Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40109407›Full record

ArticleNIHR open research2024

Consumer knowledge of and engagement with traditional takeaway and dark kitchen food outlets.

Lucie Nield, Helen Martin, Claire Wall, Jo Pearce, Rachel Rundle, Simon Bowles, David Harness, Jordan D Beaumont

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NIHR open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Lucie Nield *Sheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, England, S1 1WB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2072-6602
Helen MartinSheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, England, S1 1WB, UK.
Claire WallSheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, England, S1 1WB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0111-1178
Jo PearceSheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, England, S1 1WB, UK.
Rachel RundleSheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, England, S1 1WB, UK.
Simon BowlesSheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, England, S1 1WB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5935-8187
David HarnessSheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, England, S1 1WB, UK.
Jordan D Beaumont *Sheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, England, S1 1WB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9861-3379

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Dark kitchens - delivery-only food outlets operating through digital technology platforms - are a contemporary addition to the food environment. Some concerns have been raised around the ability for local authorities to identify and regulate these businesses, with growing concern around the nutritional quality of foods, food safety practices and impact on the local food environment. The present work explores consumer understanding of and engagement with dark kitchen and traditional takeaway establishments. Methods: Healthy adults living in the United Kingdom completed an online survey comprising of questions measuring demographics, engagement with takeaways and dark kitchens, purchasing behaviours and decision making, and knowledge and understanding around dark kitchens. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: In total, 2,023 participants (46.3 ± 16.7 years) completed the survey. Forty percent purchased a takeaway at least weekly, often through aggregator applications (e.g., Just Eat, Deliveroo). Food was mainly purchased as a treat (79.3%), for enjoyment of the food or taste (60.8%) and for convenience (58.2%). When ordering, consumers considered the taste (88.1%), quality (83.5%), value for money (77.8%), and familiarity with (68.1%) and reputation of the business (60.0%). Only 24.7% of participants had heard of dark kitchens and 9.1% had knowingly purchased from one. After reading a working definition, 54.9% said they would purchase from a dark kitchen, but most would want to know explicitly that they were ordering from these businesses. A major concern when purchasing food from a dark kitchen or takeaway outlet was trust in the food safety and hygiene standards. Conclusion: Consumers are unfamiliar with dark kitchens and are not aware of or confident in identifying these businesses. This confusion and concerns around food safety mean dark kitchens are often viewed negatively. Consumers would prefer more transparency in where their foods are being prepared to allow for more informed decision-making.

Indexed as

Consumer behaviourdelivery-only kitchenghost kitchenvirtual kitchen

Identifiers

PMID40109407
PMCPMC11920686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.