for seasonal and novelty effects.

Limitations of this form of evaluation include restaurateurs' difficulties in collecting data

and their reluctance to share records, and the problems encountered due to frequent

management and staff turnover. In addition, this type of design does not provide

information about why the observed behaviour changes occurred.

Other evaluation designs have used opinion surveys to identify restaurateurs' and

patrons' perceptions and responses to nutrition programs. Such studies indicate areas of

weakness and strength in the program and can direct program improvement. Surveys may

also test program effectiveness by assessing patrons' awareness of nutrition. Overall,

however, there is a need to understand not only what does and does not work, as shown

by the increase in sales of nutritious menu items or increased awareness of available items,

but also how programs are received and interpreted by the customer. Patrons' attitudes to

nutrition when eating out, their acceptance of nutrition information in restaurants and their

acceptance of modified menu items are factors necessary to understand program success.

Two ways to determine how and why a nutrition program is effective are by

employing qualitative data and by understanding customer satisfaction with various menu

items. Qualitative research can give valuable information about the group under study,

particularly how people perceive a program and why they reacted the way they did

(Steckler, 1992; Achterberg, 1988; Edwards, 1986). The use of both qualitative and

quantitative methodologies to investigate the same program can be a solution to the

problem of relying on any one data source or method in research (DeVries, 1990; Patton,

18


1990) and is a technique that is being encouraged (Achterberg, 1988). The importance of

customer satisfaction is addressed in the next section.

2.2. Understanding Customer's Restaurant Choices and the Importance of

Satisfaction

The main goal of a nutrition intervention is to effect healthful eating behaviours

(Glanz, 1992). Food selection behaviours are learned behaviours deeply rooted in culture

and linked to the social, emotional and mythical meanings of foods (Parraga, 1990; Lewis,

1989). They also can be influenced by the environments in which individuals work and live

(Hendricks, 1993; Parraga, 1990; Anon, 1990; Colby, 1987; Cincirpini, 1984; Hochbaum,

1981). Learned behaviours, while difficult to change, can be influenced by a change in

attitude, which is in turn affected by a satisfying or dissatisfying experience (Dube, 1991).

Attitudes, or feelings of favorableness or unfavorableness toward something, can

predispose consumers toward certain food choices in restaurants or wherever food

selections are made ( Parraga, 1990; Granzin, 1988; Sims, 1981). Therefore satisfaction

with menu items offered by a nutrition program in a restaurant setting may affect attitudes

about nutrition in restaurants and thus could be a measure of effectiveness for a nutrition

program whose goal is to influence food selection behaviours.

Satisfaction is a broad concept, involving both the object or product and the total

experience. It is viewed as an evaluative, post choice judgment, or affective outcome,

where consumers compare the experience to some internal standard (Dube, 1991;

Johnston, 1991; Cadotte, 1987). Most of the empirical research to date has measured

behaviour change and awareness to gauge nutrition intervention effectiveness in dining

establishments (Mayer, 1989; Forster-Coull, 1988). There are two concerns with the

measurement of program effectiveness in this way. First, behaviour change occurs slowly.

19


As shown by the hierarchy-of-effects model, it occurs in stages from awareness of a

problem or situation, to understanding, then attitude change, intention to change, and

finally behaviour change (Westbrook, 1991). Tracking pre/post sales will indicate how

customers chose over a period of time but may not be the best predictor of future

behaviour. Second, the factors that are involved in, or contribute to, consumer food

selection are varied (Anon, 1990; Parraga, 1990; Lewis, 1989). Knowledge or awareness

about nutrition alone has not been a good predictor of behaviour (Kar, 1993; Lewis,

1989). Satisfaction, on the other hand, has been established as an important causal

component for experience-based change because it provides feedback to the individual,

affecting post-purchase attitudes and an intention to repurchase (Westbrook, 1991).

2.2.1. Customers' Satisfaction with Meals in Foodservice Operations

Although assessment of customer satisfaction has not been a central component of

the evaluation of restaurant-based nutrition programs, three studies have evaluated

cafeteria patrons' or patients' satisfaction with hospital foodservices (Dube, 1994;

Johnston, 1991; DeLuco, 1990). Johnston et al (1991) and Dube et al (1990) employed

self-administered questionnaires to rate satisfaction with various aspects of the foodservice

operations as well as overall satisfaction as the main outcome measure. DeLuco et al

(1990) conducted randomly selected interviews by telephone to determine cafeteria

patrons' perceptions and importance of quality of hospital food. Johnston, et al (1991)

assessed patrons' satisfaction with food, service, environment and accessibility in twelve

hospital cafeterias in Canada and New Zealand. Results indicated that food quality was

most strongly associated with overall satisfaction, followed by service. Environment and

accessibility were twenty times less important than food quality (p<0.01).

20


Dube et al (1994), found that overall satisfaction with meals and foodservices was

strongly associated with satisfaction with food quality, customization, attitude of staff,

promptness and reliability (p<0.001) (Dube, 1994). Dube noted that patients' perceptions

of food service and meals seemed interwoven with social, physical and emotional aspects

and that satisfaction of basic human needs, such as recognition, reassurance, and status,

were considered crucial to understanding a patient's satisfaction with the overall

experience. These determinants are usually absent on surveys because they are difficult to

quantify but they are none the less important.

DeLuco et al, (1990) found that components of food quality were associated with

patients' overall satisfaction with foodservice and hospital stay. All studies supported

previous evidence that food was the primary source of satisfaction in a foodservice setting

(Paul, 1989).

2.3. "Fresh Choice" Nutrition Program

"Fresh Choice" is a Vancouver restaurant-based nutrition intervention program

designed to support and promote restaurateurs who wish to cater to the increasing

demand of consumers who want more nutritious menu items when eating out. This

nutrition intervention health promotion program is a development of Project FIND (For

Informed Decision Making), a Vancouver Health Department initiative. The Health

Department, in cooperation with the B.C. Chefs' Association and the Restaurant and

Foodservices Association of Greater Vancouver, created "Fresh Choice" to answer to the

needs of consumers who are increasingly demanding more nutritious foods when eating

out.

21


The program's objectives were:

• to increase the availability and accessibility (i.e. public awareness) of tasty, lower fat

menu items in restaurants;

• to provide restaurateurs and consumers with information about lower fat menu items to

enable them to make informed choices;

• to promote restaurants that participate in the program;

• to evaluate the program by exploring customer satisfaction with menu items, and

restaurateurs' and customers' attitudes toward "Fresh Choice".

2.3.1. History and Process

Formative research for "Fresh Choice" was done in the Kitsilano area of

Vancouver in 1991. In this survey, restaurant patrons indicated a preference for lower fat

menu items, including having sauces (47%) and salad dressings (62%) served on the side

(Vancouver Health Department, 1991).

The following year, a survey of 22 food industry representatives and 17

owner/proprietors in the same area indicated a trend towards interest in more healthful

menu items and making lower fat menu choices available to the public (Farrel and

Associates, 1992). This market survey noted that restaurateurs believed the word

"healthy" connoted bland, boring, diet food, that a stigma may be attached to healthier

fare, and that these connotations would decrease the appeal of nutrition promotions in the

restaurant setting. Restaurateurs felt that reassuring, positive terms such as "fresh" and

"delicious" would be preferred over "healthy".

The "Fresh Choice" program was thus designed to make available to restaurant

patrons lower fat, but fiavourful, menu items prepared with little or no added fat. The

nutrition intervention program was based on strategies and techniques from the fields of

22


health promotion and social marketing. Health promotion involves the use of a systems

approach to investigate, inform and change lifestyles to improve health and prevent

disease and is based on understanding the forces that can promote or damage health in the

social and physical environments in which people work and live (Dean, 1990). Social

marketing involves the application of marketing techniques to sell health ideas (Dean,

1990).

In May 1992, restaurateurs and the media were introduced to the "Fresh Choice"

concept and in February 1993, a training workshop was held to encourage restaurant

participation and teach restaurateurs and chefs how to incorporate lower fat ingredients

into existing recipes. A restaurant's acceptance into the program was contingent upon

certain criteria, one of which involved willingness to participate in the evaluation of the

program (see Appendix A). In June 1993, the "Fresh Choice" month began in nine

Vancouver restaurants. The participating restaurants are described in Table 2.1.

Restaurants were contacted prior to and following the evaluation to obtain information on

seating capacity and number of customers. The number of customers per lunch and dinner

was generally three times the seating capacity for each restaurant. The primary target

populations of the "Fresh Choice" campaign were restaurateurs and restaurant patrons,

defined as non-diet restricted, regular (eat out at least two to three times a week) (Forster-

Coull, 1988) and routine (eat out for non-celebratory reasons) diners (Ries, 1987).

23


Table 2.1 Seating Capacity and Average Number of Customers per Day at Participating "Fresh Choice" Restaurants.

Restaurant Seating Capacity Average Number of Customers /

Day (lunch/dinner)

Avenue Grill 40 120

Fettucini's 25 75

Herons 80 240

Inlets 100 300

Isadora's 120 360

Picasso's 65 200

Sierra Grill 110 330

Tomato's 65 200

Vistas 144 300

2.3.2. Menu Items and Program Promotion

The "Fresh Choice" program provided restaurants with pamphlets, table talker

inserts, window decals and "Fresh" special sheets to highlight "Fresh Choice" menu items

(see Appendix A). Restaurateurs were then free to decide how to promote the items. All

changed some pre-existing menu items to meet the "Fresh Choice" criteria of preparing

food with little or no added fat. Some also tried new recipes. They announced menu items

with "Fresh" special sheets (Avenue Grill, Herons, Inlets, Isadora's, Tomato's ), promoted

them with table talkers (Avenue Grill, Fettucini's, Picasso's, Sierra Grill, Tomato's) or on

the menu (Fettucini's) or used a special menu with the restaurant's logo (Picasso's, Vistas)

2 4


and some used window decals (Avenue Grill, Inlets, Picasso's, Tomato's). All restaurants

were supplied with "Fresh Choice" pamphlets which were generally placed near the

entrance to the restaurant.

Because staff training and willingness to participate have been shown to be

extremely important to the success of a restaurant-based nutrition program (Sneed, 1991;

Anderson, 1990; Regan, 1987) the "Fresh Choice" program incorporated staff training

sessions. Meetings with waitstaff were conducted by nutritionists from the "Fresh Choice"

committee to inform them about the program concept and objectives and about

administration of the questionnaire. Waitstaff were asked to provide information on the

macronutrient content (a stipulation of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) of the menu

items to patrons upon request (see Appendix A). Nutrition pamphlets providing

information on "Fresh Choice" menu items and the rationale for the program were

delivered to businesses and community centres in areas where the program's restaurants

were located.

The "Fresh Choice" program included health promotion strategies such as

providing a positive upbeat approach to cue and reinforce the message that healthier foods

can be flavourful and tasty, hopefully to reduce barriers to behaviour change. The desired

effect of the message was to combine consumer interest in enjoyable foods with their

demand for more nutritious selections when eating out.

2.3.3. Study Objectives

The broad purpose of this thesis project was to evaluate indicators of the

effectiveness of the "Fresh Choice" program. The specific objectives were to

a) measure consumer satisfaction with "Fresh Choice" (lower fat) menu items and to

25


b) assess consumer interest in and perception of the "Fresh Choice" restaurant-based

nutrition intervention program.

Satisfaction with the "Fresh Choice" menu items was chosen as a measure of

effectiveness of the program because satisfaction has been shown to be pivotal toward

making an attitude change, and an attitude change is necessary to an intention to

repurchase or to change food behaviour. Although both restaurateurs and customers were

targeted by this program, it was felt that an evaluation of customer satisfaction in the

restaurant setting was pertinent to acceptance of the "Fresh Choice" program by the

restaurateurs and of value to program planners who want to sell the idea that lower fat can

be good-tasting and good for health.

The null hypotheses for this component were:

1. There is no difference in customer satisfaction between "Fresh Choice" and non "Fresh

Choice" items and

2. There is no association between satisfaction with menu items and menu item type, meal

type, frequency of eating out, reason for eating out, eating pattern, specific diet, gender

and age.

The assessment of restaurant patrons' reactions to "Fresh Choice" and eating out

was important because their perspective on the program had not been previously obtained.

The program planners did not know if the developed program would suit the needs and

answer the concerns of consumers. The assessment would also provide insight about

restaurant patronage and nutrition in restaurants, and about the factors influencing eating

out, choice of restaurants and menu items, and satisfaction with menu items.

26

DESIGN AND METHODS

3. DESIGN AND METHODS

3.1 Design Overview

The research design included three phases. Preliminary qualitative data were

collected to identify the components of customer satisfaction with restaurant meals. A

questionnaire designed to measure customer satisfaction with "Fresh Choice" menu items

was developed from these findings, pretested, then implemented during the intervention

month, in June 1993. Semi-structured interviews with selected restaurant patrons were

completed following the intervention to assess acceptance and perception of the "Fresh

Choice" program and nutrition programs in restaurants.

3.2 Quantitative Evaluation of Customer Satisfaction with "Fresh Choice"

Menu Items

Qualitative research was conducted to identify those factors which determine

customer satisfaction with a meal and to develop the satisfaction scale for the

questionnaire. Individuals were approached at a downtown Vancouver university campus

during evening winter session courses in 1993 and asked to complete a brief, self-

administered, open-ended questionnaire about the determinants of their satisfaction with

menu items when eating out. Forty-six individuals responded over a two hour period. The

questionnaire and results are in Appendix B. Factors that were named by respondents

were presentation (17), taste (16), doneness (12), freshness (11), portion size (10)

temperature (9), low-fat (8) and price-value (6). These factors were included on the final

version of the satisfaction scale.

27

DESIGN A N D M E T H O D S

3.2.1. Questionnaire Development and Pre-Testing

A copy of the pretest questionnaire is given in Appendix C. The questionnaire

included questions about specific menu items ordered that day, awareness of whether the

item was a "Fresh Choice" or not, and an open-ended question about reasons for choosing

those items. A five point Likert scale was used to assess customers' degree of satisfaction

with each menu item according to each of the satisfaction descriptors. As well, a global

question on overall satisfaction with menu items and an open-ended question about

overall satisfaction with the meal were included. Other questions characterized

respondents according to frequency of eating out, the reason for eating out at this time,

special diet restrictions, gender, age and income. All questions were included in one page

to intrude upon the diners as little as possible.

The questionnaire was pretested in two of the participating restaurants, during

lunch and dinner periods, on June 15th and 16th. One of these restaurants was a larger,

fine dining establishment and the second was a smaller, casual style restaurant. For the

purposes of the pretest, questions were included concerning difficulties in understanding

the questionnaire and the length of time taken to do it (see Appendix C). Waitstaff were

instructed by their managers or by the researcher to give one questionnaire to every

customer with their bill whether they had a "Fresh Choice" or not. Incomplete and

complete questionnaires were to be placed together in a sealed envelope to be counted

later by the researcher. Any difficulties encountered by the staff in the delivering and

collection of the questionnaires were to be reported to the researcher.

Thirty-three restaurant patrons responded to the pretest. No problems with the

questionnaire or its administration were evident except for some patrons' objections to the

question of income, which was subsequently excluded. The evaluation proceeded as

scheduled during the fourth week of the "Fresh Choice" promotion.

28

DESIGN AND METHODS

3.2.2. Questionnaire Implementation

A total of 2,400 questionnaires (see sample in Appendix D) was distributed to the

nine participating restaurants. Questionnaires were distributed according to seating

number and average number of customers during lunch and dinner periods. A "Fresh

Choice" committee nutritionist and the researcher met with waitstaff to explain evaluation

procedures. In addition, tip sheets (Appendix E) reminding waitstaff of their role in the

evaluation and a contact number in case of problems were also made available. Dated

envelopes, to collect the used questionnaires, were provided for each day of the

implementation and pens were available for customer use. One restaurant (a pretest

restaurant) decided not to implement the survey because the questionnaire was found to

be unsuitable for their clientele. The remaining eight restaurants were visited on a daily

basis throughout the evaluation to count and collect questionnaires and consult with the

waitstaff and management about implementation progress. The head waitress of one

participating restaurant was interviewed following the intervention to gain feedback about

waitstaff s reaction to "Fresh Choice" and their participation in the evaluation research.

3.2.3. Data Analysis

The questionnaires were coded by individual restaurant, day of week and number.

Menu items were coded by type (for example 1= soup) and were then identified by the

researcher as either a "Fresh Choice" or a regular item using menus from the restaurants

during the time of the promotion. Each variable in the satisfaction scale was coded. Coded

values for the descriptors of the scale ranged from one to five, "extremely dissatisfied" to

"extremely satisfied", equivalent to the range on the scale itself. Coding was completed for

all independent variables including whether the item was a "Fresh Choice" or not, meal

type, and demographic data (frequency of eating out, reason for eating out, on a particular

29

DESIGN AND METHODS

diet, diet specification, gender and age) and the dependent variables of the satisfaction

scale.

Means, medians, standard deviations, frequencies and percentages of the

independent variables (menu item classification, meal and menu item type, and respondent

data) and dependent variables (satisfaction scale descriptors) were determined. Two-tailed

independent samples t tests were used to compare respondents' satisfaction with "Fresh

Choice" menu items with their satisfaction with regular items. Intercorrelations between

the degree of satisfaction with different components of the satisfaction scales were

calculated using Spearman's correlation matrices. Finally, two-way A N O V A tests were

completed using four of the satisfaction descriptors (overall satisfaction, lack of fat or

grease, freshness, and taste) as dependent variables, "Fresh Choice" versus regular

classification, and each of the other eight variables as independent variables. All statistical

analyses were conducted using the SPSS ( Statistical Packages for Software Systems) for

Windows 5.0, (Chicago: 1992). A probability of <0.05 was used to determine statistical

significance.

Responses to the open-ended question, asking for reasons for menu item choice,

were analyzed by the frequency with which reasons were mentioned. Similar responses

were grouped together.

3.3. Qualitative Evaluation of Customer Attitudes to "Fresh Choice" Program

The purpose of the qualitative interview was to obtain insight into restaurant

patrons' eating out habits, menu item selections and perspectives on "Fresh Choice" and

nutrition information in restaurants. Nine semi-structured interviews were conducted,

transcribed verbatim and analyzed using cross-case analysis as described by Patton (1990).

30

DESIGN AND METHODS

3.3.1. Interview Guide Development

The interviews were semi-structured; therefore, the main topics to be discussed in

the interview were developed in advance, but the order and exact wording of the questions

were decided during the interview. This format allows participants to raise issues they see

as important and permits the interviewer to follow up these areas. A prototype of the

interview guide is in Appendix F. Specific questions included: the customer's eating out

habits and beliefs on nutrition and health; the customer's perception of the "Fresh Choice"

concept, including the "Fresh Choice" name and promotional materials; the program's

value to the restaurant patron; and the consumer's view of the importance of nutrition

intervention in restaurants in general.

3.3.2. Pilot Testing and Interviewer Training

The interview guide was pilot tested with two individuals who eat out regularly.

They were recruited at the Burrard Health Unit in Vancouver and were not known to the

interviewer. Each interview was tape recorded. The thesis supervisor observed the two

interviews behind a two-way mirror and consulted with the interviewer following each

session to provide advice on interviewing techniques. The length of time needed to

conduct the interview and structural problems within the interview guide were determined

at this time.

3.3.3. Recruitment of Interviewees

Draws to win a dinner for two (donated by "Fresh Choice" participating

restaurants) were used to recruit restaurant diners. The entry forms were pretested with

the questionnaire at two restaurants, one of which later discontinued the evaluation.

Fortunately, because of the pretest held there, entrants for the draw (and therefore

31


potential interviewees) were available from this restaurant. The final entry forms

(Appendix G) were made available to the restaurants before the intervention. During

evaluation, the forms were delivered with, but separate from, the "customer satisfaction

with menu items" questionnaire. The forms asked for entrants' names and phone numbers,

described the requirements and responsibilities of the entrant and explained that

participants would be interviewed on their perceptions of and interest in the "Fresh

Choice" program and nutrition information in restaurants. Only questionnaire respondents

were invited to enter the draw. When completed, the participants were asked to deliver

their entry to a collection box, provided by the researcher, near the entrance.

Nine participants, one from each restaurant, were selected for the interviews. The

voucher for the dinner-for two was given at the conclusion of each interview.

3.3.4. Data Collection

Data collection for the qualitative component of the research began in July and

concluded in October, 1993. Interviews were arranged at the participant's convenience and

most were held in the Family and Nutritional Sciences building at the University of British

Columbia. All interviews were tape recorded and verbatim transcripts were prepared.

Interviews ranged in length from thirty to sixty minutes. An informed consent form

(Appendix H) was signed prior to each interview. Before and after each interview, notes

were kept which were later used to develop summaries about the interviewees.

3.3.5. Data Analysis

Analysis of the interviews followed standard procedures for cross-case analysis

which involves grouping together the answers to common questions from different people

32


(Patton, 1990). The semi-structured interview guide approach allowed for answers to be

grouped in this manner.

To ensure integrity, accuracy, validity and reliability in the analysis, rigorous

methods and techniques were employed. Transcripts were reviewed three times to achieve

familiarity with the data. Throughout the transcribing, coding, and analysis, reflective and

analytic notes were written (Patton, 1990). Then the data were coded in a "top down" or

deductive analytic approach according to interview guide questions (Patton, 1990). This

method, which presupposes areas of interest, was necessary as certain areas were

important to the evaluation. Next, reflective notes were made on the passages, responses,

coded segments and summaries of the interviewees.

The data were then reread to identify areas of interest not previously detected with

the "top down" method of analysis. The second method of coding was "bottom up" or

inductive where the data were read with no preconceived ideas or questions of what might

be found (Patton, 1990). Emergent themes or patterns were identified in this manner, the

data were recoded and reflective notes were written.

The data were then aggregated according to the codes, interpreted and analyzed.

Techniques such as negative case analysis in which a case that does not fit within the

pattern is analyzed, and cross-classification matrices, in which responses to questions and

emergent themes can be viewed in order, helped in the analysis (Patton, 1990). Finally,

reflective and analytic notes on the progress of the interpretive analysis were completed.

33

R E S U L T S

4. R E S U L T S

4.1 Satisfaction Questionnaires

A total of 2000 questionnaires was distributed to the eight restaurants participating

in the evaluation. Not all 2000 questionnaires, however, were distributed to customers.

Overall, an estimated 892 questionnaires were distributed. Of this number 694

questionnaires were completed, 149 were not, and 49 were missing. Therefore, a total of

1108 questionnaires were never distributed. Of the 694 questionnaires completed, eight

were incomplete and unusable. The response rate was estimated by dividing the number of

usable questionnaires by the approximate number of restaurant patrons who would have

been at the restaurants during the promotion. Based on information provided by the

restaurants on seating capacity and the number of individuals usually served during the

lunch and dinner periods it was estimated that approximately 7,000 restaurant patrons

could have received a questionnaire. Included in this figure, however, are a certain

percentage of non-English-speaking tourists who were not given a questionnaire. The 686

questionnaires that were collected would thus represent a minimum response rate of

approximately 10%.

The approximate number of customers who received a questionnaire, is believed to

be 892. Therefore, a response rate of 77% can be calculated to represent the percentage of

customers who received and completed a questionnaire. Questionnaire results from one

restaurant, Picasso Cafe, represent approximately 30% of total data (which may have

skewed the overall results). Only Picasso's, of all eight restaurants, was able to carry out

the research requirements as requested. Response rate from Picasso Cafe was 84%.

Unfortunately, the pretest failed to uncover the difficulties most waitstaff would

encounter with distributing and collecting questionnaires. The total number of

questionnaires placed in collection envelopes was much lower than expected, given the

34

R E S U L T S

total number of patrons served. As well, there were complete lunch and dinner periods or

complete days at some restaurants when the waitstaff failed to distribute the

questionnaires. The research supervisor, who visited a restaurant during the promotion,

was not given a "Fresh Choice" menu or questionnaire. As well, when the researcher was

present at another participating restaurant, no "Fresh Choice" promotion was visible at the

table.

To compensate for the inability to obtain an accurate response rate, a short

questionnaire was given to the waitstaff of each restaurant to determine to the best of their

recollection how many customers they served during the intervention, how many

questionnaires they distributed, and how many were filled out (Appendix I). A total of

twenty-four responded for the eight restaurants. Response rate was found to be highly

variable using this method and therefore was estimated. Waitstaff s reasons given for their

inability to deliver questionnaires were: they had no time; they forgot; and they did not

distribute to non-English speaking customers. Another problem with questionnaire

implementation was that one restaurateur, for convenience, stapled the dinner-for-two

entry forms to the questionnaires. Efforts were made to persuade against this strategy but

the management was firm about keeping them together.

A waitress from a participating restaurant was subsequently interviewed about

difficulties with questionnaire administration. The waitress reported that the questionnaires

made her work more difficult, were inconvenient, got in the way, and were not liked by

staff or customers. She collected most of them even though she repeatedly told staff to do

so but the staff, she felt, did not have enough knowledge or respect for them. Some

questionnaires were even tossed out by mistake by the busperson. The customers, she felt,

had enough paperwork to do doing during the day and did not need more when eating

out. She also stated that her restaurant was a "going to" restaurant where people were on

35

R E S U L T S

their way to something else. The questionnaire might be better suited, she stated, in a

restaurant where people were there to lunch. She liked the name "Fresh Choice" but felt

healthy customers (those without diseases like diabetes) were not interested in knowing

about grams of fat in restaurants: only two customers had asked her for the available

information concerning macronutrient content.

4.1.1. Descriptive Results

From the 686 completed questionnaires, 1127 menu items were rated for

satisfaction. Respondents were asked to identify their menu items which were later

classified as "Fresh Choice" or regular according to the restaurant menus. Table 4.1 shows

the number of "Fresh Choice" and regular menu items rated and the types of menu items

chosen. Regular items were chosen four times as often as "Fresh Choice" items and

entrees were chosen most often. Unclassified items were those that could not be identified

as either "Fresh Choice" or a regular. Appetizers and beverages are included in the

category of "other".

36

RESULTS

Table 4.1 Menu Items Rated in Satisfaction Questionnaires (n=1127)*

Number %

"Fresh Choice" Items

Yes

No

Unknown

Menu Item Type

Soup

Entree

Salad

Dessert

Other

205

878

44

106

595

128

104

190

18.2

77.9

3.9

9.4

52.8

11.4

9.2

16.9

* Totals may not add up to 1127 due to missing data

In Table 4.2 answers to the open-ended question about the reason for menu item

choice are given. In all, 274 reasons were given for choosing the 205 "Fresh Choices"

while 729 reasons were given for choosing the 878 regular items. Both menu item types

were chosen most frequently because they were "favorites or preferences" indicating

previous satisfaction. "Nutrition/health", "low fat/low cal/light" and "appealed/were

craved" were the next most important reasons to choose a "Fresh Choice" at

approximately 14% each. In contrast, the second most common reason for choosing

regular items was because they "appealed/ were craved". "Nutritious" reasons for

37

RESULTS

choosing these menu items were low in comparison. The frequencies of remaining reasons

for choosing either type of menu item were similar.

Table 4.2 Reasons for Choosing "Fresh Choice" and Regular Menu Items

Type of Menu Item

Reasons for Selection "Fresh Choice" Regular

n % n %

Favorite/Preference 67 24 217 30

Nutrition/Health 39 14 53 7

Low Fat/Low Cal/Light 37 14 48 7

Appealed/were Craved 35 13 179 25

New Experience 23 8 38 5

Special/Value 18 7 32 4

Taste/Spicy/Flavorful 17 5 45 6

Hungry/Filling/Thirsty 13 5 37 5

Vegetarian/Dairy free 9 3 22 3

Fresh 8 3 14 2

Appropriate for Day/Time 5 2 14 2

"Fresh Choice" 3 1

Recommended/Limited Choice — — 30 4

Total 274 99% 729 100%

38

RESULTS

The dining occasions at which questionnaires were completed are described in

Table 4.3. Most dining occasions were lunch, and most were not special occasions. The

"other" category includes breakfast and snack meal types.

Table 4.3 Description of Dining Occasions in Which Questionnaires

Were Completed (N=686)*

Dining Occasion Number %

Meal Type

Lunch 482 70.3

Dinner 141 20.0

Other 52 7.6

Special Occasion

Yes 102 14.9

No 567 82.7

* Totals may not add up to 686 due to missing data

The restaurant patrons who completed the questionnaires are described in Table

4.4. Over 60% of respondents ate out at least twice weekly, and few reported being on a

diet. Over half were women and 34% were in the 35-49 age group.

39

RESULTS

Table 4.4 Description of Diners Who Completed Questionnaires (n=686)

Number %

Frequency of Eating Out

<2x/week 241 35.1

2-3x/week 264 38.5

>3x/week 156 22.7

No Response 25 3.7

On a Particular Diet

Yes 129 18.8

No 525 76.5

No Response 32 4.6

Gender

Male 234 34.1

Female 402 58.6

No Response 50 7.3

Age

<24 76 11.1

25-34 202 29.4

35-49 233 34.0

> 50 157 22.9

No Response 18 2J5

40

RESULTS

4.1.2. Customers' Satisfaction with Characteristics of "Fresh Choice" and Regular

Menu Items

As shown in Table 4.5, diners' satisfaction with "Fresh Choice" menu items was

significantly higher than their satisfaction with regular items for all satisfaction descriptors.

The difference was highly significant (p < 0.001) for the descriptors "not over or

undercooked", "lack of fat and grease", "freshness", "taste" and "overall satisfaction".

Table 4.5 Satisfaction with "Fresh Choice" Versus Regular Menu Items

"Fresh Choice" Regular

Satisfaction Descriptors

Total X 1 ±SD n X 1 ±SD n P2

Not over/undercooked 803 4.55 .70 152 4.28 .81 651 .000

Lack of fat/grease 890 4.53 .76 176 4.17 .89 714 .000

Freshness 991 4.64 .68 188 4.40 .75 803 .000

Portion Size 999 4.49 .83 195 4.32 .83 804 .011

Presentation 1003 4.39 .81 195 4.28 .78 808 .023

Taste 1020 4.50 .83 196 4.26 .82 824 .000

Temperature 924 4.40 .87 183 4.18 .84 741 .002

Value for Price 990 4.30 .85 194 4.12 .88 796 .007

Overall Satisfaction 989 4.47 .76 192 4.27 .81 797 .001

' Mean satisfaction scores as measured on 5 point scale where 1 =extremely dissatisfied and 5=extremely satisfied 2 "Fresh Choice" versus regular as determined by independent samples t test.

41

R E S U L T S

Because the customers' identification of menu items as "Fresh Choice" did not

always agree with the restaurant's classification, further means comparison tests were

conducted to assess whether there was a difference in satisfaction with menu items which

customers correctly and incorrectly identified as "Fresh Choice" or regular. In Table 4.6,

satisfaction with "Fresh Choice" menu items correctly identified as such is compared with

satisfaction with regular menu items which customers identified as "Fresh Choice". For all

satisfaction descriptors, satisfaction with true "Fresh Choice" items was higher than

satisfaction with regular items which customers believed to be "Fresh Choice" selections.

The difference was statistically significant for the descriptors "not over or undercooked",

"freshness" and "taste".

42

RESULTS

Table 4.6 Satisfaction with Menu Items Correctly and Incorrectly Classified as "Fresh Choice" by Customers.

"Fresh Choice" Regular1

Satisfaction Scale Total X 1 ±SD n X 1 ±SD n PJ


Lack of fat or grease 310 4.56 .76 136 4.39 .86 174 .065

Freshness 350 4.66 .70 148 4.49 .71 202 .021

Portion Size 347 4.49 .74 153 4.34 .83 194 .082

Presentation 348 4.43 .82 152 4.37 .76 196 .469

Taste 357 4.56 .80 153 4.38 .78 204 .041

Temperature 325 4.45 .85 144 4.30 .77 181 .091

Value for price 344 4.33 .83 151 4.19 .91 193 .148

Overall satisfaction 341 4.50 .74 150 4.42 .72 191 .340

1 Mean satisfaction scores as measured on 5point scale where 1 ̂ extremely dissatisfied and 5=extremely satisfied 1 Incorrectly classified by customer as "Fresh Choice" 3 "Fresh Choice" versus regular as determined by independent samples t test.

43

RESULTS

Table 4.7 compares the satisfaction with regular menu items which customers

incorrectly identified as "Fresh Choice" with those items that were correctly classified as

regular. In most cases, the incorrectly identified "Fresh Choice" items had a higher mean

ranking than the regular items. These differences were significant in the categories of

"lack of fat or grease", "temperature" and "overall satisfaction".

Table 4.7 Satisfaction with Regular Menu Items Correctly and Incorrectly Classified by Customers.

"Fresh Choice"1 Regular

Satisfaction Scale Total X 1 +SD n X 1 +SD n PJ



Freshness 522 4.49 .71 202 4.45 .71 320 .583

Portion Size 517 4.43 .83 194 4.37 .79 323 .732

Presentation 519 4.37 .76 196 4.24 .77 323 .060

Taste 531 4.38 .78 204 4.27 .80 327 .110

Temperature 477 4.30 .77 181 4.14 .88 296 .040

Value for price 514 4.19 .91 193 4.09 .90 321 .242


1 Mean satisfaction scores as measured on 5 point scale where 1 =extremely dissatisfied and 5=extremely satisfied 2 Regular menu items incorrectly classified as "Fresh Choice" 3 "Fresh Choice" versus regular as determined by independent samples t test.

44

RESULTS

The menu items correctly classified as "Fresh Choice" and correctly classified as

regular by the customers are compared in Table 4.8. "Portion size" was the only category

where there was not a significantly greater satisfaction with "Fresh Choice" than with

"Regular" items. The difference in satisfaction was highly significant for "lack of fat and

grease", "taste" and "temperature" (p<0.001).

Table 4.8 Satisfaction with Menu Items Classified Correctly by Customers.

"Fresh Choice" Regular

Satisfaction Scale Total X 1 ±SD n X 1 ±SD n P2



Freshness 468 4.66 .70 148 4.45 .71 320 .003

Portion Size 476 4.49 .74 153 4.37 .79 323 .102

Presentation 475 4.43 .82 152 4.24 .77 323 .013

Taste 480 4.56 .80 153 4.27 .80 327 .000

Temperature 440 4.45 .85 144 4.14 .88 296 .000

Value for price 472 4.33 .83 151 4.09 .90 321 .007


'Mean satisfaction scores as measured on 5point scale where l=extremely dissatisfied and 5=extremely satisfied 2 "Fresh Choice" versus regular as determined by independent samples t test.

45

RESULTS

In summary, whether an item was classified by restaurant identification or

customer identification, "Fresh Choices" were found to be ranked higher than regular

items. In Tables 4.5 and 4.8 (restaurant and customer classification respectively) where all

items were correctly identified as "Fresh Choice" and regular the results were highly

significant for "overall satisfaction", "lack of fat and grease", "freshness" and "taste", the

most important satisfaction descriptors to the "Fresh Choice" program.

4.1.3. Intercorrelations Among Satisfaction Descriptors and Overall Satisfaction

Scale

Spearman's correlation analysis was used to test for correlations amongst the

satisfaction descriptors. As shown in table 4.9, "overall satisfaction" was highly correlated

with other descriptors and was therefore used as a proxy for the others in further statistical

analyses. "Lack of fat", "freshness" and "taste", were considered important to the goals of

the "Fresh Choice" program, and were also tested as dependent variables in the A N O V A

tests.

46

RESULTS

Table 4.9 Correlation Coefficients Among Components of the Satisfaction Scale within all Menu Items.

Satisfaction Not over Lack of Fresh. Portion Present Taste Temp. Value Overall Descriptors or fat or size for satisfaction

under grease price cooked

Not over or 1.00 undercooked

Lack of fat or .45 1.00 grease

Freshness .69 .48 1.00

Portion size .44 .36 .39 1.00

Presentation .47 .38 .52 .49 1.00

Taste .62 .46 .62 .44 .55 1.00

Temperature .54 .40 .55 .48 .52 . 61 1.00

Value for .43 .40 .49 .52 .52 .52 .53 1.00 price

Overall .59 .49 . 65 . 51 .58 . 71 .62 . 67 1.00 satisfaction . •

All correlations highly significant, p=0.000. Correlation coefficients as determined by Spearman's.

47

RESULTS

Intercorrelations among components of the satisfaction scale within "Fresh

Choice" items alone and within regular items alone were also examined with similar

results. The information is given in Appendix J.

4.1.4. Satisfaction with "Fresh Choice" and Regular Menu Items by Meal and

Demographic Categories

Two-way A N O V A tests were completed to compare satisfaction with "Fresh

Choice" versus regular items in the different meal and demographic categories. Results of

these tables are summarized in Tables 4.10 to 4.17. Complete results are found in

Appendix J. In most instances, no significant differences were found between the various

meal and demographic categories. The only exception was that regular diners rated their

satisfaction with the "freshness" of menu items higher than special occasion diners rated

their satisfaction. Otherwise, satisfaction did not vary according to menu item type, meal

type, frequency with which the respondent ate out, the dining occasion, the respondent's

eating pattern, diet, gender and age. Within each category, "Fresh Choices" continued to

be rated significantly higher than regular menu items in most instances. The exceptions

were of classification by "specific diet", "menu item type" and "dining occasion". The

findings of these analyses again indicate that customers who selected "Fresh Choices"

were more satisfied than those who chose regular items.

48

RESULTS

Two-way ANOVA Summary Tables

Table 4.10 Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items Grouped by Menu Item Classification and Menu Item Type

Satisfaction Descriptor Classification Menu Item Type

"Fresh Choice"/Regular Soup/Salad/Entree/Dessert

Overall Satisfaction .088' .199

Lack of Fat/Grease .001 .086

Freshness .009 .638

Taste .061 .384

1 p values determined by 2x4 ANOVA tests where Satisfaction Descriptors were the dependent variables and menu item classification and type were the independent variables: Complete data are found in Appendix J.

Table 4.11 Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items Grouped by Menu Item Classification and Meal Type

Satisfaction Descriptor Classification

"Fresh Choice"/Regular

Meal Type

Lunch/Dinner



Freshness .001 .440

Taste .001 .083

1 p values determined by 2x2 ANOVA tests where Satisfaction Descriptors were the dependent variables and menu item classification and type were the independent variables: Complete data are found in Appendix J.

49

RESULTS

Table 4.12 Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items Grouped by Menu Item Classification and Frequency of Eating Out


"Fresh Choice" / Regular

Frequency of Eating Out

<2x/wk, 2-3x/wk, >3x/wk

Overall Satisfaction .0021 .280


Freshness .000 .730

Taste .001 .062

1 p values determined by 2x3 A N O V A tests where Satisfaction Descriptors were the dependent variables and menu item classification and type were the independent variables: Complete data are found in Appendix J.

Table 4.13 Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items Grouped by Menu Item Classification and Reason for Eating Out



Reason for Eating Out

Occasion, Regular Dining



Freshness .163 .016

Taste .081 .810


50

RESULTS

Table 4.14 Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items Grouped by Menu Item Classification and Eating Pattern



Eating Pattern

On Diet, Not On Diet



Freshness .009 .341

Taste .024 .242

' p values determined by 2x2 A N O V A tests where Satisfaction Descriptors were the dependent variables and menu item classification and type were the independent variables: Complete data are found in Appendix J .

Table 4.15 Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items Grouped by Menu Item Classification and Specific Diet



Specific Diet

Veget., Low Fat, Other



Freshness .546 .947

Taste .713 .469

1 p values determined by 2x3 A N O V A tests where Satisfaction Descriptors were the dependent variables and menu item classification and type were the independent variables: Complete data are found in Appendix J .

51

RESULTS

Table 4.16 Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items Grouped by Menu Item Classification and Gender



Gender

Male/Female



Freshness .000 .446

Taste .001 .078


Table 4.17 Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items Grouped by Menu Item Classification and Age



Age

<25, 25-34, 35-49, >50



Freshness .001 .460

Taste .002 .226


52

R E S U L T S

4.2. Interviews

The second phase of the "Fresh Choice" evaluation employed qualitative research

techniques to assess restaurant patrons' ideas, perceptions and opinions on "eating out" in

restaurants and their acceptance of and attitude towards the "Fresh Choice" program.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine subjects recruited during a ten day

period in the "Fresh Choice" promotion month of June, 1993. The findings from the

interviews are presented in three sections. The first section briefly introduces and describes

the nine interview participants. Their general views on eating out will be presented in the

second section. The third section focuses on their specific reactions to the "Fresh Choice"

program.

4.2.1. The Interviewees

Five women and four men ranging in age from mid-twenties to over fifty

participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviewees were selected from an estimated

amount between 500 to 750 entrants. Research requirements stipulated that each customer

receive a questionnaire and an entry form delivered by the waitstaff. The estimation of

entry forms, therefore, is based on the number of questionnaires that were distributed and

filled out. When entrants were selected as potential interviewees and contacted it was

discovered that some had filled out the form only.

As shown in Table 4.18, the participants had varied backgrounds, careers (many

service-oriented) and living situations. Eight were born in Canada and appeared

Caucasian; the ninth was from a visible minority group and had moved to Canada from

Hong Kong when she was a teenager. Seven individuals ate out at least 2-3 times a week

while two ate out at least once a month. The three participants who ate out regularly for

lunch were older, had well paying jobs, and worked in locations with a selection of

restaurants nearby. Participants in the 25-34 year old age group usually ate out for lunch

53

RESULTS

on days off or for dinner. Two women and two men of the group were married, and one

single woman was in a long term relationship with a man. Two single women lived with

family and two single men lived alone.

Table 4.18 Profiles of the Nine Interviewees and the Restaurants Where

Recruited

Interviewees Age (approx)

Gender Occupation Frequency of Eating Out

Usual Time of Eating Out

Status Living Situation

Carol * Sierra Grill

>50 F Civil Servant / Retail sales

>7x/week Lunch Work days

Single Lives with mother

Darren Fettucini's

25-34 M Aerobics Instructor

> 2-3x/week Dinner Single Lives alone

Eldon Heron's

>50 M Insurance Agent

> 2-3x/week Lunch Work Days

Married Lives with wife

Kelley Inlet's

2-34 F Waitress / Caterer

< 2-3x/week Lunch/Dinner Days off

Married Lives with husband

Larry Tomato's

25-34 M Unemployed Waiter

>2-3x/week Lunch/Dinner Days off

Single Lives alone

LauraLee (visible minority) Vistas

25-34 F Program Assistant

>2-3x/week Lunch/Dinner Days off

Single Lives with daughter

Melanie Avenue Grill

>50 F Psychiatrist >7x/week Lunch Work days

Married Lives with husband

Rory Isadora's

35-49 M Engineer < 2-3x/week Dinner Days off

Married Lives with family

Suzanne Picasso's

<25 F Student/ Waitress

>3-5x/week Dinner Days Off

Single Lives with boyfriend

* Subjects' names are pseudonyms

54

RESULTS

Table 4.19 summarizes interviewees' descriptions of their eating patterns and the

roles of nutrition, exercise and health in their lives. "Eating Habits" refers to eating

patterns and diets followed when "eating out". All but one of the interviewees specified

some area of diet restriction, usually weight watching or a type of vegetarianism. When

asked during the interview whether they were on a particular diet or not most interviewees

stated they were not. However, in the context of the interview they indicated that they

restricted food intake. The individual with no diet restrictions (except for diet foods)

preferred a "fatty steak" on the infrequent occasions when he ate out. He said he felt

healthy and must therefore be eating healthily. Interviewees who identified themselves as

semi-vegetarians ate little or no red meat when eating out; their preferred foods were

chicken, seafood, pasta, salads and fruits and vegetables. Desserts, red meat dishes and

fatty foods were avoided by those who ate out frequently because eating less of these

foods was considered healthy.

Interviewees were asked how nutrition and health fit into their lives. Those who

ate out frequently said an everyday standard of sensible eating and nutritional balance was

important. For those who ate out infrequently, good nutrition meant good physical health

and appearance. Both nutrition and exercise were seen as important in contributing to

overall health (which was described as a state of well-being).

55

RESULTS

Table 4.19 Patterns of Interviewees' Eating Habits, Nutrition, Exercise and Health

Eating Habits Foods Preferred

Foods Avoided

The Meaning ofNutrition

Exercise The Meaning Habits ofHealth

Vegetarian Stir fries Seafood

Chemically treated foods

Vital, organic foods Everyday standard

Physical >mental Good nutrition

D Watches weight Chicken Pasta

Watches weight Lamb Fish

Desserts

Large portions

Maintaining caloric Aerobics Physically active intake, Partner with exercise for health Sensible eating Cycles

Keeping in shape, Healthy attitude

Happy well and satisfied

K Bland diet (Diet restricted)

Fruit/Veg Chicken

Fried, spicy foods

Cheesecake Chemically treated foods

High carb low fat Pasta Red meat Semi-vegetarian Seafood Grilled foods

Fruits/veg

Physical health and appearance

Limiting fat intake Part of healthy lifestyle, balance

Cycles

Cycles swims weights

Physical appearance

Mental, physical emotional spiritual

LL Follows food guide Semi-vegetarian

Salad Pasta Seafood

Red Meat Fried foods MSG

Balance of foods Energy, Promotes health

Exercise Physical > mental class and emotional

M Iridologist's Salad recommendations Chicken Semi-vegetarian Dairy

R Not on diet, likes Steak food

S Watches weight Salads Semi-vegetarian Thai food

Dairy, red meats seafood, desserts Diet foods

Fatty foods sauces, red meat

Important to health Walks State of well-being

No diseases (so must eat nutritionally) 4 on a Scale of 5 "Eating out", a 3

Cycles runs soccer

Nutrition>physical

Physically active in shape

56

RESULTS

4.2.2. The Role of Eating Out in Participants' Lives

The interviews included questions about the significance of restaurant eating for

the participants. The descriptions and explanations that ensued are discussed below in

three sections: the meaning of "eating out"; "eating out" patterns in relation to the context

of individuals' lives; and selection of and satisfaction with restaurants and menu items.

4.2.2.1 The Meaning of Eating Out

Interviewees were asked to define "eating out" in restaurants and describe the

place of "eating out" in their lives. One replied,

"I adore eating out, I just love it. I love sitting there and having people serve me...I

guess it's partly because when I get home from work and I've had a heavy day I don't

feel like setting out to cook. And on the weekends also I like eating out because again ...

I've worked all week and I just want to relax and take things easy".

There were a number of commonalities in participants' descriptions of "eating

out". "Eating out" was described as having a meal, usually dinner, at a table service

restaurant. It was a planned event that provided the customer with relaxation, social

entertainment and some choice in selections. "Eating out" was viewed as a reward or treat

to oneself that provided "emotional satisfaction" by catering to individual's wants and

needs and "tummy satisfaction" by providing enough food to feel replenished. Fulfilled

needs led to overall satisfaction with the "eating out" experience.

When asked about "eating out" and how it fit into their lives, individuals would

invariably talk about "going out to eat". The term "eating out" was used by frequent diners

to describe eating out alone, with a client for business reasons, eating out routinely

everyday, or when already away from home.

57

R E S U L T S

"Going out to eat" usually implied movement away from the home environment, a

social and/or special occasion, and eating out on days off or for dinner. When "going out

to eat" interviewees were inclined to be more indulgent with food and money but when

"eating out", they tried to be frugal. Interviewees who ate out infrequently used "going out

to eat" exclusively to describe "eating out" because everytime they ate out was special.

One interviewee used "going out to eat" to describe having dinner alone when out of town

and associated it with a break from the routine. Only in this situation were his choices

unrestricted by others and could he exercise freedom of choice of restaurants and menu

items.

Eating Out as an Indulgence. The interviewees talked about eating out as being an

indulgence, in contrast to other eating away from home practices which they described as

obtaining needed sustenance. There were two ways that eating out was viewed as

indulgent. First, the eating out experience was indulgent in itself and second, the food

chosen could be indulgent.

Indulgence, or pleasing and pampering the self, was an integral part of eating out

and an essential component of desired "emotional satisfaction" with the eating out

experience. Eating out as an indulgence meant having others provide for you. Interviewees

who worked in service-oriented positions and/or were meal providers at home described

eating out as a deserved reward for the work they had done during the day or week. At

the end of a day of serving others, they wanted and needed to be served. Restaurants

fulfilled this need to be provided for and catered to with food and attention. The following

quote shows the importance of eating out to the interviewee not because of the food but

because someone else provided it.

58

R E S U L T S

"...working as a waiter ...a lot of times serving the public, I would want to go out

and be waited on... somebody to look after me for a while."

For this waiter, being served in a restaurant was a change in status and recognition, a

reversal of his position during the day. Someone would now look after his needs. Four

interviewees described eating out as having "everything" - meal preparation, serving, and

clean-up - done by someone else.

" / would much rather just go in there (a restaurant) and relax and have someone else

worry...about it, doing everything."

These interviewees were responsible for the meal tasks at home.

The frequency of eating out did not affect the need to be indulged by others. One

interviewee ate out more than seven times a week and defined eating out for lunch as

"my time to myself where she enjoyed " the service, the people and the food'.

Some participants indicated that restaurants should care for the customer's well-

being, accommodate one's needs, and give individualized, specialized attention. When

restaurants provided this kind of service, they were warm, caring and giving and not so

much a business.

One interviewee felt that when a restaurant gives special attention to its clientele,

" ...(it) shows that they are thinking about people ... their needs rather than just how

much money they can make on a given dish."

59

RESULTS

Another individual indicated when eating out she placed her trust in restaurants to

stay within certain criteria of nutrition to safe-guard her health. An interviewee who did

not eat out frequently mentioned that being comfortable and cozy, indicating a home-like

atmosphere, was important and part of eating out for her. The individuals who did not

talk of restaurants as caring for their emotional needs were married men. This may have

had relevance to their living situation.

Eating out was an indulgent experience but certain foods, such as fried or fatty

foods, junk food and desserts were described as indulgent and unhealthy because they

carried unneeded extras that interviewees could not always afford: extra calories, extra fat,

and if desserts, extra expense. Participants who ate out frequently usually tried to maintain

a standard of nutritious eating that restricted their intake of these unhealthy, luxury items.

However, occasional consumption of these items was not perceived as damaging to their

health as long as they followed their nutrition standards and lifestyle practices most of the

time.

"...eating out doesn't mean you eat things that aren't goodfor you ...you might

indulge now and eat an ice-cream, shouldn't, but you do... (you should) go on a basic

everyday standard of good eating habits so that the odd time you might incorporate

something, or something (might) not be quite right it's not going to ....rock the boat."

Indulgence of cravings for foods like ice-cream, cheesecake, or bacon and eggs

was usually justified as a special occasion or for a reward. The more special the occasion,

the more the frequent restaurant diners felt they could indulge themselves with high fat,

high calorie or expensive foods. One interviewee said selection of a dessert that he called

"decadent" or "obscene" depends on:

60

R E S U L T S

"...how I'm feeling...IfI haven't been working out for a while... I'll consciously

watch myself.. if I've been really good, I'll reward myself."

Interviewees who rarely ate out tended to indulge themselves with foods they

considered unhealthy but desirable. These were usually dessert foods, but also included

fatty items such as fried foods, fattening sauces, and steaks. One interviewee ordered steak

the majority of times he ate out and said:

"...ifyou feel like eating something gross and non-nutrition(al), go for it. You know

because we do it so infrequently...it's not really a factor."

Although eating out was usually viewed as a deserved indulgence, it could also

become an overindulgence if indulgent foods were eaten excessively and frequently, and if

more money was spent on eating out than was affordable. One interviewee felt he ate out

more than he "should". The stated reason was the expense, but he also told of

overindulging in smoking, drinking and eating out while living in Japan and as a result,

"...(I) gained a lot of weight and Ifelt extremely unhealthy.. .1felt really terrible about

myself ...Now, I'm so into health I wouldn't want to be succumbing to that."

Threat of weight gain, feeling terrible and the cost of excessive eating out were the

reasons he restricted eating out and food indulgences.

In summary, frequent, regular dining was seen as indulging in the need to be cared

for, and was associated with conscious restriction of unhealthy, expensive foods. "Going

out to eat" for special occasions and celebratory events was linked with more indulgent

eating behaviours but was not considered overindulgence. However, frequent

61

RESULTS

consumption of luxury foods was seen as overindulgent, leading to weight gain and cash

shortage.

Comparison of Eating Out with "Grabbing and Picking up Some Food"

"...eating out to me is more of a relaxed...not formal necessarily, but a relaxed type of...

planned event... I'll stop at Benny's Bagel or something on the way home quite

frequently and grab something or sit down there but that's not eating out to me. Eating

out..I consider more of a treat as opposed to something that's necessary to fuel my

body."

In defining eating out, interviewees often contrasted eating out with "grabbing

some food" and "picking up some food". The main differences between the two types of

eating away from home are summarized in Table 4.20. Restaurant dining provided the

elements necessary for interviewees' "emotional satisfaction", the endpoint for the self-

indulgent eating out experience: a comfortable atmosphere and accoutrements for dining,

including table and settings which joined people together and permitted a shared social

activity to occur; personal service that catered to the customer and encouraged social

interaction; and variety of selection, including preparation methods and dishes that

provided "tummy satisfaction". Eating out in restaurants also required more planning, time

and money.

"Grabbing and picking up food" were terms used by younger interviewees and

were activities distinct from eating out because emotional needs were not met and the

experience was not considered indulgent. There was no prolonged personal service, no

comfortable atmosphere, no sharing of a well prepared, well presented meal with others

around a common table and no permanence in the throw-away utensils and containers.

62

RESULTS

Table 4.20 Comparison of the Characteristics of Eating Out and "Grabbing Some Food"

"Eating Out" or "Going Out to Eat"

"Grabbing and Picking up Some Food" (ages 25-34)

Eat in restaurant Take-away / eat elsewhere

"Emotional satisfaction"

Self-indulgent / treat

"Tummy satisfaction"

Necessary /sustenance / fuel

Prolonged service encounter Brief service encounter

Social occasion Solitary experience

Joined with others at table Eat wherever

Cutlery and plates Plastic utensils / containers/finger foods

Meal /1-3 courses (i.e. salad and entree)

Typically one food item / snack (i.e. "hot dog")

Healthier food "Fast food" / not as healthy

Selection important Selection not as important

Time / relaxed Lack of time / hurried

Planned ahead / organized No set plan, organization

More expensive Less expensive

63

RESULTS

The food was "fast", unhealthy and sometimes lacking in taste or flavour and thus

selection was not as important. "Grabbing and picking up some food" were necessary

activities for sustenance and prevailed because of lack of time, organization, and money.

These activities contrast sharply to eating out. There are few similarities between the two

other than that both are forms of eating away from home where food that someone else

has prepared is purchased.

4.2.2.2. Eating Out in Relation to Work and Home Contexts

The following section discusses interviewees' descriptions of their eating out habits

in the context of their specific home and work situations. Lunch time eating out patterns

appeared to be affected more by interviewees' work situations, while eating out for dinner

and on days off related more to individuals' living situations.

Eating Out for Lunch on Work Days. Three interviewees ate out for lunch almost every

day of the week as their professions allowed for and required a definite lunch hour. One

ate out for business and the others ate out for personal reasons. What these three had in

common was that they were older, did not go out for a social outing at lunch time, could

afford to not prepare their own food and had enough time to go out for a lunch at a

tableservice restaurant. All three structured eating out into their days. The two women had

highly organized eating out patterns. They stayed with familiar restaurants close to work,

usually ate alone and controlled how they spent their lunch time. The man did not have the

same organized lunch as he had little choice in where he ate, when he ate and sometimes

what he ate, as choices depended on his clients.

64

RESULTS

In comparison, the four individuals who ate out infrequently for lunch were

younger, had less time for lunch and therefore less control or choice over how they spent

it. They purchased ready-to-eat foods or brought a lunch to eat at the workplace, were

under more time and location constraints, and on the infrequent occasions when they did

eat out for lunch on a work day, it was for a celebratory event. The following quote is

from an interviewee who seldom ate out for lunch,

"...eating out for lunch would mean completely removing myselffrom the

environment that I'm in and doing something for an hour that's really relaxing,

which seldom happens, but when it does, it's nice."

The interviewees who did not or could not organize eating into a structured

pattern and were at the mercy of their schedules, often "grabbed something to eat" or

"picked up something".

Eating Out for Lunch on Days Off and Eating Out for Dinner. Eating out for lunch

on days off and for dinner seemed easier to organize into interviewees' days although two

had work schedules that interfered. Eating out for lunch on days off was enjoyed by all but

one interviewee who avoided it because he associated it with work. On days off, friends,

partners or family tended to be sharing the eating out experience, and therefore it was a

social outing. In comparison to eating out for lunch, eating out for dinner tended to be

more formal and planned, depending on the reason for eating out.

"...every once in a while my boyfriend and I will go out for, you know, a nice dinner

and we'll put some money into it but...usually it's just kind of going out casually (for

lunch) with friends..."

65

R E S U L T S

The most predominant reasons for eating out for dinner or lunch on days off were:

to be catered to; for a social outing; to get out of meal planning and preparation work; for

convenience; for a new taste experience; or for a special occasion.

Two individuals did not eat out frequently at these times for financial reasons and

lack of time. One participant who ate out rarely said that she could not eat out as often as

she likes (due to finances). The other individual and his wife were too busy to eat out

regularly, but would go out to eat whenever they could get some time together. When

eating out, these infrequent diners were usually with their partners; they would rarely go

out to eat with friends.

Patterns of eating out outside of the work day seemed profoundly affected by

living situation. Of the nine subjects interviewed, three women and two men were in long

term, heterosexual, living situations while two single males lived alone and two women

lived with one other family member. None of the interviewees had small children under

six. All but one lived in single or two person households.

The one individual who lived in a nuclear family situation with his wife and teen-

aged children ate out infrequently, because it was rare that he and his wife would have the

time to go out for dinner. When they did, it was a either spontaneous treat for the two of

them or a planned event with another couple. Cooking dinner at home on the weekdays

was a responsibility shared by all five members of his family. The other married man was

the eldest male in the group. When not working, he avoided eating out for lunch because

he did it so often for his job. He and his wife did, however, eat out for brunch or dinner on

weekends to save work at home and to see friends.

The three women in long term relationships did not like to cook but they were

responsible for the provision of household food. Getting out of preparing a meal, being

66

RESULTS

catered to by others, and trying foods they did not cook at home were reasons for them to

eat out. These women talked about the restaurant as something that would take over the

responsibility of planning and cooking meals from them. One ate out infrequently due to

financial reasons but said,

/ like it (eating out) because I do not enjoy cooking...I enjoy different foods, ones that I

would not think to cook up."

The two individuals who lived alone were single, gay men. Although one loved to

cook for himself and for friends, his friends preferred to eat out and he would eat out to

see them. The other man never cooked, and at most, would prepare sandwiches or have

take-out food. He considered the latter to be eating in or at home. Both of these

individuals ate out frequently and a predominant reason for eating out was to see their

friends on a social outing and for convenience.

One said that eating out was,

"...a fairly major part of my life especially on a social standpoint, getting together with

friends..."

The last two interviewees lived with family members who were not partners. One

lived with her mother while the other lived with her six year old daughter. The daughter

interviewee ate out seven days a week for lunch because she did not like preparing

sandwiches, and would have dinner at home cooked by her mother. When eating out for

dinner she was often with her mother. The mother interviewee ate out at least two to three

times a week. She and her daughter would eat out for dinner when she did not want to

cook for them. In both of these situations, the mother and daughter were close

67

RESULTS

companions. For the mother who cooked, eating out was a social outing and convenient;

for the daughter who did not cook it was a celebratory occasion and convenient.

All five of the women interviewed worked outside the home. Four were

responsible for cooking in the home though three stated that they did not want that

responsibility. A predominant reason for eating out for those women was to abandon their

food related roles.

4.2.3. Customers' Restaurant and Menu Selections and Satisfaction with Selections

The interview participants were asked specific questions about the determinants of

their restaurant and menu item selections and their satisfaction with menu items. The

decision of where and what to eat was a many faceted process. Selections were influenced

by previous restaurant and menu experience and the extent of choices available. Selections

were also influenced by the reason for eating out: when eating out for a new taste

experience, previous satisfaction with restaurant and menu items was a less important

factor.

4.2.3.1. Influences on Restaurant Selections

Participants who had a satisfying experience in a restaurant were likely to choose

that restaurant again. Table 4.21 lists the factors from previous experience which

influenced restaurant selection, including service, atmosphere and satisfaction with the

food served. Participants who avoided meat also looked for menu flexibility and variety.

Several participants indicated that reasons for eating out would have a strong influence on

the type of restaurant chosen. For instance, a different type of restaurant would be chosen

for a social outing, as opposed to a special occasion which might warrant a three course

meal, spending more money, and being more indulgent with selections. This distinction

68

R E S U L T S

was particularly noted by a participant who ate out every Friday night with her husband to

celebrate the end of the week. She said,

" ..a Friday evening meal ...I want a more special, you know, a special environment and

not feeling crowded in with everybody. "

Restaurant selections of participants who ate out infrequently were not influenced

by special occasions because every time they ate out was considered a treat. Sometimes

interviewees looked for new taste experiences and selected restaurants to meet this goal.

Some who mentioned this were responsible for providing and preparing meals at home.

Individuals also would select a restaurant for the house specialties for which it was known.

In this ease the menu item would take precedence when selection was being made such as

going to "The Keg" (a restaurant that specializes in steak) for a steak. Other factors were

familiarity with choices, recommendations from friends or restaurant, and coupons

offered. As well, food cravings for specific ethnic dishes or form of preparation were

discussed as factors in restaurant selection.

69

RESULTS

Table 4.21 Determinants of Restaurant Selection

Satisfaction with Previous Experience with the Restaurant

Other Factors Factors Limiting Selection

Service Low fat Reason eating out Amount of time

Atmosphere Temperature Frequency eating out Price range

Food preparation Texture New taste experience Convenience

Presentation Value for price Familiarity Diet needs

Food freshness Menu flexibility / variety Recommendations Company

Portion size Company Coupons Awareness of nutrition programs

Taste Food craving

Factors that limited interviewees' choice of restaurants were usually beyond their

control. These included the amount of time available (especially at lunch), the amount of

money available in relation to restaurant prices, convenience of restaurant location,

dietary requirements including food sensitivities and health beliefs, preferences of dining

companions, and previous satisfaction. Lack of knowledge about restaurants that carry

programs like "Fresh Choice" was also mentioned as a limitation to those interested in

lower fat fare.

"Emotional satisfaction" with the eating out experience was dependent upon the

crucial effects of atmosphere and service. One interviewee said,

"...more than anything what determines eating at a restaurants is... the people there.

You go in right away they see you, they know what you want and they bring it to you."

70

RESULTS

4.2.3.2. Influences on Menu Item Selection

After selecting the restaurant, perhaps with a predetermined menu selection in

mind, certain factors might influence an individual's final choice. Items that had previously

been experienced as prepared with attention and cooked to the expected degree, well

presented, appealing in taste and flavour, fresh, presented in portions that were neither too

large or too small, low in fat, pleasing in texture and well priced were more likely to be

selected again. Determinants of menu item selection were closely related to the

components of satisfaction with menu items described in more detail in the interviews than

in the preliminary qualitative data for questionnaire development. Presentation, for

instance, was defined as attractiveness or balanced look of food in relation to plate size,

freshness was associated with food quality, and preparation meant either cooked to

expected degree or cooked with expected method.

Table 4.22 Determinants of Menu Item Selection

Satisfaction with Previous Experience with the Menu Items

Other Factors Factors Changing Selection

Food preparation Temperature Reason eating out Hunger

Presentation Texture Frequency eating out Food appeal / craving

Taste Low fat New taste experience Meal type

Portion size Value for price Familiarity Don't make at home

Food freshness /quality Recommendations Diet restrictions

Coupons Nutrition

Company

71

RESULTS

The previous eating out choice affected menu selections of those who ate out

frequently. One interviewee chose more healthily if she ate out frequently while another,

who rarely ate out, indulged himself fully.

Other factors that influenced an interviewee's final choice included: how hungry

the individual was; the degree to which a certain dish appealed; time of day (i.e. lunch or

dinner); if the selection was a dish they would not make at home; the reason for eating

out; the nutritional value of the dish; the mood the interviewee was in and choices such as

daily specials that give perceived value for price.

The choice of whether or not to have a dessert was influenced by other factors.

Individuals would select a dessert if they did not feel too full after their meal, if they were

inclined to indulge or reward themselves, or if they were prepared to do extra exercise to

burn off the calories dessert would provide. Otherwise they would restrict this choice. One

interviewee would have a dessert if it was shared with someone: a whole dessert she felt

was too "piggy".

Six of the interviewees responded that they would be interested in hearing about

the daily special and might order it if it sounded or looked appealing. The two who ate out

for lunch most frequently, however, were not interested in what the daily special was

because they ordered what they were familiar with or what they were in the mood for. If it

was a special, then that was considered a bonus.

4.2.4. Opinions on "Fresh Choice" and Nutrition Information in Restaurants

This section focuses on the customers' specific reactions to the "Fresh Choice"

logo, name, concept, nutrition information pamphlet and the use of "lighter fare", "lower

fat" terminology. One interviewee summed up the significance of eating out, nutrition, and

programs like "Fresh Choice" by saying that

72

RESULTS

"... eating out is here to stay because of our whole social structure... ("Fresh Choice" is)

recognizing the need to satisfy, (and) at the same time support peoples needs and

requirements towards health..."

The "Fresh Choice" Logo. The interviewees were asked a series of questions about their

opinions on the "Fresh Choice" design and name. When shown the "Fresh Choice" logo,

three interviewees said they recognized it from the restaurant from which they had been

recruited for the interview. Five others commented that the design looked somewhat

familiar, but that they had difficulty in placing its significance. The logo was unfamiliar to

only one interviewee.

The general response to the design was that it was fun-looking and inspired the

idea of fresh foods. One respondent said:

..it's pleasant, bubbly, well-spaced...if food gets served as well

as this logo I think I would have a good time".

Another called it "simple and very effective" while others' comments were that the

design reminded them of grocery shopping:

"a market type thing....foods put together to make a meal...or picnic"

Table 4. 23 compares customers' awareness of the "Fresh Choice" design with the

selection of "Fresh Choice" menu items. Two of the individuals who remembered the

design were the only respondents who knew they had ordered had a "Fresh Choice" menu

item. Both individuals eat out frequently and are concerned with maintaining their

nutrition standards when they eat out. The menu items that they chose were familiar ones

that they had had before at the same restaurant.

73

RESULTS

Table 4.23 Awareness of and Willingness to Try "Fresh Choice" Menu Items

Awareness of "Fresh Choice" Selection of "Fresh Choice " Item

Interviewee / Restaurant

Recalled Looked Didn't Design Familiar Look

Familiar

Tried F.C. Will Try Again.

Did Not Try Will Not Try F.C.

Did Not Try F.C. But Would

C Sierra Grill

0 0

D Fettucini's

0 0

E Herons

0 0

K Inlets

0 0

L Tomato's

0 0

L L Vistas

0 0

M Avenue Grill

0 0

R Isadora's

0 0

S Picasso's

0 0

The one individual who remembered reading the pamphlet but chose a regular

menu item said that it was the first time she had been at the restaurant and thought she

might try a "Fresh Choice" some other time, as did four other interviewees who had not

selected "Fresh Choice" items. Review of the menu selections of the two participants who

did not know if they tried a "Fresh Choice" item showed that both had selected a regular

74

R E S U L T S

item. Both said they would probably not try a "Fresh Choice" item at any time because

they want quantity and not diet food when they eat out. They appeared to associate "Fresh

Choice" with dieting.

Response to the "Fresh Choice" Name. Interviewees were asked to describe what the

name "Fresh Choice" meant to them. The goals of the program were then described to

them and they were again asked to respond to the name.

A typical response was that the name meant:

"fresh food prepared with freshness, taste and healthiness in mind."

"Healthy" was used by four of the interviewees to describe how they felt about

"Fresh Choice". "Fresh" meant fresh "healthy" foods, fruits and vegetables, and salads

made from recently picked produce or something new. Most did not associate foods from

other food groups with "Fresh Choice". This connotation with fruits and vegetables led to

a perception that "Fresh Choice" was more or less a vegetarian program, despite the

program planners' focus on offering lower fat alternatives from all food groups. It is

interesting to note that the two individuals who chose "Fresh Choice" menu items were

vegetarian or semi-vegetarian.

One interviewee responded unfavorably towards the "Fresh Choice name. He said

it:

"seems a bit tacky to me... is everything else stale?... if you don't eat this you feel bad, you

feel guilty?....it's just a couple of words that don't tell you anything."

75

R E S U L T S

Interviewees then responded to the name following the explanation of the "Fresh

Choice" concept. "Fresh", some replied, did not necessarily mean lower fat. Food could

have a high fat or high caloric content and still be considered fresh. Without lower fat and

good-tasting being prominently displayed somewhere, it was difficult for individuals to

make the connection between the "Fresh Choice" name and the intended message behind

it. Another interviewee stated,

"I don't see (it) as completely low fat but what I do see is your focusing

more on other food items, the green - tossed salad, carrots, radish, pasta.

I'm not even thinking how many calories. It's a matter that it's healthy, it

looks very healthy... the connotation of fresh, you know, it makes people stop and

think, catch(es) the attention, gives people a sense of optimism."

Overall, they associated "Fresh Choice" with "healthy" rather than lower fat and

indicated that the logo conveyed a message of fun and health.

4.2.4.1. "Fresh Choice" Concepts

Interviewees were asked if they thought the "Fresh Choice" program was

worthwhile. All concluded that there was a need for programs like "Fresh Choice" in

restaurants. Some participants felt that the program would benefit them personally. Others

said they could already make nutritious menu choices but the program might be needed for

other people.

Having the option to choose or not to choose a "Fresh Choice" seemed very

important to the interviewees. If individuals wanted a lower fat menu item, the "Fresh

Choice" program would give them the option to choose it. Also, when more options were

presented, a wider variety of people could be satisfied.

76

R E S U L T S

"They can satisfy more people...my eating habits are totally different from my

wife's so if they have the option she can have her "Fresh Choice" and I can

have my steak."

One individual concluded that a program like "Fresh Choice" is good because it

allows people to

"...have your cake and eat it. If you can ..satisfy yourself and eat more healthy

then you 're going to do that or you 're not very bright...."

In contrast, he said he would not choose "Heart Smart" menu items

"...unless I'm desperate ..if you're on a strict diet then you might have to. "

The "Fresh Choice" program thus seemed to fit with the interviewees' desire to

indulge themselves in restaurants that allowed them to choose good-tasting items without

feelings of guilt.

Ethnic restaurants were not targeted by the "Fresh Choice" program, but one

interviewee felt they should be included. This interviewee, the only non-Caucasian

participant said that while the premise of "Fresh Choice" and the use of the term "lighter

fare" was very Western, the idea of offering healthier alternatives for customers should be

available to "ethnic" restaurants.

"... "lighter fare", I would be eating this in an English restaurant. I can't see it in a

Japanese restaurant, I cannot see it in a Chinese restaurant,...not even in a European

restaurant. I can see it in the English restaurant because of the idea of meat and

potato..."

11

R E S U L T S

Caucasian individuals who frequented ethnic restaurants chose those restaurants

for their house specialties and said they would not choose a "Fresh Choice" if it was

available.

4.2.4.2. Nutrition Information Pamphlet

The participants were asked a series of questions concerning nutrition information

and its place in restaurant dining. Views on relevance of nutrition information in

restaurants varied but five participants thought it relevant to others but not to themselves.

Two of the five felt that the information should be left as an option for people and that it

should be placed where it was not obtrusive, perhaps at the door where people enter and

leave. Those who wanted it could then pick it up to read before or after their meal. Other

participants said to be careful that the message not be too "preachy". Two interviewees

were concerned that the information be presented in a non-technical format customers

could read in a short time.

Some individuals were then asked what they thought of the nutrition information in

the "Fresh Choice" pamphlet (see Appendix A). The five who responded approved of the

type and quality of the information .

" ...it's bold and big enough that it's not asking the reader to make too much of an

effort."

Two interviewees remembered looking through the pamphlet at the restaurant.

When asked whether nutrition information would influence their restaurant or

menu selection, six participants said it would not, while the remaining three felt that it

would help them make their decision.

78

R E S U L T S

Overall, although the "Fresh Choice" pamphlet was seen as an acceptable vehicle

of nutrition information, the interviewees felt that there was a need to tread very lightly

around the issue of nutrition information itself. They seemed somewhat overwhelmed by

the words "nutrition information" and felt that it would be obtrusive to their dining

enjoyment, force them to feel guilty by interfering with the choices they wanted to make,

and be too technical and therefore hard to read. They did not want to be told what they

could and could not eat and felt that a nutrition intervention or health promotion program

like "Fresh Choice" might give them information they did not want to hear at a restaurant.

4.2.4.3. Response to the Use of "Lighter Fare" and "Lower fat"

"Lighter fare" was a term used on the cover of the "Fresh Choice" pamphlet, so

was the first introduction of "Fresh Choice" program to some customers. The interviewees

were shown the pamphlet and asked to define the term "lighter fare". All but one had

heard the term before.

"Lighter fare" was associated with salads for two of the interviewees. Another

said foods that had heavy ingredients or were heavy were not lighter fare. Meat, potatoes

and bread pudding were given as examples of heavy foods. Five of the interviewees

replied that lighter fare meant that there were less calories and two others said it meant

less fat.

Three interviewees felt that lighter fare meant smaller quantities. This was seen as

positive by one individual but undesirable by the other two, who defined a "good" meal as

being substantial enough to fill you. These two interviewees, who participated in physical

exercise more regularly than the others, compared lighter fare to diet food. One said

lighter fare was:

79

R E S U L T S

" something not greasy, like less in calories.... not as big... in the back of your mind,

'lighter fare, diet food not as good' seems to go together, yeah, don't want that today."

The definition for "lower fat" was straightforward; most interviewees said it meant

less fat, whether by preparation, (not deep fried or fried), or by using substitutions and

reducing high fat ingredients to decrease fat content. To two individuals, the term "lower

fat" also meant lower in cholesterol and another said she would rather see "lower fat" than

"lighter fare" on the menu because it has a better connotation.

When eating out, individuals did not want to be faced with "diet" foods; this was

not seen as a part of the indulgent experience. Dieting is not fun and, above all, in a

restaurant situation food must taste good and be fun. Response from the nine interview

participants suggests that replacing the emphasis on "lighter fare" with an emphasis on

"lower fat" would be more acceptable.

Table 4.24 shows the summary of the respondents' answers as to whether the

availability of "lighter fare" or "lower fat" menu items would influence their restaurant and

menu item selection. Six responded that the availability of these items would influence

their restaurant and menu item selections, while two would not be influenced. These two

individuals had previously mentioned that they would not order diet food in a restaurant.

One interviewee said that although his restaurant selection would be affected by

availability of these menu items, his menu item selection would depend on what else was

on the menu.

80

RESULTS

Table 4.24 Influence of Availability of "Lighter Fare" and "Lower fat" Items on Menu Item and Restaurant Selections

Menu Selections Restaurant Selections

Interviewee /Restaurant Yes No Yes No

C Sierra Grill

0 0

D Fettucini's

0 0

£ Herons

0 0

K Inlets

0 0

L Tomato's

0

LL Vistas

0 0

M Avenue Grill

0 0

R Isadora's

0 0

S Picasso's

0 0

Finally, interviewees were asked what they would emphasize if they had input into

designing a restaurant-based nutrition program that focused on offering lower fat menu

items. The three themes discussed most often were variety or choice, taste and health.

81

R E S U L T S

Participants wanted to choose from a variety of vegetable, fruit and lower fat selections

which would be tasty, healthy and fun.

4.2.4.4. Promotion of the "Fresh Choice" Program

None of the interview participants wanted an information pamphlet promoting the

"Fresh Choice" program near the menu. Two individuals thought a separate sheet

promoting the menu items would be appropriate. Six of the interviewees, however, felt

that the best way to draw attention to the menu items was to have the lower fat selections

incorporated right on the menu in conjunction with a notation explaining what a "Fresh

Choice" was, with symbols highlighting the choices. Three interviewees also mentioned

that the waitstaff need to know about the program in order for the program to be properly

promoted or be successful.

Six interviewees found that the pamphlet was a good way to promote the program

as long as it was not too technical or "preachy". They commented that a pamphlet allows

customers the choice to read the information or not. They felt the program should be

promoted right on the menu. Advertising in the restaurant was seen as important, but it

should be subtle, visual and light in tone. Advertising in the community was also

mentioned as important to make people aware of what is being offered within the

restaurant.

82

DISCUSSION

5. DISCUSSION

The two-fold objectives of the evaluation research reported herein were to assess

customer satisfaction with "Fresh Choice" menu items and to assess consumer interest in

and response to a restaurant-based nutrition program. The findings are relevant to the

"Fresh Choice" program planners as well as others interested in developing nutrition

programs in restaurants. More specifically, the results provide information about customer

satisfaction with lower fat and regular menu items, the context of restaurant dining, and

consumer response to various aspects of the "Fresh Choice" program. In addition to these

issues implications of the study for future evaluations of restaurant nutrition programs are

discussed in this chapter.

5.1. Satisfaction with Restaurant Dining

Satisfaction with a menu item can predispose the restaurant patron toward future

food choices because it affects post-purchase attitudes and intentions to repurchase

(Westbrook, 1991; Parraga, 1990; Granzin, 1988; Kar, 1983). Therefore, satisfaction can

be an important determinant of repeat business for the restaurant. As well, satisfaction has

been established as an important causal component of experienced-based change

(Westbrook, 1991) and could be a determinant of increased healthy behaviour. Both

outcomes are of importance to restaurateurs and program planners. The information on

satisfaction obtained from this study included the components of customer satisfaction

with menu items and customer satisfaction with lower fat menu items.

Preliminary qualitative research in questionnaire development indicated that the

predominant components of satisfaction with menu items when eating out were, in

descending order of times mentioned, presentation, taste, doneness, freshness, portion

83

DISCUSSION

size, temperature, low-fat, and price/value. Similarly, qualitative interview data evinced

the same determinants of interviewees' satisfaction with menu items indicating preparation,

presentation, taste, portion size, freshness or quality, temperature, low-fat, texture and

value for price. In the interview data definitions of the components of satisfaction were

elaborated on. For instance, preparation was described as either cooked to expected

degree or cooked with expected method, and freshness was associated with food quality.

Other predominant aspects of restaurant dining that provided satisfaction for the customer

were service and atmosphere.

The determinants of satisfaction with menu items identified in this study can be

compared with those from studies of customer satisfaction with hospital foodservices. The

three studies conducted in this area agreed that food had the greatest impact on overall

satisfaction with foodservice operations. Johnston and Upton (1991) identified the

components as food variety, food quality, nutrition, portion size and price; Dube et al

(1994) indicated the components were flavour, presentation, freshness, and temperature

and DeLuco et al (1990) reported that taste, aroma, appearance, tenderness, temperature,

freshness, and nutrition were relevant. Preparation and not over or undercooked, however,

were new descriptors found in this research. "Texture", another component of satisfaction,

was also mentioned in both "Fresh Choice" qualitative data sets but infrequently.

Statistical tests indicated significantly greater overall satisfaction with "Fresh

Choice" menu items than with regular menu items and this did not vary according to menu

item type, dining experience or respondent's characteristics. It is possible, however, that

results are skewed in favour of the 30% of respondents from Picasso Cafe. Customer

satisfaction with regular and lower fat menu items in restaurants had not been previously

evaluated; therefore these findings in the present study are new. This method of evaluation

in restaurants appears sufficient to detect differences in satisfaction between lower fat and

84

DISCUSSION

regular menu items. Results from the questionnaires are important to "Fresh Choice"

program planners as they inspire confidence in customer acceptance of the lower fat menu

items promoted. Because satisfaction has been identified as a causal component for post-

evaluative change "Fresh Choice" program planners and others can believe that

satisfaction with lower fat menu items can contribute to the success of nutrition programs

in restaurants.

All satisfaction scale descriptors were highly intercorrelated with overall

satisfaction and therefore overall satisfaction was used as a proxy for other descriptors.

Because interview data identified "cooking method" and "food quality" as relating to "not

over or undercooked" and "freshness", respectively, other program evaluators interested in

using a similar satisfaction scale might consider the inclusion of "cooking method" and

"food quality" descriptors on the scale.

5.2. The Context of Restaurant Dining

The qualitative portion of this evaluation provided valuable information about the

context of restaurant-based nutrition programs as perceived by restaurant customers.

When interviewees were asked about the role of restaurant dining in their lives, the themes

that were discussed included: eating out as an indulgence that satisfied emotional and

physical needs; differentiation between the relationship of eating out and grabbing

something to eat; different working and living situations and frequency and reasons for

eating out; and the influence of frequency of eating out, reason for eating out and previous

satisfying experiences on restaurant and menu item selections.

85

DISCUSSION

Eating Out as an Indulgence. From the interview data it appeared that eating out, when

done for the self and when there was freedom of choice, was a relaxing reward and an

indulgence. When eating out certain emotional and physical needs were met. Physical

needs were described as obtaining sustenance and pleasure from eating while emotional

needs were defined in the context of being served by others and being in the company of

others. Tableservice meals provided recognition for and increased the status of the

customer, allowed for social interactions, and reassurance through meal rituals. And when

restaurants gave individualized attention to customers they were described as caring and

giving and less of a business.

Although no other research has defined eating out as an indulgence, several

authors have identified that restaurant-based nutrition programs need to create

environments conducive to enjoyable, healthy eating (Hendricks, 1993; A D A Reports,

1991(a)). Also important are positive, upbeat messages that minimize guilt and present

food in the context of good tasting, attractive nutrition (Hendricks, 1993; A D A Reports,

1991(a); Colby, 1987; Regan, 1987) and that focus on variety and quality rather than on

deprivation and food avoidance (Hendricks, 1993; Granzin, 1988). All of these point

towards providing an indulgent experience. The suggestion that eating out meets basic

emotional and physical needs was corroborated by DeVault (1991) who described the

eating experience as an emotional, social and biological one and stated that through the

social arrangements of serving and eating, people were nurtured. Dube et al (1994) in a

study of patients' satisfaction with hospital foodservices found that while overall

satisfaction was predominantly affected by food aspects, status, recognition and

reassurance relating to the patient's social, physical, and emotional environments were

other important factors. Both authors appeared to substantiate interview data that found

86

DISCUSSION

that the service of food provided both physical and emotional nourishment which

contributed to eating out as an indulgent experience.

To develop successful nutrition programs in tableservice restaurants program

planners must understand how the eating out experience is perceived by restaurant

patrons. A nutrition program that fits with the indulgent concept of eating out, and that

satisfies emotional and physical needs would be more successful than one that did not

take this view into consideration. To satisfy physical needs, menu items need to provide

enough sustenance and appeal to the senses. To satisfy emotional needs the program

should convey itself as a service for the customer and assure a degree of familiarity or

safety with program menu items. Healthier foods such as "Fresh Choices" could be

considered indulgent because of the choice of good-tasting foods that satisfy without

feelings of guilt or as one interviewee stated "have your cake and eat it".

Eating Out and Grabbing Something to Eat. When eating out was compared to

grabbing some food several distinctions became apparent. The most important of these

seemed to be that grabbing something to eat was not an indulgent experience as emotional

needs were unfulfilled, meal rituals were not observed and it was not a planned and

relaxed social occasion. Interviewees implied that grabbing something to eat, especially

"fast food", meant that food choice was less important. Food was chosen for sustenance

and taste, "to fill the hunger void", and was considered a snack, not a meal. Food choice

was also considered less healthy in comparison to menu selection in tableservice

restaurants; however, this may have been an effect of the unavailability of healthier

selections in fast food locations, not preferred choice.

DeVault in Feeding the Family (1991) discusses modern industrial society as a

"grazing society" in which individuals grab quick snacks here and there during the day

87

DISCUSSION

instead of getting together to share meals. She also discusses "a proper meal" as

comprised of and prepared with certain criteria under which grabbing something to eat

does not fit. A "proper meal" was defined as a protein, a starch and vegetables prepared

with methods other than frying. Because grabbing something to eat implies snacking there

may be less concern when choosing healthy foods than when in a meal situation. A study

by Axelson et al (1983) found that those who ate fast food infrequently believed that fast

food locations had limited selections of lower quality foods that were not nutritious or

tasty. This points to individuals selecting other restaurants to have a greater selection of

more nutritious and tastier foods prepared with different methods.

Emotional satisfaction seemed associated with eating out in restaurants but not

with grabbing some food. Cadotte et al (1987), however, indicated that the evaluation

standards of satisfaction may vary from situation to situation. For instance, satisfaction

with the time-based benefits of fast food and with the social interaction situation of

atmosphere restaurant dining might be evaluated by different norms. Therefore, fast food

dining could provide emotional satisfaction with service but this could not be compared

with emotional satisfaction with the service of tableservice dining. This comparison has

relevance to developing nutrition programs to suit restaurant types.

A nutrition program with accessible and available healthier menu items might be

more acceptable at a tableservice restaurant than other restaurants because of the concepts

of a "proper meal" and snacking as described by DeVault (1991). Selections when eating

out did appear healthier for those who ate out frequently on non-special occasions. As

well, a nutrition program modeled for a tableservice restaurant would not be transferable

to a fast food type establishment because different needs were being met in both locations.

88

DISCUSSION

Different Living and Working Situations. Living and working situations affected

interviewees' frequency of and reasons for eating out. Lunch time eating out patterns

appeared to be more affected by interviewees' work situations but eating out for dinner

and on days off was influenced by individuals' living situations. Older more established

professionals ate out frequently for lunch while younger workers grabbed something to eat

at this time. Available time, money, flexible work schedule and location distinguished the

two groups and were reasons interviewees did or did not eat out. Living situation seemed

to affect the frequency of and reason for eating out for dinner. Among this group, those in

one or two person households ate out most frequently but this is not a strong conclusion

as only one interviewee lived in a different situation.

Emotional needs, satisfied in restaurants, arose from living and working situations.

Those who worked in service oriented positions and/or who prepared meals at home liked

to eat out to get away from meal work and to be served by others. The predominant

reasons married women ate out were to save on meal work and to be catered to. Single

individuals ate out to socialize and for convenience. All interviewees ate out to celebrate

an occasion.

Some documentation exists on the effect of living and work situations on eating

out in restaurants. The Consumer Price Index (1992), reports that the factors that

contributed to increased prevalence of eating out centred on the increase in smaller

households and the increased prevalence of women in the work force. Women today have

more money, less time and less reason to prepare meals at home because of work outside

the home. Eating out has become a leisure activity for those who can afford it (Consumer

Price Index, 1992) and a way for those who live alone to socially interact with others.

Family Food Expenditure in Canada (1992) reported on living situation and eating out. In

1992 tableservice restaurant meals accounted for 53% of eating away from home meals

89

DISCUSSION

for persons who lived alone while 27% of such meals were from fast food restaurants.

Married couples with children had different proportions at 40% ands 38%, respectively.

The present research indicates the myriad of needs individuals bring to the

restaurant. Understanding how different living and work situations affect these needs

permits a better understanding of the reasons for and the frequency with which individuals

eat out and allows insight into the characteristics of those who eat out. Information of this

kind allows program planners to develop programs suited to these needs and expectations.

Influences on Restaurant and Menu Item Selection. Frequency of eating out, reason

for eating out and previous satisfaction with the eating out experience affected restaurant

and menu item selections. Healthy menu item choice seemed dependent on frequency of

eating out which indicated that interviewees carried everyday standards of nutrition into

the restaurant. Indulgent foods were chosen on infrequent eating out occasions and special

occasions. Nutrition at these times was not something to be concerned about. Satisfaction

with a previous selection was a predominant reason for restaurant and menu item selection

and menu items were chosen most often because they were favorites or preferences.

Questionnaire results indicated that the predominant reasons for selecting a "Fresh

Choice" menu item was that it was a favorite or preferred food. The second reason was

nutrition. The interview results supported the quantitative data. Reasons for not choosing

a "Fresh Choice" were: the perception of a lighter, less substantial menu item; something

else appealed at the time; and the dining occasion was a special one.

The processes of selecting restaurants and menu items were complex and variable.

However, the research has indicated that reasons for selection were centred in previous

90

DISCUSSION

satisfying experiences. "Fresh Choices" have been found in the questionnaire data to be

more satisfying than regular items which infers that customers would be willing to try a

"Fresh Choice" again. Other nutrition program planners should take customer satisfaction

into consideration when developing menu items for programs as some individuals were not

willing to risk being dissatisfied with less familiar items. Others who chose healthier items

felt safe in experimenting because of familiarity with the dish. Obviously a favorite or

preference of customers changed to fit the criterion of being lower in fat would be selected

more readily than unfamiliar items.

5.3. Response to "Fresh Choice" and Nutrition in Restaurants

The qualitative interviews also provided valuable feedback on customers'

receptivity to and opinions of "Fresh Choice" and about nutrition information in general.

The "Fresh Choice" logo was familiar to eight of the nine individuals interviewed. Overall,

the impression of the logo and name was one of fun and health. All interviewees

responded that "Fresh Choice" was a worthwhile program, for themselves or for others,

because the option to choose a "Fresh Choice", not necessarily the choice itself, was

important. Two male interviewees, however, did not and felt they would not select "Fresh

Choice" menu items because they associated them with diet food which meant less in

quantity, less in taste, and less in value.

Other evaluations used surveys to inquire about recall of available selections and

awareness of restaurant-based nutrition programs (Albright, 1990; Forster-Coull, 1988;

Green, 1993; Paul, 1989). In the present study, interviewees were randomly recruited

from a select sample of restaurant patrons. The high degree of awareness of the logo

should then be judged on that context. A definite impression, however, was made by the

logo.

91

DISCUSSION

Responses to the logo and name reflected the objectives of program planners to

present an image that meant fun and attractive menu items. Colby et al (1987) and Regan

(1987) suggested that programs that use positive upbeat messages that minimize guilt and

present food in the context of good tasting, attractive nutrition are programs that succeed

in motivating individuals to change behaviour .

Program planners, who were not previously aware how the name and logo were

received by customers, now have feedback that suggests that customers are receptive to

both because they fit with the definition of eating out as an indulgent, non-restricted

experience. Some interviewees, however, felt that "Fresh Choice" detracted from the

indulgent experience because it was not designed for them. They perceived "Fresh Choice"

to advocate a vegetarian diet. Although many "Fresh Choice" entrees did contain meat,

"Fresh Choice" was not perceived as having a varied menu. Promotion of all food groups

must be done to ensure that customers perceive that "Fresh Choice" can be a program for

all.

Nutrition Information. The "Fresh Choice" pamphlet was an acceptable vehicle of

nutrition information for the interviewees because the contained information was non

technical and the style was easy to read. The pamphlet, however, needed to be

unobtrusively placed in the restaurant so as not to intrude upon patrons' enjoyment of the

meal by interfering with what patrons wanted to order. Menu item promotions for "Fresh

Choice", however, were thought better placed on the menu and not on a separate sheet.

The term "lower fat" was better understood than "lighter fare", as the latter conveyed a

meaning of less food or less value.

There have been many studies concerning the acceptance and use of nutrition

information in restaurant-based nutrition programs. Glanz et al (1992) and Carlson et al

9 2

DISCUSSION

(1986) summarized the research by indicating that information for restaurant nutrition

programs needs to be easily accessible, easily processed and friendly so that decisions

concerning the use of such information can be more easily made.

Program planners for "Fresh Choice" should be less concerned with specific

nutrient information and focus on the broad nutritional principles in the pamphlet.

Similarly, other programs would benefit from understanding that restaurant patrons want

to eat healthy foods but do not want to be aware of intake of nutrients in restaurants. The

less nutrient information, it appears, the better. Emphasis should be taken off "lighter fare"

because of its negative connotations.

In summary, even though eating out was an indulgent experience for the

interviewees it did not mitigate against a nutrition intervention program like "Fresh

Choice". In fact, freedom of selection was enhanced with "Fresh Choice" because of the

increased menu variety and restaurant flexibility. As eating out was a treat, a reward and a

time to relax and socialize, a nutrition program that reflected fun and health could be part

of the indulgent experience. Some implications for "Fresh Choice" program planners and

others interested developing a nutrition intervention, health promotion program in

restaurants would be: awareness that the idea of fun, good taste and health might only be

part of a successful concept; that understanding indulgence as a part of food and eating

out is an important component; knowing that customers want the option of healthier foods

for themselves or their company when eating out but do not want or need a lot of nutrient

information; and that evaluations can be conducted in a restaurant situation.

93

DISCUSSION

Limitations

The limitations of the study include: the estimated 10% response rate; the use of a

convenience sample, the lack of foresight surrounding the waitstaff s inability to satisfy

research requirements and the small sample size of the interview group. Only 13%, or 892,

of the restaurant population received a questionnaire. Therefore the results are not

representative of the total population. There also may be systematic bias in the results as

respondents from Picasso's restaurant represented 30% of the total who were surveyed;

therefore results may be skewed in favour of Picasso clientele. As well, patrons were less

likely to receive a questionnaire at busy times than at quiet times which also would may

have biased the results. The implications of these limitations are that the results are

representative of a select few and thus do not present an accurate account of restaurant

patrons who ate in "Fresh Choice" restaurants during the evaluation.

Previous studies have indicated the importance of the commitment of management

and waitstaff to the success of restaurant-based nutrition interventions. Efforts were made

to ensure management and waitstaff compliance to the research requirements of the "Fresh

Choice" evaluation but ultimately they seemed not to have incentive to carry the

requirements out successfully. A reward system that acknowledged and valued the

waitstaffs efforts is a suggestion for the future evaluations. The inclusion of management

and waitstaff in the development and implementation process of restaurant-based nutrition

interventions is also seen as necessary for the success of the intervention.

An interview group of nine was not large enough to achieve saturation of the data

which means that after progressive interviewing no new revelations become apparent.

Because the "Fresh Choice" study was designed to recruit one patron to represent one

restaurant, nine was the end number for the study. The small number and non-saturation of

data have implications for transferring, or generalizing, the results to similar populations.

94

CONCLUSIONS and R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

6. CONCLUSIONS and R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

Conclusions

Both components of the research indicated that "Fresh Choice" was an acceptable

program to restaurant patrons. The questionnaire results showed that customers were

significantly more satisfied with "Fresh Choice" than regular menu items which encourages

all stakeholders, including restaurateurs and program planners, to continue with the "Fresh

Choice" program.

The null hypotheses were:

1. There was no difference in customer satisfaction between "Fresh Choice" and non

"Fresh Choice" items and

2. There was no association between satisfaction with menu items and menu item type,

meal type, frequency of eating out, reason for eating out, eating pattern, specific diet,

gender and age. Hypothesis one can be rejected but hypothesis two cannot be rejected.

Interviewees responded favorably to the program indicating that they appreciated

having "Fresh Choice" items available. Customers were in favour of having healthier

alternatives so that the needs of most people could be satisfied and because the option of

having the healthier choice was important. Both components of the research indicated that

a favorite or preferred menu item, indicating a previous satisfaction, largely determined

selection. The "Fresh Choice" items that were chosen by interviewees were chosen

because they were favorites.

Eating out was defined by interviewees as a reward and as an indulgent experience

if done for the self and if there was freedom of selection. Eating out satisfied both

emotional and physical needs that arose from interviewees' living and working situations.

It appeared that "Fresh Choice" contributed to the indulgent experience because the

95


program increased menu flexibility and variety for most diners, thus increasing emotional

satisfaction.

The "Fresh Choice" logo and name were well liked but it appeared they indicated

to restaurant patrons that "Fresh Choice" was a vegetarian program. The pamphlet was an

acceptable vehicle for nutrition information because interviewees found it easy to read and

non-technical. Interviewees thought promotion of "Fresh Choice" items could be done on

the menu itself but nutrition information should not be near the menu.

"Lighter fare" was not well understood as some interviewees perceived it to mean

less food. "Lower fat" as a term for healthier alternatives had better connotations for

individuals but in terms of promotion use of this term, may have regulatory implications.

"Lower fat" implies the modified food has been reduced at least 25% in fat compared to

regular food which could make the identification of some items difficult.

Waitstaff were, to a large degree, unable or unwilling to cooperate with the

research requirements of the evaluation but their participation was most needed as they

interacted with the customers.

Recommendations

• The "Fresh Choice" program should be continued as it has shown promise as a

successful program and because restaurant patrons want the choice of healthier food.

• Favorites or preferences of customers should be changed to fit the criterion of being

lower in fat as they would be selected more readily than unfamiliar items.

• All food groups should be promoted equally to decrease the perception of "Fresh

Choice" as a vegetarian program. This will make the program more available to those

who are not vegetarians.

96


• The focus should be removed from "lighter fare" as it appears detrimental to

acceptance of the program by everyone.

• Promotional focus for "Fresh Choice" items should be on the regular menu rather than

on a separate sheet that can be easily overlooked by customers or forgotten by

waitstaff. Nutrient information need not be a focus. Broad nutritional principles that

are consistent and easy to assimilate are needed.

• Waitstaff participation is needed for the success of the program. An incentive for the

individual, not just for the restaurant, needs to be considered.

97

BIBLIOGRAPHY

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achterberg,C. Qualitative Methods in Nutrition Education Evaluation Research. Journal of Nutrition Education. 20:5;244-50, 1988.

A D A Reports. President's Page: Resetting the American Table - Creating a New Alliance of Taste and Health. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 91:2;228-30, 1991.

A D A Reports. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Nutrition in Foodservice Establishments. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 91:4;480-2, 1991.

Almanza,B.A., Mason. A.C. , Widdows,R., Girard,F.I. Consumer Responses to Nutrition Guidelines Labeling in a University Restaurant. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 93:5;580-l, 1993.

Almanza,B., Hsieh,H.M.-Y. Consumer Preferences Among Nutritional Labeling Formats in a Restaurant. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 95: l;83-5, 1995.

Albright,C, Flora, and J.A., Fortmann,S.P. Restaurant Menu Labeling: Impact of Nutrition Information on Entree Sales and Patron Attitudes. Health Education Quarterly. 17:2;157-67, 1990.

Anderson, J. Haas,M. Impact of Nutrition Education Program on Food Sales in Restaurants. Journal of Nutrition Education. 22:5;232-8, 1990.

Anon. Factors Influencing Food Choice in Humans. Nutrition Reviews. 48:12;442-4, 1990.

Axelson, M L . , Brinberg,D., Durand,J.H. Eating at a Fast Food Restaurant - A Social-Psychological Analysis. Journal of Nutrition Education. 15:3;94-8, 1983.

Beasley, M . Determining Customer Satisfaction. Food Management. 25:3;48, 1990.

Beggs,L., Hendricks,S., Schwartz,N.E., Biro,K. Tracking Nutrition Trends: Canadians Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behaviour Regarding Fat, Fibre, and Cholesterol. Journal of the Canadian Dietetic Association. 54:l;21-5, 1993.

Bronner, Y. Healthy People 2000: A Call to Action for A D A Members. Journal of American Dietetic Association. 91:12;1520-1, 1991.

98

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Cadotte,E., Woodruff,R.B., Jenkins,R.L. Expectations and Norms in Models of Consumer Satisfaction. Journal ofMarketing Research. 25:305-14, 1987.

Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food. Visions. Ottawa: Food Bureau, Market and Industry Services Branch. 5:1, 1-16, 1994.

Canada. Statistics Canada. The Consumer Price Index. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. 62-001, July, 1992.

Canada. Statistics Canada. Family FoodExpendicture in Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. 62-554: 11-14, 1992.

Canada. Health and Wefare Canada. Action Towards Healthy Eating. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1990.

Canada. Health and Welfare Canada. Nutrition Recommendations for Canadians. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1990.

Canada. Health and Welfare Canada. Using the Food Guide. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services, 1992.

Carlson,B. and Tabacchi,M. Meeting Consumer Nutrition Information Needs in Restaurants. Journal of Nutrition Education. 18:5 ;211-14, 1986.

Carsky,M.L. An Investigation of the Relationship Between Consumer Information and Satisfaction with Food Marketing Services. Advances in Consumer Research 18:78-86, 1991.

Cinciripini,P. Changing Food Selections in a Public Cafeteria. Behavior Modification. 8:4;520-39, 1984.

ColbyJ.J., Elder,J.P., Peterson,G., Knisley,P.M., Carleton,R.A. Promoting the Selection of Healthy Food Through Menu Item Descriptions in a Family-Style Restaurant. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 3:3;171-77, 1987.

Davis-Chervin, D. Rogers,T. Clark,M. Influencing Food Selection with Point-of-Choice Nutrition Information. Journal of Nutrition Education. 17:l;18-22, 1985.

Dean,K. Nutrition Education Research in Health Promotion. Journal of the Canadian Dietetic Association. 51:4;481-4, 1990.

DeLuco,D. and Cremer,M. Consumers' Perceptions of Hospital Food and Dietery Services. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 90:12;1711-15, 1990.

99


DeVault,M.L. Feeding the Family: The Social Organization of Caring as Gendered Work. Chicago: University of Cicago Press, 1991.

De Vries,H.et al The Utilization of Qualitative and Quantitative data for Health Education Program Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation: A Spiral Approach. Health Education Quarterly. 19:1;101-15, 1990.

Dube,L. and SchmittJB.H. The Processing of Emotional and Cognitive Aspects of Product Usage in Satisfaction Judgements. Advances in Consumer Research. 18:52-6, 1991.

Dube, L . , Trudeau,E., Belanger,M-C. Determining the Complexity of Patient Satisfaction with Foodservices. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 94:4;394-401, 1994.

Dubbert,P. The Influence of Caloric Information on Cafeteria Food Choices. Journal of Applied Behavioural Analysis. 17: l;85-92, 1984.

Eating Out Quarterly. "Trends in Dining Out"'.Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. Robin Garret, ed. 8-12, 1992.

Edwards,P.K., Mullis,R.M., Clarke,B. A Comprehensive Model For Evaluating Innovative Nutrition Education Programs. Journal of Nutrition Education. 18:1;10-15, 1986.

Farrel and Associates. Kitsilano Restaurateur Interviews. Vancouver Health Department Report, 1992.

FinkelsteinJ. Dining Out: A Sociology of Modern Manners. New York: New York University Press, 1989.

Forster-Coull,L. and Gillis, D. E . Report on "To Your Heart's Delight" - A Nutrition Education Program to Promote Heart Healthy Eating Among Lunchtime Restaurant Clientele. Nova Scotia Heart Foundation. October, 1986.

Forster-Coull,L. Gillis,D. E . Nutrition Education Program For Restaurant Patrons. Journal of Nutriton Education. 20:22B-C, 1988.

Glanz,K. Point-of-Choice Nutrition Information, Federal Regulations and Consumer Health Education: A Critical View. Journal of Nutrition Education. 21:2;95-100, 1989.

Glanz,K., Rudd,J., Mullis,R.M., Snyder,P. Consumer Behavior and Nutrition Education: An Integrative Review. Journal of Nutrition Education. 24:5;267-77, 1992.

100


Granzin,K.L. and Bahn,K.D. The Role of Consumers' Attitudes Toward Nutrition in Restaurant Patronage. Journal of Nutrition Education. 20:2;56-62, 1988.

Green,K.L., Steer,S.L., Mahaffey,S.M., Muhajarine,N. Evaluation of the Heart Smart Restaurant Program in Saskatoon and Regina, Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 84:6; 399-402, 1993.

Hendricks, S. Nutrition Education - Beyond the Facts. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 84:6;367-8, 1993.

Hochbaum, G. Strategies and Their Rationale for Changing People's Eating Habits Journal of Nutrition Education. 13:1; S59-S65, 1981.

Johnston,C.M. Upton,E.M. Managers' Perceptions of Customers' Satisfaction with their Hospital Cafeteria Services. Journal of the Canadian Dietetic Association. 52:1;11-14, 1991.

Kar, et al. A Psychosocial Model of Health Behaviour: Implications for Nutrition Education Research Policy. Health Behaviour and Education. 7:2;29-37, 1983.

Kristal, A. Patterns of Dietary Behaviour Associated with Selecting Diets Low in Fat: Reliability and Validity of a Behavioural Approach to Dietary Assessment.

Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 90:2;214-20, 1990.

Lewis,C.J., Shannon,B. Examination of Specific Nutrition/Health Behaviors Using a Social Cognitive Model. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 89:2;194-202, 1989.

MayerJ.A., HeinsJ.M., VogelJ.M., Morrison,D.C, Lankester,L.D., Jacobs,A.L. Prompting Low-Fat Entrees Choices in a Public Cafeteria. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis. 19:4;397-402, 1986.

Mayer,J.A., Brown,T.P., HeinsJ.M., Bishop,D.B. A Multi-Component Intervention for Modifying Food Selections in a Worksite Cafeteria. Journal of Nutrition Education. 19:6;277-80, 1987.

Mayer,J.APromoting Nutrition at the Point-of-Choice:A Review. Health Education Quarterly 16:1; 31-43, 1989.

Mullis,R. Snyder,M.P., Hunt,M.K. Developing Nutrient Criteria for Food-Specific Dietary Guidelines For the General Public. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 90:6;847-851, 1990.

101


Paul, P. Novascone,MA., Ganem,B.C, Wimme,P.B. "Dine to Your Heart's Content": An Assessment of the Program in Virginia. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 89:6;817-20, 1989.

Parraga,I.M., Determinants of Food Consumption. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 90:5;660-63, 1990.

Patton, M.Q. , Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (Second edition). Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1990.

Regan,C. Promoting Nutrition in Commercial Foodservices Establishments: A Realistic Approach. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 87:4;486-8, 1987.

Reiter,E. Making Fast Food: From the Frying Pan into the Fryer. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. 1991.

Ries, C P . , Kline,K. Weaver,S.O. Impact of Commercial Eating on Nutrient Adequacy. Journal of American Dietetic Association. 87:4;463-8, 1987.

Sawchuck,L. Final Report (unpublished) "Fresh Choice" - A New Vancouver Restaurant Program. Vancouver Health Department, September, 1993.

Schmitz,M.F and Fielding,J.E. Point-of-Choice Nutritional Labeling: Evaluation in a Worksite Cafeteria. Journal of Nutrition Education. 18:l;s65-s68, 1986.

Scott, L.W., Foreyt,J.P., Manis,E., 0'Malley,M.P., Gotto,A.M., A Low Cholesterol Menu in a Steak Restaurant. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 74:54-6, 1979.

Sims,L.S. Toward and Understanding of Attitude Assessment in Nutrition Research. Journal of American Dietetic Association. 78:460-66, 1981.

Shields, J.E., and Young,E. Fat in Fast Foods - Evolving Changes. Nutrition (Annual Editions). 25:2;18-20, 1991-92.

Skolnick, A. Institute of Medicine to Restaurants: Serving up Nutrition Information. Journal of the American Medical Association.264:23; 2975, 1990.

Sneed, J. Marketing Nutrition in Restaurants: A Survey of Current Practices and Attitudes. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 91:4; 459-62, 1991.

Steckler,A., BurkhalterJ.D. Toward Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: An Introduction. Health Education Quarterly. 19:l;l-8, 1992.

102


Tefft,M. The Healthy Menu. Foodservice and Hospitality. February, 18-25, 1995.

Vancouver Health Department. Healthy Kitsilano Survey, 1991.

Wagner.J.L., and Winnet, R.A. Promoting One Low-Fat, High-Fibre Selection in a Fast-Food Restaurant. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 21:2;179-85, 1988.

Warshaw,H.S. America Eats Out: Nutrition in the Chain and Family Restaurant Industry. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 93:1; 17-20, 1993.

Weisbrod,R.R., Pirie,P.L., Mullis,R.M., Snyder,P. Healthy Menu Choices in Midwest Restaurants. Journal of Nutrition Education. 23:6;303-7, 1991.

Welland, D., RDs and Restaurants: Recipe for Success. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 93:10;1105-8, 1993.

Westbrook,R., and 01iver,R. The Dimensionality of Consumption Emotion Patterns and Consumer Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research.l&:84-91, 1991.

Zifferblatt, S. Changing Cafeteria Eating Habits. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 76:15-20, 1980.

103

APPENDICES

8. APPENDICES

A P P E N D K A

"Fresh Choice" Participation Agreement

C H O I C E '

A NEW V A N C O U V E R R E S T A U R A N T P R O G R A M

A Vancouver Health Department initiative in cooperation with the Restaurant & Foodservices Association ot Greater Vancouver and the B.C. Chets' Association

PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT

The Vancouver Health Department will do the following for restaurateurs participating in the FRESH CHOICE program:

• Market the FRESH CHOICE program through a local med ia campa ign .

• Assist in market ing your FRESH CHOICE menu items by providing FRESH CHOICE w indow deca ls a n d menu inserts or table tents or menu decals or menu stamps.

• Offer FRESH CHOICE Workshops to chefs and restaurateurs to provide new ideas for prepar ing FRESH CHOICES.

• Discuss the purpose and implementat ion of the FRESH CHOICE program or a presentation to your restaurant staff.

• Identify at least three FRESH CHOICE menu items rhat meet the FRESH CHOICE Guidel ines. Suggest ways to modify current menu items, if necessary to meet the minimum of three FRESH CHOICES.

• Analyze FRESH CHOICE recipes for carbohydrate , fat. protein and energy (ie. nutrient analysis).

• Provide written nutrition information on the FRESH CHOICE program.

• Evaluate consumer a n d restaurateur satisfaction with the program and analyze sales d a t a .

104

APPENDICES

"Fresh Choice" Participation Agreement

The restaurateur will do the following as a participant in the FRESH CHOICE program:

• You and/or your chef will attend a FRESH CHOICE Workshop.

• Participate in FRESH CHOICE Month by offering at least three FRESH CHOICES daily during the month of June. 1993.

• Provide accurate recipes for analysis. Recipes are to include method of preparation, ingredients, portion sizes, and name and description of item as given to the consumer.

• Notify a FRESH CHOICE representative (Vancouver Health Department) before any changes are made in approved FRESH CHOICE recipes or menu names.

• Choose a marketing strategy for FRESH CHOICES in your restaurant and do all necessary printing. (Blank FRESH CHOICE menu inserts or table tents are available from the Vancouver Health Department).

• Will only use FRESH CHOICE logo on approved FRESH CHOICE menu items.

• Assist in the evaluation of the program by providing sales data, completing a short survey following the evaluation, and being receptive to on-site customer interviews and incentives.

• Make available to customers, upon request, written nutrition information about FRESH CHOICE and the nutrient analyses of FRESH CHOICES offered.

• Ensure that staff are informed about FRESH CHOICE and receive an information sheet on FRESH CHOICE.

Restaurant Owner/Manager Fresh Choice Representative

Name of Restaurant Date

105

APPENDICES

"Fresh Choice" Logo and Pamphlet

LOOK FOR FRESH CHOICES IN THESE PARTICIPATING

RESTAURANTS: A v e n u e Grill

2114 West 41st Avenue 266-8183

Fettucini's C a f e 1179 C o m m e r c i a l Drive

255-7771 Herons Restaurant & Lounge

Waterfront Cent re Hotel 900 C a n a d a P l a c e W a y

691-1818 Inlets Bistro & Lounge

Blue Horizon Hotel 1225 Robson Street

688-1411 Isadora's

Granvi l le Island 1540 O l d Bridge

681-8816 P icasso C a f e

1626 W. Broadway 732-3290

Sierra Grill Pac i f i c Cent re

5 6 G - 701 W. G e o r g i a 683-4140

Tomato Fresh Food C a f e 3305 C a m b i e Street

874-6020 Vistas

Rena issance Hotel 1133W. Hastings St.

691-2787

For more FRESH C H O I C E information ca l l the V a n c o u v e r Heal th Depar tment : 736-2033

For more nutrition information cal l Dial-A-Dierit ian: 732-9191

INTERESTED [No '

LIGHTER o FARE? ;

F R E S H

C H O I C E

J f O V i

106

APPENDICES

Fresh Choice" Logo and Pamphlet

1

ENJOY A FRESH CHOICE! W H Y FRESH CHOICE? • FRESH CHOICE has b e e n d e v e l o p e d in response to the growing trend for lighter, lower fat fare that doesn ' t sacrif ice flavour.

• If restaurants are a regular part of your O lifestyle — FRESH CHOICE is a new food adventure for you to enjoy.

W H O IS FRESH CHOICE? • FRESH CHOICE is a partnership program of V a n c o u v e r restaurateurs a n d chefs , the Greater Vancouve r Branch of the Restaurant a n d Foodservices Associat ion of B.C. , the Vancouver Heal th Depar tment a n d the B.C. Che fs ' Associat ion.

• N e w restaurants part ic ipat ing in the FRESH CHOICE program are be ing a d d e d all the time.

W H A T ISA FRESH CHOICE?

• Fresh Cho ices are soups, salads, appetizers, entrees or desserts.prepared with

'little or no fat: • leaner meats, fish or skinless poultry

• lower fat dairy products, such as skim, 1 % a n d 2% milk

• lower fat cook ing methods, such as broiling a n d roasting

• salads with oil-free dressings • desserts p repared without a d d e d fats like oil, butter or

margarine.

a • Deta i led nutrition

information on Fresh Cho ices is

ava i lab le upon request. Ask your server.

• Part icipating restaurants offer a minimum of

three Fresh Cho ices e a c h day .

C H O I C E M A K E TODAYS

CHOICE A FRESH CHOICE!

A N E W FOOD ADVENTURE 107

APPENDICES

'Fresh Choice" Table Talker Insert

A N E W F O O D i A D V E N T U R E

In te res ted , in l ighter f a r e ? e . o > En joy a FRESH C H O I C E ! ^

Fresh C h o i c e s a r e t a s t y , l o w e r f a t |r m e n u s e l e c t i o n s t h a t g i v e y o u t h e o p t i o n

o f c u t t i n g f a t w i t h o u t s a c r i f i c i n g f l a v o u r . If r e s t a u r a n t s a r e a r e g u l a r p a r t o f y o u r l i f e s t y l e ,

0 n o w y o u h a v e a F R E S H C H O I C E !

Ask y o u r s e r v e r f o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n . /

o / / \ \v - (/ o \\ i o

F R E S H

! C H O I C E A program of the Resiouront

the Vancouver Heolih Decor e n d Poodservic ssociction o; es.v_.

CheiS' A s S O C i O i i Q "

108

APPENDICES

Fresh" Special Sheet

o

1 o 0

o

o

o 4 ^

o °/Af\V 0

F R E S H ; 0

C H O I C E A program ol the Greater Vancouve r Branch of the Restaurant one: ^codserv iess Asscc io i i cn of B.C

ih-2 Vancouve r H'_-ci:n Depar i rnenf . a n d the B.C. Chefs ' Associa i ion.

109

APPENDICES

"Fresh Choice" Consumer Information Sheet

Your Chef is following these guidelines for Fresh Choices --

Entrees & Appet izers

• U s e leaner meats, fish or skin less poultry s u c h as lean beef, pork, l amb, veal , fish, ch icken, turkey, pheasant, venison, rabbit.

• Serve smaller portions (6 oz. or less) of m e a t , f ish or sk in less poultry.

• Trim off all visible fat and skim off any excess fat when cooking.

v U s e lower fat cook ing methods such as bro i l ing, roast ing, s t e a m i n g , poaching, baking, microwaving, pansearing or sauteeing.

• Use non-stick pans , broth, cooking oil sprays or a very limited a m o u n t of oii (just enough to prevent sticking) when pansear ing or sau tee ing .

• U s e lower fat dairy products such as sk im, 1% or 2% mi lk, co t t age cheese and yogurt with 2% or less milkfat, and c h e e s e s with l ess than 20% milkfat. P a r m e s a n is acceptable as a garn ish or served on the s ide . (Parmesan is higher in fat.)

• U s e low fat breads that do not leave a greasy feel on your hands . (H igh fat breads include cro issants, danishes, butter rolls, etc.)

• U s e nuts and s e e d s a s a garnish or minor ingredient only. (Nuts and seeds are high in tat.)

• Prepare combinat ion d ishes such as vegetar ian d ishes , pas ta d i s h e s , p izza or sandwiches following the above guidel ines.

• P repare s a n d w i c h e s without added fat s u c h a s butter, m a r g a r i n e , mayonnaise or peanut butter.

(Please see reverse side.)

F R E S H CHOICE is a program oi ihe Greater Vancouver Branch of the Restaurant and Foods. Association of B . C . Ihe Vancouver HeaJlh Department and the B.C. Chefs' Associate

110

APPENDICES

"Fresh Choice" Consumer Information Sheet

F R ( •> H ,

CHOICE'

Your Chef is following these guidelines for Fresh Cho ices --

Soups & Salads

• Use clear soups, vegetable based soups and soups prepared with lower fat dairy products instead of cream.

• Use no salad dressing or prepare lower fat dressings and dips without adding oil or other fats such as peanut butter, mayonnaise or cream.

• Fruit juice and yogurt may be used as the base for dressings and dips.

Desserts

• Prepare all desserts without adding any fat such as oil, margarine, butter, shortening, cream, sour cream, peanut butter.

• Make fruit a major ingredient (eg. fruit salads, fruit sorbets) and/or offer a baked product such as Angel food cake.

Fresh Choices are soups, salads, appetizers, entrees and desserts prepared with little or no fat.

The carbohydrate, protein, fat and energy content "of Fresh Choices is available upon request.

F R E S H C H O I C E is a program of the Greater Vancouver Branch ot the Restaurant and Foodservices Association of B.C. . the Vancouver Health Department and the B.C. Chefs' Association.

For more F R E S H C H O I C E information call the Vancouver Health Department" 735-2033 For more nutrition iniormation call Dial-A-Oietitiarv 732-9191

111

APPENDICES

A P P E N D K B

Qualitative Questionnaire and Results

Customer Satisfaction with Restaurant Menu Items

We request one to two minutes of your time to complete this questionnaire. Your information is needed for a survey on customer satisfaction with selected menu items in restaurants. Participation is voluntary and by completing the questionnaire we assume you are giving your consent. Your name and address are not required, thus ensuring confidentiality.

1. When eating out, what are the characteristics of restaurant foods that determine whether you are satisfied or dissatisfied with your meal? It may help to think of a time when you were particularly satisfied or dissatisfied with the food you had when eating out. (Please refer only to foods and do not include comments on restaurant atmosphere or service).

2. Please indicate:

Less than 18 0 4.0n average, how often do you eat out? 18-24 0 < once a month ( 25-34 0 l-2x/month ( 35-49 0 3-4x/month ( 50-64 0 2-3x/week ( 65+ 0 4-5x/week (

> 5x/week (

Thanks for your participation!

For information contact: Trish Fitzpatrick or Gwen Chapman, Family and Nutritional Sciences, University of British Columbia, 822-6874.

112

APPENDICES

Satisfaction Scale Survey Results

Total respondants = 46

1. Gender 2. Age 3. Frequency of Eating out

Female = 28 Less than 18 = 0 < once/month = 5 Male = 14 18-24 = 21 l-2x/month = 7 No response = 4 25-34 = 10 3-4x/month = 18

35-49 = 11 2-3x/week = 9 50-64 = 4 4-5x/week = 4 65 + = 0 5x/week = 3

Total 46

4.Characteristics of restaurant foods that determine satisfaction

Aggregated Number of times Aggregated Number of times mentioned mentioned

1. Taste Taste 16 Flavour 6 Spicy 4 Salty 1 Balanced items 1 Compatability of dishes 1 Freshness I i Total 40

2. Quality Food quality 2 Quality of ingredients 1 Substance of food 1 Consistency of food 1 Comparisons to other places 1 Same as previous time 1 Preparation 3 Doneness 12 Texture 3 Crispness 1 Correct temperature 9 Good coffee 1 Total 36

113

APPENDICES

3. Presentation 4. Nutrition and Health Presentation 17 Healthy food 5 Artistic arrangement 1 Nutritional preparation 1 Color 4 Low-fat 8 Food arrangement 1 Dressing on side 1 Garnishes 1 Fits allergv requirements 2 Total 24 Total r

5. Portion size 6. Unusual Quantity 2 Unusual or ethnic 2 Portion size 10 Does not cook at home 3 Total 12 Variety 2

Creative 1 Unusual desserts 1 Total 9

7. Price . 8. Others Price 4 Tastes like home 2 Portion size relative to price 1 Sanitary 1

Value for price 1 Food demos 1 Total 6 Service 3

Order is right 1 Promptness of server 1 Personality of server 1 Choice on menu 3 Atmosphere 3 Location 1 Total 17

114

APPENDICES

APPENDK C

'Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items" Pretest Questionnaire T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A

Schoo l .of Family a n d Nutr i t ional Sciences 2205 East M a l l

Vancouver , B . C . C a n a d a V 6 T IW5

"Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items" We request a few minutes of your time to fil! out this questionnaire. We are measuring customer satisfaction with menu items and your

information will help us to assess the "Fresh Choice" program. Participation is voluntary and by.completing the questionnaire we assume you are giving your consent. Your name and address arc not required, thus ensuring confidentiality. Please leave the questionnaire to be collected by your server.

1 Menu item 1 M e n u item 2 M e n u item 3 j 1. Name the food items you had. Please be I specific, Le., French onion soup instead of | "soup".

1 2. Was this item a "Fresh Choice"? (please circle)

Yes No

Dont Know . Yes No

D o n ! Know Yes No

D o n t K n o w

3. Why did you order the item(s) you ordered?

4. For each of the categories listed below, evaluate | your satisfaction with the menu items using the

following scale. 1 = extremely dissatisfied; 2 = dissatisfied; 3= neutral; 4= satisfied; 5= ertremely satisfied; n/a= not applicable, (plcatc drde)

Menu item 1 M e n u item 2 M e n u item 3

Not over or undercooked 1 2 .1 4 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a Freshness - 1 2 3 4 5 n/a I 2 3 4 S n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a Lack of fat or grease 1 2 3 4 . 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a Portion size 1 2 3 4 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 .n/a Presentation 1 2 3 4 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a I 2 3 4 5 n/a Taste 1 2 3 4 5 n/a , 1 2 3 4 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a Temperature 1 2 3 4 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a Value for price 1 2 3 4 5 n/a ' 1 2 3 4 5 >n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a Overall satisfaction with menu items. 1 2 3 4 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a

5. Was this meal: ( ) lunch , ( ) d inner; ( ) breakfast or ( ) a snack ?

6. O n average, how often do you eat out? o>Uu» i n d i c u ) < once/month ( ) l-2x/month ( ) 3-4x/monlh ( )

2-3x/week ( ) 4-5x/week ( ) > 5xAveek ( )

7. A r e you eating out today to celebrate a special occasion? Yes ( ) No ( )

8. Are you on a particular diet? Yes ( ) No { ). (f yes. please specify

10. Age. Less than 1 H ) 11. Household Income Level: Under 20,000 18-24 ( ) . 20,000-39,999 25-34 ( ) 40,000-59,999 35^9 < > 60,000-79,999 50-64 ( ) 80,000-99,999 65+ ( ) 100,000+

Thanks for your participation!

For informaiioo c o n i a d : T i i s t i FitzpaLrick or Gwcn C h a p m a n , F a m i l y and Numuona l Sc iences . U . G . C 822-6874. SEE OTHER S[DE

115

APPENDICES

Questionnaire Evaluation

We are conducting a pretest of a questionnaire that will measure customer satisfaction with menu items. The formal questionnaire will be implemented the next week and your comments will help us determine whether the questionnaire is complete and ready to be distributed. Thank you for your assistance.

1. How long did it take to complete the questionnaire?

2. Were any of the questions, or was the wording, unclear? (Please specify)

3. Were there any questions you did not wish to answer? (Please specify)

4. Any comments about the questionnaire?

(SEE OTHER SIDE)

116

APPENDICES

APPENDDX D

'Customer Satisfaction with Menu Items" Questionnaire T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L L I M B I A

S c h o o l o f F a m i l y a n d

N u t r i t i o n a l S c i e n c e s

3 2 0 5 E a s t M a i !

V a n c o u v e r . B C C a n a d a V 6 T IW5

"Customer Satisfaction with Menu items" We request a few minutes of your time to fill out this questionnaire. We are measuring customer satisfaction with menu items and your information will

help us to assess the "Fresh Choice" program. Participation is voluntary and by completing the questionnaire we assume you are giving your consent. Your

name and address are not required, thus ensuring confidentiality. Please leave the questionnaire to be collected by your server.

Menu item J Menu item 2 ..Menu item 3

I. Name the food items you had. Please be

specific, Le., French onion soup instead of

"soup ".

2. Was this item a "Fresh

Choice"? (please cirde)

Yes No

Don 7 Know

Yes No

Don 7 Know-

Yes No

Don't Know

3. Why did you order the item(s) you ordered?

4. For each of the categories listed below, evaluate

your satisfaction with the menu items using the

following scale. 1 = extremely dissatisfied;

2= dissatisfied; 3 — neutral; 4 — satisfied;

5 = extremely satisfied; n/a = not applicable, (pitas* cirtt*)

Menu item I Menu item 2 Menu item 3

Not over or undercooked 2 3 4 5 n/a 2 3 4 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a

Freshness 2 3 4 5 n/a 2 3 4 5 n/a 5 n/a

Lack of fat or grease 2 3 4 5 n/a 2 3 4 5 n/a I 2 3 4 5 n/a

Portion size 2 3 4 5 n/a 3 4 5 n/a I 2 3 4 5 n/a

Presentation 2 3 4 5 n/a 2 3 4 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a

Taste 2 3 4 5 n/a 2 3 4 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a

Temperature 2 3 4 5 n/a 2 3 4 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a

Value for price 2 3 4 5. n/a 3 4 5 n/a 1 2 3 4 5 n/a

Overall satisfaction with menu items. 2 3 4 5 n/a 2 3 4 5 n/a I 2 3 4 5 nli

Comments on satisfaction ?

5. Was this meal: ( ) lunch ; () dinner ; ( ) breakfast or ( ) a snack

6. On average, how often do you eat out? (please indiaue) < once/month ( ) I-2x/month ( } 3-4x/month ( )

2-Sx/week ( ) 4-Sx/wcek ( ) > 5x/week ()

Yes () 7. Are you eating out today to celebrate a special occasion?

8. Are you on a particular diet ? Yes ( ) No ( ). If yes, please specify-.

9. Gender: M () F ( )

10. Age: Less than 18 ( ); 18-24 { ); 25-34 ( ); 35-49 ( ); 50-64 ( ); 65+ ( ).

For information contact: Trish Fiapatrick or Gwen Chapmen. Family end SittritUmal Sciences. If.B.C. 822-6874

N o ( )

Tlianks for your participation!

117

APPENDICES

APPENDK E

Waitstaff Tip Sheet on Research Requirements

Evaluation Questionnaire and Gift Certificate

The waitstaff is an important part of the week long evaluation process. You will be asked to:

*Deliver the questionnaires to every customer (with coffee or bill) explaining that the restaurant is involved in a study to evaluate the "Fresh Choice" program. The questionnaires should be made available to all customers but during the lunch and dinner periods only.

*Collect all of the questionnaires completed or not and place them in a box in a safe and easily accessible area.

•Deliver the entry form for a gift certificate for a dinner-for-two, to all customers at the same time as the questionnaire is delivered. These will be placed by the customer in a specially marked box near the exit.

*Pens will be made available for the customers' convenience.

*Large envelopes will be made available to collect all questionnaires at the end of the day. These should be secured to avoid any mix ups.

*For the findings to have any statistical significance and be relevant to your restaurant, these directions need to be followed.

This process will require the cooperation of a very flexible waitstaff. We realize that this may be difficult to carry out along with your many other duties but without your assistance we would not be able to evaluate this program. Thank you very much !

Trish Fitzpatrick Any questions? (224-8954)

118

APPENDICES

APPENDLX F

Interview Guide

CUSTOMERS' OPINIONS ON EATING OUT IN RESTAURANTS AND A C C E P T A N C E OF "FRESH CHOICE" AND RESTAURANT-BASED NUTRITION PROGRAMS.

Interview Guide for Semi-Structured Interview

Opening statement:

You may be wondering what today's interview will involve and what will be done with the information once it's collected. I'm going to ask you to give me your ideas, perceptions and opinions of eating out in restaurants, what factors influence what you choose to eat and how satisfied you are with what you get. The purpose of collecting the information is to get some feedback, from the consumer's perspective, about programs like "Fresh Choice". The information will be used by the Vancouver Health Department and the Foodservice Industry to develop programs to better meet consumers' needs.

1. Before we focus in on your perceptions and opinions of eating out, I would like to get to know you a little. Tell me a bit about yourself.

probes: Where do you live? Who do you live with? What do they do? What do you do?

2. How does "eating out" fit into your life?

probes: What does "eating out" mean to you? What determines if you will eat out? How often do you eat out? What time of the day do you normally eat out? How many days a week would you do this? How typical is what you've just described? Does eating out differ for you on weekends? Who are you usually with? Where did you last eat out? Why did you choose that restaurant?

119

APPENDICES

3. What determines your menu selection?

probes: How do you decide what you are going to have? Would you decide differently on special occasions? Would you decide differently on the weekend? Do you tend to look for daily specials? What did you have the last time you ate out? Why did you choose what you did?

4. What determines your satisfaction with the menu items you've had?

probes: Tell me about a time when you were very satisfied with the food you had when you were eating out. What did you have? Why were you satisfied? Tell me about a time when you were very dissatisfied with the food you had. What did you have? Why were you satisfied?

5. Do you recognize this design? (If no, explain it is the "Fresh Choice" design.)

probes: Have you heard of "Fresh Choice"? What does the name "Fresh Choice" bring to mind? Do you know what "Fresh Choice" is? How did you learn about "Fresh Choice"? Have you tried a "Fresh Choice" menu item? More than once? Where would this have been? Why did you try a "Fresh Choice"? (If they know about "Fresh Choice" but did not try...) Why did you not try a "Fresh Choice"? What is your response to the name "Fresh Choice" for this program? What does the term "lighter fare" mean to you? What does "lower fat" mean to you? Does the availability of lower fat menu items and lighter fare influence your choice of restaurant? Does the availability of lower fat menu items and lighter fare influence what you order when you're in the restaurant?

120

APPENDICES

6. What does nutrition mean in your life?

probes: What does "nutrition" mean to you? How relevant is nutrition in your life? How relevant is nutrition when you are eating out?

7. What does health mean to you?

probes: What does the word "health" mean to you? Do you think much about your health? Why? Why Not? What is your biggest health concern?

Are you on a particular diet?

8. What are your opinions on having nutrition information available in restaurants?

probes: Would having nutrition information available influence your choice of restaurant? Would it influence your menu selection? Do you think it is relevant to have nutrition information available when eating out? Are you aware of any nutrition programs in restaurants?

Have you tried menu items promoted by nutrition programs? Have you or would you choose them again?

9 Imagine that your input as a consumer is needed to help plan a nutrition program for you favorite restaurant. The program will focus on offering lower fat menu selections.

probes: What are some things you think should be emphasized? What do you think the program should be called? How do you think the program should be promoted? How do you think the menu selections should be promoted?

Do you think such a program would be worthwhile? Why or why not?

121

APPENDICES

APPENDIX G

Interviewee Recruitment Form

DINNER-FOR-TWO (front) Enter to win:

The opportunity to be interviewed about your opinions and perceptions of eating out in restaurants and to receive a complimentary Dinner-for-Two at this restaurant valued at $50.00!

You are eligible to enter if: * you have participated in the "menu items satisfaction" questionnaire; * you eat out 2 or more times a week (at any restaurant); * and you are not celebrating a special occasion (birthday, etc.) by eating out today,

name . phone number (w)

If your name is drawn, you will be contacted by July 7, 1993 to schedule the interview at a time convenient for you. Please place your completed form in the specially marked box near the exit. (See other side for more information.)

DINNER-FOR-TWO (back)

If you wish to participate further in our study, we are now recruiting people. To be eligible you must eat out at least 2 to 3 times a week and have not celebrated an occasion (birthday, etc.) by eating out today We will select names at random from entrants who have completed this form and placed it in a specially marked box near the exit. If you are selected, you will be asked to participate in a thirty minute interview

that will focus on your opinions and perceptions of eating in restaurants. The interviews will be held during July and August at the Family and Nutritional Sciences Building at the University of British Columbia.

All names will be held in confidence and will be used for no other purpose than as stated above. Participation in the interview is voluntary. The dinner-for-two voucher will be awarded upon completion of the interview.

122

APPENDICES

A P P E N D K H

Interviewee Consent Form

T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A

School of Fam.ly and Nutrit ional Sciences 1305 E a « Mal l Vancouver. B . C . C a n a d a V6T IW5

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WITH "FRESH CHOICE" MENU ITEMS A N D ACCEPTANCE OF RESTAURANT-BASED NUTRITION PROGRAMS

I agree to participate in. a study about customers' opinions and perceptions o f eating out, satisfaction with menu items and acceptance of nutrition-based programs in restaurants. I understand that I will be interviewed by Trish Fitzpatrick at the Family and Nutritional Sciences building at U.B.C. I understand that the interview will last approximately 45 minutes and will involve a discussion about my perceptions of the "Fresh Choice" nutrition program and my interest in and opinions of nutrition programs in restaurants.

I understand that the interview will be tape recorded and that I can turn the tape recorder off at any time. I am aware that I can have any portion of the tape erased if I wish and that I can refuse to answer questions that I do not wish to answer.

I understand that all recorded information will be kept in confidence and my name will not be identified with any reports of the findings. I understand my participation is voluntary and that my decision to participate is not binding; I am free to withdraw at any time I am aware that I will receive a dinner-for-two as compensation for my involvement.

If I have any questions concerning the procedures used in this project, ! can contact Trish Fitzpatrick, graduate student (224-8954) or Gwen Chapman, thesis supervisor, (822-6874).

I consent to participate in this project and acknowledge that-1 have received a copy o f the consent form.

Date Signature

123

APPENDICES

APPENDDXI

Waitstaff Questionnaire for Response Rate

"Fresh Choice" Re: Validation of Response Rate

Dear Waitstaff:

Your help is needed to check the response rate for the evaluation questionnaire. Please respond to the following questions to the best of your knowledge.

For the time period of the evaluation (June 21st to June 30th):

1. Approximately, how many customers would you have served during the lunch hour?

and during the dinner hour?

2. Of the total number of lunch and dinner customers you served, approximately how many would have received a questionnaire?

3. What factors determined whether a customer received a questionnaire or not?

4. In your opinion, what percentage of the total number of lunch and dinner customers would have filled out the questionnaire?

Thanks once again for all your efforts!

124

APPENDICES

APPENDIX J

Correlation Matrices and Two-Way ANOVA Tables

Table 8.1 Correlation Coefficients Among Components of the Satisfaction Scale Within "Fresh Choice" Menu Items.

Satisfaction Not over Lack of Fresh. Portion Present Descriptors or fat or size

under grease cooked

Taste Temp. Value Overall for satisfaction price

Not over or undercooked

1.00

Lack of fat or .38 grease

1.00


Portion size .37 .43 .40 1.00

Presentation .42 .45 .53 .60 1.00

Taste .65 .49 .53 .47 .56 1.00

Temp. .55 .50 .51 .45 .55 .61 1.00

Value for .36 price

.43 . 50 .43 .51 .50 .53 1.00

Overall satisfaction

.63 .49 .64 .53 .63 .75 .64 .67 1.00

All correlations highly significant,p=0.000 Correlation coefficients as determined by Spearman's.

125

APPENDICES

Table 8.2 Correlation Coefficients Among Components of the Satisfaction Scale Within Regular Menu Items

Satisfaction Not over Lack of Fresh. Portion Present. Descriptors or fat or size

under grease cooked

Taste Temp. Value Overall for satisfaction price

Not over or 1.00 undercooked

Lack of fat or grease

.44 1.00


Portion size .45 .34 .38 1.00

Presentation .49 .35 .51 .47 1.00

Taste .61 .44 .64 .43 .55 1.00

Temp. .52 .37 .55 .48 .52 .60 1.00

Value for price

.44 .39 .49 .54 .52 .51 .53 1.00

Overall satisfaction

.58 .47 .65 .50 .57 .69 .59 .67 1.00

All correlations highly significant, p =0.000 Correlation coefficients as determined by Spearman's.

126

APPENDICES

Table 8.3 Overall Satisfaction with Menu Items According to Menu Item Type.

Classification of Menu Items1.

"Fresh Choice" Items Regular Menu Items

Menu Item Type Total X ±SD n X ±SD n

Soup 94 4.59 -.65 58 4.33 .76 36

Entree 542 4.42 .79 102 4.21 .80 440

Salad 111 4.42 .90 12 4.22 .79 99

Dessert 94 4.50 .86 14 4.53 .62 80

Nunbers are according to ratings of satisfaction scale

2x4 (Classification x Type) ANOVA

F Significance ofF

Main Effect 2.085 .081

Classification 2.916 .088

Menu Type 1.556 .199

Interactions .384 .764

127

APPENDICES

Table 8.4 Satisfaction with the Lack of Fat or Grease of Menu Items According to Menu Item Type.




Soup 90 4.61 .69 54 4.47 .74 36

Entree 523 4.47 .81 96 4.13 .87 427

Salad 95 4.67 .65 12 4.11 .96 83

Dessert 75 4.78 .67 9 4.26 .87 66



F Significance ofF





128

APPENDICES

Table 8.5 Satisfaction with the Freshness of Menu Items According to Menu ItemType.




Soup 92 4.66 .58 56 4.36 .72 36

Entree 544 4.64 .71 98 4.36 .75 446

Salad 113 4.46 1.13 13 4.37 .79 100

Dessert 95 4.73 .46 15 4.49 .76 80



F Significance ofF



Menu Type .566 .638


129

APPENDICES

Table 8.6 Satisfaction with the Taste of Menu Items According to Menu Item Type



Menu Item Type Total ±SD n X ±SD n

Soup 96 4.50 .82 58 4.16 .82 38

Entree 556 4.56 .71 103 4.21 .83 453

Salad 114 4.21 1.42 14 4.19 .85 100

Dessert 98 4.47 .92 15 4.47 .75 83



F Significance ofF




Interactions 1.174 .318

130

APPENDICES

Table 8.7 Overall Satisfaction with Menu Items According to Meal Type.



Meal Type Total x ±SD n x ±SD n

Lunch 679 4.45 .74 140 4.25 .81 539

Dinner 229 4.51 .85 39 4.31 .72 190



F Significance ofF



Meal Type .676 .411


131

APPENDICES

Table 8.8 Satisfaction with Lack of Fat or Grease of Menu Items According to Meal Type.




Lunch 617 4.56 .78 126 4.17 .90 491

Dinner 207 4.49 .69 37 4.19 .86 170



F Significance ofF



Meal Type .072 .788


132

APPENDICES

Table 8.9 Satisfaction with the Freshness of Menu Items According

to Meal Type.




Lunch 679 4.65 .65 136 4.36 .78 543

Dinner 228 4.66 .63 38 4.47 .67 190 1 Nunbers are according to ratings of satisfaction scale


ofF



Meal Type .596 .440


133

APPENDICES

Table 8.10 Satisfaction with the Taste of Menu Items According to Meal Type.

Classification of Menu Items1


Meal Type Total x SD n x ± SD n

Lunch 703 4.47 .84 144 4.21 .83 559

Dinner 233 4.62 .78 39 4.34 .78 194

1 Nunhers are according to ratings of satisfaction scale


F Significance ofF



Meal Type 3.019 .083


134

APPENDICES

Table 8.11 Overall Satisfaction with Menu Items According to Respondents' Frequency of Eating Out



Frequency _ _ Eating Out Total . x ± SD n x ± SD n

<2x/week 343 4.53 .77 60 4.35 .75 283

2-3x/week 404 4.51 .74 81 4.23 .80 323

>3x/week 219 4.38 .80 47 4.23 .81 172

1 Nunbers are according to ratings of satisfaction scale

2x3 (Classification x Eat Out) ANOVA

F Significance ofF



Frequency Eat Out 1.275 .280


135

APPENDICES

Table 8.12 Satisfaction with Lack of Fat or Grease of Menu Items According to Respondents' Frequency of Eating Out.



Frequency _ _ Eating Out Total x ± SD n x ± SD n

<2x/week 313 4.53 .73 57 4.19 .86 256

2-3x/week 352 4.49 .86 71 4.22 .87 281

>3x/week 205 4.60 .65 45 4.05 .99 160



F Significance ofF



Frequency Eat Out .066 .936


136

APPENDICES

Table 8.13 Satisfaction with Freshness of Menu Items According to Respondents' Frequency of Eating Out



Frequency _ _ Eating Out Total x ± SD n x ± SD n

<2x/week 346 4.62 .59 58 4.48 .67 288

2-3x/week 405 4.68 .65 79 4.39 .75 326

>3x/week 213 4.64 .68 45 4.33 .87 168



F Significance ofF



Frequency Eat Out .314 .730


137

APPENDICES

Table 8.14 Satisfaction with Taste of Menu Items According to Respondents' Frequency of Eating Out.



Frequency Eating Out Total X ±SD n X ±SD n

< 2 x/week 3 5 8 4 . 5 8 . 77 6 0 4 . 3 2 .78 2 9 8

2-3x/week 4 1 3 4 . 5 2 .81 81 4 .28 .82 3 3 2

> 3x/week 2 2 3 4 .33 .94 4 9 4 . 1 7 . 8 7 174



F Significance ofF



Frequency Eat Out 2 . 7 8 7 . 062

Interactions . 1 9 9 .820

138

APPENDICES

Table 8.15 Overall Satisfaction with Menu Items According to Reason forEating Out.



Reason _ _ Eating Out Total x ± SD n x ± SD n

Special 136 4.46 .78 24 4.29 .79 112 Occasion

Regular 837 4.47 .76 166 4.27 .78 671 Dining


2%2 (Classification x Reason) ANOVA

F Significance ofF



Reason Eat Out .000 .994


139

APPENDICES

Table 8.16 Satisfaction with Lack of Fat or Grease of Menu Items According to Reason for Eating Out.





Regular 754 4.56 .75 153 4.18 .90 601 Dining


2x2 (Classification x Reason) ANOVA

F Significance ofF



Reason 1.394 .238


140

APPENDICES

Table 8.18 Satisfaction with Freshness of Menu Items According to Reason for Eating Out.




Special 139 4.33 1.09 24 4.35 .71 115 Occasion

Regular 832 4.68 .60 161 4.42 .75 671 Dining



F Significance ofF



Reason 5.838 .016


141

APPENDICES

Table 8.19 Satisfaction withTaste of Menu Items According to Reason for Eating Out.





Regular 857 4.51 .82 168 4.25 .83 689 Dining


2x2 (Classification x Reason) ANOVA

F Significance ofF



Reason .058 .810


142

APPENDICES

Table 8.20 Overall Satisfaction with Menu Items According to Respondents' Eating Pattern.



Eating

Pattern Total x ± SD n x ± SD n

Diet 198 4.38 .90 50 4.29 .84 148

No Diet 700 4.50 .71 137 4.27 .76 623


2x2 (Classification x Eating Pattern) ANOVA

F Significance of F



Eating Pattern .417 .518


143

APPENDICES

Table 8.21 Satisfaction with Menu Items' Lack of Fat or Grease According to Respondents' Eating Pattern.



Eating

Pattern Total x ± SD n x ± SD n

Diet 176 4.42 .92 45 4.28 .89 131

No Diet 683 4.58 .68 125 4.14 .89 558



F Significance ofF





144

APPENDICES

Table 8.22 Satisfaction with Menu Items' Freshness According to Respondents' Eating Pattern



Eating _ _ Pattern Total x ± SD n x ± SD n

Diet 199 4.51 .82 49 4.43 .75 150

No Diet 755 4.68 .63 133 4.39 .75 622



F Significance ofF





145

APPENDICES

Table 8.23 Satisfaction with Taste of Menu Items According to Respondents' Eating Pattern.



Eating Pattern Total x ± SD n x ± SD n

Diet 204 4.33 1.07 51 4.29 .83 153

No Diet 779 4.55 .73 138 4.25 .82 641



F Significance ofF



Eating Pattern 1.369 .242


146

APPENDICES

Table 8.24 Overall Satisfaction with Menu Items According to Respondents' Diet Type.



Diet Type Total x ± SD n x ± SD n

Vegetarian 76 4.24 .83 17 4.25 .73 59

Low Fat 68 4.44 .86 18 4.24 .92 50

Other 62 4.44 1.03 16 4.39 .86 46


2x3 (Classification x Diet) ANOVA

F Significance ofF

Main Effect .445 .721

Classification .315 .575

Diet Type .504 .605


147

APPENDICES

Table 8.25 Satisfaction with Lack of Fat or Grease of Menu Items According to Respondents' Diet Type.




Vegetarian 66 4.64 .63 14 4.08 .88 52

Low Fat 63 4.18 1.13 17 4.24 1.015 46

Other 54 - 4.43 .85 14 4.55 .75 40



F Significance ofF


Classification .674 .413-

Diet Type 1.118 .329


148

APPENDICES

Table 8.26 Satisfaction with Freshness of Menu Items According to Respondents' Diet Type.




Vegetarian 79 4.56 .71 18 4.43 .67 61

Low Fat 66 4.50 1.03 16 4.50 .76 50

Other 63 4.50 .73 16 4.40 .80 47



F Significance ofF



Diet Type .054 .947


149

APPENDICES

Table 8.27 Satisfaction with Taste of Menu Items According to Respondents' Diet Type.




Vegetarian 79 4.11 1.08 18 4.31 .70 61

Low Fat 68 4.65 .70 17 4.20 1.00 51

Other 66 4.29 1.31 17 4.39 .79 49



F Significance ofF



Diet Type .761 .469


150

APPENDICES

Table 8.28 Overall Satisfaction with Menu Items According to Respondents' Gender.



Gender Total X ±SD n X ±SD n

Male 338 4.41 .80 71 4.23 .77 267

Female 569 4.55 .72 104 4.31 .77 465


2x2 (Classification x Gender) ANOVA

F Significance ofF



Gender 2.724 .099


151

APPENDICES

Table 8.29 Satisfaction with the Lack of Fat or Grease of Menu Items According to Respondents' Gender.



Gender Total x ± SD n x ± SD n

Male 305 4.57 .66 67 4.17 .92 238

Female 510 4.48 .86 94 4.17 .88 416



F Significance ofF



Gender .301 .584


152

APPENDICES

Table 8.30 Satisfaction with Freshness of Menu Item According to Respondents' Gender.

Classification of Menu Items.


Gender Total x ± SD n x ± SD n

Male 338 4.64 .57 70 4.35 .80 268

Female 564 4.62 .79 101 4.46 .67 463



F Significance ofF



Gender .582 .446


153

APPENDICES

Table 8.31 Satisfaction with the Taste of Menu Items According to Respondents' Gender.


"Fresh Choice " Items Regular Menu Items

Gender Total x ±SD n x ±SD n

Male 349 4.40 .88 72 4.24 .83 277

Female 584 4.59 .72 106 4.30 .79 478



F Significance ofF



Gender 3.119 .078


154

APPENDICES

Table 8.32 Overall Satisfaction with Menu Items According to Age.

Classification of Menu Items.1


Age Total X ±SD n X ±SD n

<25 119 4.21 1.10 24 4.27 .79 95

25-34 301 4.60 .49 48 4.26 .75 253

35-49 322 4.51 .77 73 4.21 •* .85 249

>50 221 4.46 .68 39 4.40 .72 182


2x4 (Classification x Age) ANOVA

F Significance ofF



Age 1.316 .268


155

APPENDICES

Table 8.33 Satisfaction with Lack of Fat or Grease Menu Items According to Age.




<25 104 4.38 .92 21 4.11 .98 83

25-34 271 4.56 .70 43 4.17 .89 228

35-49 291 4.55 .81 65 4.08 .94 226

>50 197 4.54 .72 39 4.35 .78 158


2x4 (Classification x Age) ANOVA

F Significance ofF



Age .898 .442


156

APPENDICES

Table 8.34 Satisfaction with Freshness of Menu Items According to Age.




<25 115 ' 4.67 .73 21 4.46 .70 94

25-34 308 4.74 .44 46 4.43 .76 262

35-49 321 4.60 .76 74 4.34 .78 247

>50 215 4.57 .80 37 4.49 .67 178



F Significance ofF



Age .863 .460


157

APPENDICES

Table 8.35 Satisfaction with Taste of Menu Items According to Age.




<25 119 4.50 1.10 22 4.23 .87 97

25-34 311 4.43 .74 47 4.26 .81 264

35-49 332 4.49 .81 76 4.19 .84 256

>50 228 4.59 .77 41 4.43 .73 187



F Significance ofF



Age 1.452 .226


158

evaluation of the fresh choice restaurant … · designed to increase the availability and...

Documents