A Journey Into School Lunchbox Decision‐Making: A Mixed Methods Exploration of Australian Parents

ABSTRACT

Introduction

This study aimed to understand parents' decision‐making processes when packing their child's lunchbox, investigating barriers and facilitators of seeking nutrition information for food choices.

Methods

An online survey with Likert and open‐ended questions was conducted via social media platforms. Descriptive quantitative analysis was conducted for the quantitative data, and thematic analysis was done for the qualitative data.

Results

Of 52 parent participants, 78% considered nutritional information when packing lunchboxes, relying mainly on food labelling (32%) and the Australian Nutrition Food Guide (12%). Most parents (64%) felt confident preparing healthy lunchboxes, focusing on fresh, high‐fibre foods and avoiding preservatives. While 60% felt they did not need additional information, 40% were open to more guidance. Key themes included informed food choices, balancing nutrition with preferences, managing information overload, and practical approaches.

Conclusions

Parents demonstrated knowledge of healthy eating guidelines but faced challenges in balancing nutritious choices with children's preferences, cost, and providing a balanced diet.

So What?

Clear, accessible guidance on healthy lunchbox preparation needs to be provided. This helps with comprehensive food labelling, strategies for balancing nutrition with preferences, addressing cost challenges, and developing interventions to overcome barriers in food knowledge and availability.

1. A Journey Into School Lunchbox Decision‐Making: An Exploration of Australian Parents' Perspectives

The food consumed at home and in educational settings sets a child up for life [1]. The quality of food and how well‐nourished the child is influence the child's long‐term health outcomes [2], wellbeing, academic performance, and concentration on tasks [3, 4].

Parents are the key decision‐makers in children's food choices, and as the child ages, adolescents are more likely to make their own food choices [1, 5]. Parents are likely to have either a positive or a negative impact on the child's health. A gap in parents' nutrition knowledge about healthy eating and unhealthy nutritional habits could contribute to children's ill health [6]. Food information is accessible to parents from many sources. Many parents have access to the internet, enabling them to search for health information online [7]. Other sources include printed resources (books, recipes, research articles, health magazines, booklets); internet‐based resources (websites, online parenting forums, blogs); professional support (nurses, dietitians, childcare staff); informal support networks (parent's groups, family, friends, other parents; [8, 9]) and personal knowledge (common sense, personal experience, cultural traditions; [8, 10]). However, parents may be unsure whether the information they find is trustworthy. Parents may find it difficult to access and evaluate food information, making food choices difficult and complex. This may be due to unclear health information. With concerns about adverse health outcomes associated with increased levels of food processing [11, 12], the parents' responsibility for the provision of food goes beyond the home into the school or early childhood setting.

Unlike some countries that provide prepared school meals [13], most Australian schools require parents to pack a lunchbox for their child each day, with sufficient nutritious food for morning, lunch, and afternoon breaks [14]. There have been various programs introduced related to healthy eating and lunchbox preparation for children in Australia, such as Munch & Move [15], Reclaim the Lunchbox [16] and Healthy Lunchbox [17]. However, there is still limited research regarding how parents make sense of the information available to make informed decisions about healthy eating. Specifically, there is little research focused on parents' lunchbox packing habits and attitudes that influence decisions on healthy eating choices [18]. Knowing how parents make lunchbox decisions could help inform programs such as Munch & Move to provide children with nutritious food and help parents determine the ‘healthiness’ of food when purchasing. Crowe [19] indicates that parents usually classify food as either ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’ based on whether the food is processed or not. However, parents need to understand the nutritional value of food, which involves synthesising various sources of information, which is influenced by their level of health and nutrition literacy [20].

Factors that influence parents' food choices for the lunchbox have been found to be complex and emotionally charged [21]. Parents are influenced by time availability, the cost of food, concerns for food nutrition, a desire to please their child, knowledge of their child's likes/dislikes, children exercising democratic rights, and, at times, parental guilt owing to leaving their child in care [6, 22]. Yet nutritional choices are key determinants of a child's growth, learning, and development.

Parents' perceptions of food for their children have not been substantially explored despite parents' key role as decision‐makers and providers of household nutrition in formulating, motivating, and inspiring their children's eating patterns [22]. Making food choices can also be influenced by emotions, with children enacting agency for foods they desire; for example, by refusing to eat food provided and influencing parents' decision‐making to provide food preferred by the child [21]. Parents may be anxious about the quality and quantity of what their child eats and prioritise the child's food preferences over being healthy, ensuring the child eats ‘something’. Parents' health and nutrition literacy also influence decisions about food selection for their child's lunchbox [23]. Information for choosing food, enabling health and nutrition literacy, can assist parents in interpreting food information and provide consistent and comprehensive information for the public.

1.1. Health and Nutrition Literacy

Health literacy is related to a person's ability to acquire, process, and understand health‐related information and services to promote and maintain good health [24]. Health literacy is linked to education, culture, income, and employment. However, nutrition literacy is complex. Nutrition literacy reflects the ability to access, interpret, and apply nutrition information to food choices, purchases, and consumption [20]. Parents with higher health and nutritional literacy levels can better understand and use the information to make informed decisions about what food to buy, prepare, and eat [20, 23]. There is evidence of parents having health literacy [20]; however, nutritional literacy, which concerns parents' current knowledge, self‐efficacy, and attitudes related to healthy eating, is sparse.

A ‘healthy’ diet rich in fresh fruit and vegetables, whole grains, nuts and seeds, spices, herbs and fermented plant foods [25, 26] promotes health and is preventive for chronic lifestyle illnesses, including a multitude of health issues, including diabetes, depression [27], and obesity [2]. Health literacy and self‐efficacy enhance food choices, enhance food label critique, and support quality dietary choices [23, 28]. Given the complex food choices parents are presented with and the broader social, economic, and structural determinants that influence healthy eating practices, practical strategies are needed to support parents in making ‘healthy’ decisions [29].

Children's nutrition literacy is a vital health literacy component and is associated with a parent's education. Cha et al. [28] found that children with highly educated parents were motivated to develop healthy lifestyle behaviours, including healthy eating. For children to develop nutrition literacy, they need to have parents who are informed about making their food decisions, and for parents to share their decision‐making with their children. Hence, support and education are required for parents to access the correct information, empowering them to make healthy food choices [8]. This project aims to explore parents' decision‐making for food choices in their child's lunchbox, including nutrition information‐seeking behaviour, attitudes, barriers, and facilitators, and identify parents' sources of food information for their child's growth and development. Research has identified that parents often choose foods that do not support optimal growth and development and reduce the risk of obesity or nutritional deficiencies for the child despite their motivation to provide nutritious meals [21].

The theoretical framework underpinning this study is Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory (1979). At the individual level, the microsystem, the parent makes food decisions for their child. This microsystem interacts with the surrounding factors in the mesosystem, which includes the parents' socioeconomic status. The exosystem includes healthcare professionals, who may impact health literacy/nutrition literacy, and the neighbourhood where the food is purchased. At the macrosystem level, government policies, food industries, internet sources, and society's culture influence the knowledge of food available to parents. This ecological systems model is dynamically recognised by Bronfenbrenner [30] as the chronosystem. It is always changing as food and health education change. As demonstrated in Figure 1, the socio‐ecological framework within Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory aligns well with the study in relation to the following factors:

1. Parents' sources of nutritional information, current knowledge, self‐efficacy, and attitudes on food choices.

2. Parents' interpretation of nutrition information about food.

3. The barriers and facilitators of nutrition information seeking on food choices.

4. The foods parents consider healthy and unhealthy for children's lunchboxes.

FIGURE 1.

Socio‐ecological framework of parents' lunchbox decision making.

2. Method

2.1. Research Design

This study aimed to achieve a detailed understanding of the factors impacting parents' decision‐making for their children's lunchboxes. We applied a combination of closed‐ended and open‐ended questions to complement each other, providing a thorough understanding of the phenomenon. The research was designed to quantify common food choices and parental priorities, but also to achieve the nuanced/qualitative reasons behind these decisions. The closed‐ended questions provided structured data on patterns and preferences, and open‐ended questions allowed parents to further explain their personal challenges, motivations, and the daily routines that frame what goes into the lunchbox. See SI for detailed breakdown.

2.2. Survey Instrument

The survey aimed to measure parental decision‐making of lunchbox choices for their children. The survey items were refined through group consensus and advice from expert colleagues acting as critical friends and from the extant literature. The survey sections related to participants' demographics, including parents and children, factors influencing decision‐making, nutritional information sources and consideration, nutritional information interpretation, and parents' lunchbox food choices.

Most of the survey consisted of closed‐ended questions, including categorical questions (employment status, frequency of food being brought home); Likert scale questions, such as confidence in providing a healthy lunchbox, to rating the healthiness of specific food items. Likert scale questions included 18 questions divided into six sections on a three‐, five‐, or seven‐point scale. There were also several matrix‐style questions. For example, asking participants to rate 13 different factors influencing their lunch preparations, rating their use of 11 different sources for nutritional information, or rating 9 common food items on both perceived healthiness and likelihood of inclusion in their child's lunchbox.

The survey included eight open‐ended questions which explored in depth factors influencing decision‐making, nutritional information sources and consideration, nutritional information interpretation, and parents' lunchbox food choices. These questions more specifically prompted participants for detailed written responses. Including the ways children assist in lunch preparation, interpretations and reasons for uneaten food, and approaches to assessing nutritional labels for decision‐making.

Closed‐ended questions:

1. Participant demographics (education, employment, income bracket, number of children)

2. Lunchbox behaviours/practices (child's help, uneaten food, food sharing, using ‘ready to go’ food)

3. Factors influencing lunchbox choices (rating the influence of various factors on lunch preparation, including children's likes/dislikes, time for preparation, healthiness, ease of packing, storage, cost/availability, and use of leftovers)

4. Nutritional knowledge, attitudes, and confidence (attitude to the lunchbox task, nutritional consideration, information sources, confidence, knowledge)

5. Perceptions and likelihood of including specific foods (rate examples of specific food items (apple, Vegemite sandwich, chips) on two separate 10‐point scales that indicate how healthy they perceived the item to be and/or how likely they would be to include that item in a lunchbox).

Open‐ended questions:

1. Identifying the specific allergies/intolerances of the children.

2. The ways a child helps prepare their lunchbox.

3. The interpretation of what it means when a child brings home uneaten food.

4. The perceived reasons why a child shares food.

5. The typical contents of a child's lunchbox.

6. The decision‐making process for what to include in a lunchbox.

7. Other sources used for nutritional information.

8. How parents assess and interpret information on food labels.

2.3. Participants, Recruitment and Procedure

A total of 52 participants completed the survey via social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X) as well as in online community forums. Participants were parents of school‐aged children who were recruited via snowball convenience sampling and were invited to complete an anonymous online survey. The survey was advertised on the authors' social media platforms as well as the Faculty of Education social media platforms from the lead author's university. The invitation to participate included a brief overview of the study, and if interested, directed to a link to the online participant information sheet and survey, which was run across four weeks in 2022. The main inclusion criterion was being a parent/primary caregiver who was responsible for lunchbox packing for at least one school‐aged child. Participants were excluded if they were under 18 or did not need to take lunch from home to school. The survey was anonymous and took approximately 10–15 min to complete. Ethics clearance was received from Southern Cross University Human Research Ethics Committee Ethics approval number 2022/080, before commencing the study.

2.4. Data Analysis

Closed‐ended questions data was exported from Qualtrics and analysed using quantitative data analysis approaches using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 28). These include descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations) to summarise participant demographics. No specific inferential analysis was conducted as this study is a pilot involving a combination of descriptive, open‐ended, and closed‐ended questions. The open‐ended questions data were analysed via manual thematic analysis to identify recurrent patterns and themes [31]. One author first undertook the qualitative data analysis, which was then discussed with a consensus reached by the remaining authors.

3. Results

The findings of this study present a demographic profile of the participants, the quantitative results from the survey, and the qualitative data that complement and provide some depth to the quantitative phase.

3.1. Participant Demographics

A total of 52 participants completed the survey, which took approximately 10–15 min to complete. Nearly all the participants were female (96%), mostly employed (87%). The highest level of education for most participants was a bachelor's degree (44%), a Master's degree (29%) or a PhD (8%). Nearly half of the participants (49%) had two children in school, and eight (15%) indicated their children had intolerances or allergies. The most common annual household income bracket was $45 001–$120 000 (42%), followed by the $120 001–$180 000 tax bracket (31%). Table 1 outlines the participant characteristics.

TABLE 1.

Participant characteristics (N = 52).

	n	%
Gender
Female	50	96
Male	2	4
Annual household income (net)
$45 001–$120 000	22	42
$120 001–$180 000	16	31
> $180 000	10	19
Highest education level
High School/TAFE	10	19
Undergraduate	23	44
Postgraduate	19	35
Employment status
Homemaker/student	7	14
Part‐time	25	48
Full‐time	20	39
Occupation
Professional	30	58
Manager	5	10
Service/sales	4	8
Clerical	3	6
Technician	1	2
Trade	1	2
Other	1	2

3.2. Quantitative Results

3.2.1. Lunchbox Behaviours and Practices

Regarding lunchbox practices, participant responses indicated moderate involvement from children in preparing their lunch (M = 3.06, SD = 1.19), and it was common for children to bring home uneaten food, with a majority (65%) stating this happens ‘sometimes’. A clear trend emerged related to birth order; the reported frequency of food sharing increased with each subsequent child, from the first (M = 1.85) to the fourth (M = 3.00). Conversely, the likelihood of including a drink decreased from the first child (75%) to the fourth (2%). Additionally, the use of store‐bought ‘ready to go’ food was a moderately common practice (M = 3.04, SD = 0.70). For the second child, the figure falls to 50%, and it becomes much less common for a third (14%) or fourth child (2%).

3.3. Factors Influencing Lunchbox Choices

As demonstrated in Table 2. When participants rated the influence of 13 factors on their lunch preparations, the two most influential were clearly ‘Healthiness of food’ (M = 4.10, SD = 0.82) and ‘Children's likes/dislikes’ (M = 4.00, SD = 0.90). Practical considerations such as ‘Time for preparation’ (M = 3.52) and ‘Ease of packing lunchbox’ (M = 3.50) were also reported as moderately influential. Conversely, the factors with the least influence on decision‐making were the parents' food preferences (M = 2.27) and the use of leftovers (M = 2.33).

TABLE 2.

Factors influencing lunchbox choices (N = 52).

	1 Does not apply	2	3	4	5 Almost always applies	M (SD)
Children's likes/dislikes	1 (1.9%)	1 (1.9%)	6 (11.5%)	16 (30.8%)	28 (53.8%)	4 (0.901)
Time for preparation	3 (5.8%)	7 (13.5%)	14 (26.9%)	16 (30.8%)	12 (23.1%)	3.52 (1.163)
Time to go shopping	11 (21.2%)	8 (15.4%)	14 (29.9%)	13 (25.0)	5 (9.6%)	2.86 (1.296)
Healthiness of food	0	0	15 (28.8%)	17 (32.7%)	20 (38.5%)	4.10 (0.823)
Ease of packing lunchbox	2 (3.8%)	6 (11.5%)	17 (32.7%)	18 (34.6%)	9 (17.3%)	3.50 (1.038)
Shape of lunchbox	13 (25.0%)	8 (15.4%)	13 (25.0%)	11 (21.2%)	7 (13.5%)	2.83 (1.382)
Storage of food at school	8 (15.4%)	6 (11.5%)	17 (32.7%)	9 (17.3%)	12 (23.1%)	3.21 (1.348)
Availability of food	4 (7.7)	11 (21.2%)	16 (30.8%)	11 (21.2%)	10 (19.2%)	3.23 (1.215)
Use of leftovers	20 (38.5%)	7 (13.5%)	16 (30.8%)	6 (11.5%)	3 (5.8%)	2.33 (1.264)
Wrapping and associated waste	14 (26.9%)	6 (11.5%)	10 (19.2%)	12 (23.1%)	10 (19.2%)	2.96 (1.495)
Your own likes/dislikes	16 (30.8%)	14 (26.9%)	14 (26.9%)	5 (9.6%)	2 (3.8%)	2.27 (1.133)
Cost of food	15 (28.8%)	6 (11.5%)	17 (32.7%)	8 (15.4%)	6 (11.5%)	2.69 (1.351)
Access to healthy food	5 (9.6%)	4 (7.7%)	15 (28.8%)	14 (26.9%)	13 (25.0%)	3.51 (1.239)

3.4. Nutritional Knowledge, Attitudes, and Confidence

Parents expressed high confidence in their ability to provide a healthy lunchbox (M = 3.84, SD = 0.91), and all participants (n = 50) were familiar with the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating's five food groups. Despite this confidence, their attitude towards the task of preparation was neutral (M = 3.08). In practice, most participants reported ‘always’ (31%) or ‘mostly’ (39%) considering nutritional information when packing lunches. To inform these decisions, the most frequently used source for nutritional information was ‘Food Labelling’ (M = 3.56), while sources such as TV, magazines, and parent groups were rarely used.

Parents were also asked to rate the perceived health of specific lunchbox items and how likely they would be to include the item in their child's lunchbox. They ranked fresh foods, including fruits, vegetables, and wholemeal, as the higher priorities, with processed foods such as muffins, original flavoured chips, and cola soft drinks ranked the lowest, as indicated in Table 3 below relating to the judgement as to whether the food item was considered healthy or not and if they were likely to include the item in the child's lunchbox.

TABLE 3.

Frequency of using lunchbox nutritional information sources (N = 52).

	1 Not at all	2	3	4	5 Almost always	M (SD)
TV	39 (78.0%)	7 (14.0%)	3 (6.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (1.90)	1.35 (0.772)
Friends	26 (52.0%)	1 (16.0%)	11 (22.0%)	5 (10.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1.90 (1.074)
Family	26 (52.00%)	10 (20.0%)	9 (18.0%)	5 (10.00%)	0 (0.0%)	1.86 (1.050)
Social media	29 (59.0%)	10 (20.0%)	6 (12.0%)	4 (8.0%)	1 (2.0%)	1.76 (1.080)
Food labelling	4 (8.0%)	5 (10.0%)	16 (32.0%)	9 (18.0%)	16 (32.0%)	3.56 (1.264)
Magazines	39 (78.0%)	4 (8.0%)	6 (12.0%)	1 (2.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1.38 (0.780)
Public health messages	19 (38.0%)	4 (8.0%)	15 (30%)	11 (22.0%)	1 (2.0%)	2.42 (1.263)
Books	18 (36.0%)	5 (10.0%)	17 (34.0%)	9 (18.0%)	1 (2.0%)	2.40 (1.212)
Parent groups	36 (72.0%)	3 (6.0%)	9 (18.0%)	2 (4.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1.54 (9.30)
Blogs	29 (58.0%)	10 (20.0%)	7 (14.0%)	4 (8.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1.72 (0.991)
Australian Nutrition guide	10 (20.0%)	8 (16.0%)	14 (28.0%)	12 (24.0%)	6 (12.0%)	2.92 (1.307)
Peer‐reviewed journal articles	31 (62.0%)	5 (10.0%)	4 (8.0%)	7 (14.0%)	3 (6.0%)	1.92 (1.353)

3.5. Perceptions of Specific Food Items

Participants rated nine specific food items on their perceived healthiness and their likelihood of inclusion in a lunchbox (Table 4). Whole foods like vegetable sticks (M = 9.79) and apples (M = 9.50) were rated as highly healthy, while Coca‐Cola was rated as extremely unhealthy (M = 1.04). A Pearson correlation analysis revealed a statistically significant positive relationship between perceived healthiness and likelihood of inclusion for most processed items, such as cheese sticks (r = 0.689, p < 0.001), a Vegemite sandwich (r = 0.617, p < 0.001), and original flavoured chips (r = 0.578, p < 0.001). This indicates that for these items, a higher health rating was associated with a higher likelihood of being packed.

TABLE 4.

Healthy rating and likely inclusion of item in lunchbox (N = 52).

Item	Healthy	Likely	r (p)
Apple	9.50 (0.923)	9.42 (1.471)	0.141 (0.339)
Vegetable sticks	9.79 (0.771)	8.10 (3.012)	0.266 (0.067)
Vegemite sandwich	5.00 (1.822)	6.15 (3.182)	0.617 (< 0.001)
Wholemeal salad sandwich	8.50 (1.399)	7.29 (2.707)	0.011 (0.940)
Cheese sticks	4.98 (1.973)	4.77 (3.033)	0.689 (< 0.001)
Strawberry flavoured museli bar	3.88 (1.696)	4.33 (3.083)	0.602 (< 0.001)
Homemade apple muffin	6.40 (1.498)	7.23 (2.195)	0.354 (0.14)
Original flavoured chips	2.44 (1.219)	4.25 (3.528)	0.578 (< 0.001)
Coca‐Cola soft drink	1.04 (0.202)	1.19 (1.299)	−0.030 (0.837)

3.6. Qualitative Results

Using Braun and Clarke's [31] thematic analysis approach, four main interconnected themes were identified from the qualitative analysis of open‐ended questions. The themes identified were (i) making informed food choices; (ii) balancing nutrition with personal preferences; (iii) managing information overload and external pressures; and (iv) employing empowering strategies for practical lunchbox preparation. Both qualitative and quantitative data are presented under each theme heading below.

3.6.1. Theme 1: Informed Food Choices

Theme 1, ‘Informed Food Choices’, related to parents' exploration of various information sources, such as food labels and dietary guidelines, to make well‐informed decisions for their children's lunchboxes, arising from information both within and external to the microsystem. Nutritional value was prioritised, especially natural ingredients and minimal additives. Lunchboxes were thoughtfully adapted to cater to any allergies, intolerances, or specific dietary requirements the child might have. This highlighted the microsystemic influences of the child on the parents. Parents reacted to these proximal processes, as they employed strategies to limit ultra‐processed options, such as highly processed snacks, sugary drinks, and unhealthy fats, simultaneously considering budget and convenience factors.

Most participants considered nutritional information when packing lunchboxes. The primary sources of information used for lunchbox preparation were exosystemic, found in food labelling. Still within the exosystem, friends and media were found to have minimal roles in the participants' nutritional information. Of those who read the labels, the key indicators for interpreting food labels were linked to sugar and additives/preservatives. Other considerations related to fat amount, food serving size, salt, the health star rating, allergy information, protein portion, sodium amount, nutritional rating, fibre amount, and/or carbohydrates. The following four parent responses highlight this decision‐making. ‘When I buy packet food, I want to know exactly what's in it. I look for fewer ingredients and no additives or preservatives’. I look at the ingredients list. I look for where sugar sits in the list and don't buy anything that has sugar in the top 3 ingredients’; ‘(I) look to see how much processing the food has passed its original natural state’; ‘I use the star rating as a general guide to narrow down choices then look at the ingredients to narrow it down’.

Most participants rated their confidence as high in providing a healthy lunchbox for their children. Their confidence in choosing healthy foods was related to avoiding preservatives and highly processed foods, choosing fresh foods, and including food with high amounts of fibre, such as vegetables. All participants stated they were familiar with the five food groups that comprise the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating [25]. Many parents considered including the five food groups in their child's lunchbox as part of a balanced approach, as the following quotes indicate. ‘I normally try to include a variety of foods with a minimum of 3 foods from the 5 food groups’; ‘I just try to make sure one of each group is covered’.

In addition, parents paid attention to food allergies and safety. ‘What can sustain sitting in a lunchbox and doesn't need refrigerating or cooling?’ As well as using the guidelines to choose the food, they also revealed using other sources, such as naturopaths, and their intuition. ‘However, rather than taking recommendations from the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating, I prefer to take advice from my naturopath regarding healthy food for my children’; ‘It's a feeling I get. I like balance, and if it doesn't feel right, I'll take something out or add another.’

3.6.2. Theme 2: Balancing Nutrition, Preferences

The second theme focuses on the challenge of balancing nutrition with children's preferences in their lunchboxes. Overall, parents identified that it was challenging to balance healthy options based on their knowledge about healthy foods, the availability of fresh versus ultra‐processed foods, the time limitation, and what their children like to eat. The following quantitative indicators impacted the preparation of a healthy lunchbox: the child's likes/dislikes, healthy food, access to healthy food, ease of packing, wrapping and associated waste, with the parent's likes/dislikes having minimal influence. Open‐ended comments also included convenience, food knowledge, avoiding preservatives, including variety, (un)processed foods, guidelines, and the cost of living. Some were frustrated if their children did not consume the foods they had thoughtfully provided, and the food may be wasted. When asked whether their child brings home food from their lunchbox, most participants indicated sometimes. The main reasons they thought the food was brought home were because their child was ‘too busy playing’, they ‘did not like the food’ or that they were not hungry. Hence, the parents disclosed that they ensured they provided variety while being mindful of their child's food preferences. ‘I try to go as healthy as possible within the limits of what my daughter will eat. I would rather she ate SOMETHING than provide only healthy options that she will leave to waste’.

The comment below also highlights how parents accommodate food choices for their children.

I wish that they would try or eat some healthier options, but both kids are very rigid in their choices. If I put in something different, it will come home. So, I make sure it's food they will eat, and veggies are a definite at dinner.

Parents shared that they were trying their best to enhance their basic knowledge about healthy eating and avoid highly processed foods, as they felt surrounded by a lot of ultra‐processed foods with adverse impacts on health and wellbeing. ‘I try my hardest to and am aware of preservatives in our foods to I am for little to none in their lunches. ‘There are too many snack‐type items that are processed’; and ‘I think I know the basics, although it is not always easy to achieve’.

Parents also found that the time they had to prepare their child's lunchbox was a barrier to preparing a fresh, healthy lunch. ‘I wish I could do better, but I don't always have the time or ingredients to make them a salad wrap instead of a homemade ham and cheese scroll, for example’. Preparation time was identified by parents as a factor that influenced lunchbox preparation. The time to go shopping had some influence. When asked about the purchase of ‘ready to go’ food for the lunchboxes, many parents did so ‘sometimes’. The main reason reported for the purchase of ‘ready to go’ food was ‘convenience.

3.6.3. Theme 3: Information Overload and External Pressures

Theme 3, addresses the challenges of information overload and external pressures that parents face regarding lunchbox choices for their children. Although parents appreciate the informational support they receive from various sources about nutrition literacy and preparation, they highlighted external and internal pressures. They reported that they felt under pressure to provide healthy meals that were appealing and quick to prepare, reflecting the need to efficiently manage time while ensuring that children have satisfying meals.

Participants were asked whether they wanted more information about preparing their child's lunchboxes. Over half suggested they do not require further information on preparing lunchboxes, while 40% would welcome further information. Parents actively sought out supportive resources that provided practical tips and a judgement‐free environment, enabling them to make well‐informed decisions about lunchboxes.

Judgement was highlighted by the parents' words below:

I have seen how families can feel judged and isolated for their choices. Educators need to be very cautious of their approach to families and food. They need to be kind and not condescending

Many parents experienced information fatigue as they felt bombarded with advice from various sources, including schools, childcare centres, and social media platforms, which can lead to feelings of overwhelm and confusion. ‘I don't want to receive any information. Parents are bombarded with healthy lunchbox ideas. Personally, daycare/preschools/schools judge families too much about what food they provide for their children’.

3.6.4. Theme 4: Practical Approaches for Lunchboxes

Theme 4 relates to empowering approaches that assist parents in creating practical and sustainable lunchboxes for their children. This theme concerns the challenge parents face in balancing the multiple demands of preparing children's lunchboxes, which are seen as a significant part of their daily routine. The challenge reflected by the parents is not just about feeding their children but doing so in a way that supports their health and enjoyment, finding a balance between nutritious and desirable food options, all within the constraints of a busy family life.

Parents highlighted the need for varied and innovative meal ideas to cater to diverse preferences ‘Ideas! Sometimes I get a little bored and put the same old things in. My child doesn't eat sandwiches’; ‘Suggestions of things to try, healthy alternatives to popular choices, not information that makes you feel guilty about providing food they will actually eat’.

Parents often find themselves overwhelmed by the need to balance various factors such as health, enjoyment, cost, preparation time, innovation, and variety. Parents wanted strategies to prepare a balance of healthy and yet enjoyable meals for their children. ‘I want to find food he enjoys and will eat, that is healthy’.

Parents highlighted budget‐friendly and time‐efficient food ideas, which can be prepared in advance. ‘Tips on stuff that's cheap, healthy, and can be prepared ahead of time, and that doesn't go soggy in their lunchbox’. ‘Quick recipes for lunchboxes which children love to eat’. Some parents preferred foods that make children feel fuller for longer. ‘What is going to keep them going and give them the energy they need to sustain themselves through the day’.

Although many parents were stretched for time, describing the lunchbox preparation as ‘monotonous’ or ‘just another chore’ that felt like ‘Groundhog Day’, many simultaneously highlighted the joy that arises from preparing the lunchboxes for their children. ‘Doing something for them is almost enjoyable for me’. ‘Food is my love language’. ‘I like the feeling of giving my kids nutritious food’.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to provide a detailed understanding of the factors impacting on parents' decision‐making on food choices for their child's lunchboxes, with an elicitation on the reasons behind these food choices with a focus on the four themes of ‘Informed Food Choices’, ‘Balancing Nutrition Preferences’, ‘Information overload and External Pressures’, and Practical Approaches for Lunchboxes'.

To discuss what informed parents' food choices, the presence of nutritional information found on food labels provides insights into how parents were interacting with the information found on the label to interpret how suitable the food was for their child's lunch. Based on a position of being ‘informed’ as the knowledge about food options, the study noted that most of the participants were educated women who used nutrition information when preparing their child's lunchbox.

Whether it be through formal or informal means, parents' understanding of ‘what is healthy’ was based on their self‐efficacy in their health and nutrition literacy to interpret the information found on exosystemic food labels and their assessment of ‘freshness’. A finding similarly reported by other studies. For example, Cha et al. [28] found that educated mothers were motivated to focus on healthy eating compared to less educated women. In making informed food choices, responses from the parents provided insights into a variety of food selection strategies. Examples of these strategies informed through label interpretation included an assessment of the ingredients to determine the level of processing to avoid, or mitigate highly‐processed foods and preservatives; the order that the ingredients appear on the label to determine the quantity and composition of the nutrients found in the food product; or the suitability of the food to be consumed if stored in a lunchbox for a specified period of time. This capacity draws on knowledge to interpret food labels influences parents' capacity to perceived healthiness for inclusion in a lunchbox.

Despite challenges in deciphering nutritional information, the theme of balancing nutrition, inclusive of child preferences against the backdrop of guidelines, societal judgements, and financial limitations [32]. Considering the complexities surrounding healthy food choices, the barriers and facilitators of nutritious and healthy eating were viewed through the theoretical perspective of the ecological systems approach [30] to determine how parents balance influential factors. At the microsystemic level, interacting with their children on a daily basis, there is a degree of negotiation between the parents' choices and the child who exercises their agency in determining food in their school lunchbox according to their preferences. Parents indicate that there is a degree of compromise where they aim to provide nutritious food for a school day; however, child preferences and accommodations for issues such as intolerance impact parent choices. Agency of children at the microsystemic level highlighted the importance of Food health literacy for children as well as parents. This can be done in the first 5 years of life as children learn to discriminate between healthy foods and understand the rules for eating [21]. Health and nutrition literacy is continued within the school curriculum and is a step forward for preventing disease and empowering children to have some control over their health and wellbeing [33].

Parents are faced with an overload of nutritional information in terms of quantities and sources. At exosystemic levels, public health messages have a role in ensuring nutrition information is visual and accessible to all people, including those from non‐English speaking backgrounds, and that informs everyone. Whilst there are visual approaches developed to assist those with low literacy and numeracy levels [34], the study revealed that reading food labels is a key factor in seeking nutrition information, notwithstanding challenges. Although food labels and ingredients exist to inform the public about food nutrition, the labels are often complex for consumers when deciding about the healthiness of the products. These complexities can make it challenging for parents to understand how healthy the food is.

Parents do not need to face these challenges alone. At both the microsystemic and exosystemic level, parental engagement with their school and local communities can be beneficial to bring engaged parents together to share information and engage with representatives from various partners to promote healthy eating patterns through easy, nutritious and appealing lunchboxes. However, the engagement in communities needs to be supportive, as participants in this study indicated that what they provide for their child can be judged by both the education provider as well as other parents. The suggestion is the adoption of more educative rather than judgemental approaches to food choices.

External to household microsystems, the role of nutrition information sources such as TV, social media, and evidence‐based information is used by parents for decision making of food in lunchboxes; however, some parents feel ‘bombarded’ with information. Advertising campaigns on television and social media remain somewhat effective in influencing behaviour [35], and the sponsorship of children's sports by healthier food brands or public health nutrition campaigns could help promote healthier food choices among parents [36]. To promote healthy nutrition in countries such as the USA, Australia, and New Zealand, marketing and advertisements have been observed on trains and areas close to schools [37], though this does add to the amount of information for parents to digest.

At macrosystemic levels, diversity across national approaches has resulted in an escalating array of policies to reinforce food environments and champion healthful eating habits. Some of these approaches have aimed at influencing manufacturers as well as consumers. Fiscal mechanisms like levies on sugar‐sweetened beverages and the advancement of optimised dietary paradigms are additional sources of information for parents and their children to decipher. Governments and policymakers have an important role in regulating the current ultra‐processed food marketing that targets young people, and through regulation, may reduce the burden on parents in filtering through the amount of information. One approach implemented by the South Australian government was banning advertising for ultra‐processed foods/drinks in all public places including transport, buses, trains, and trams to decrease the community's exposure to junk food marketing [38], though there is some work underway to address the marketing of products through individual mobile devices and social media.

Akin to a citizen science project, the ‘Australian Ad Observatory’ funded by the federal government in 2021, was created to enable individuals to report on advertisements such as those promoting unhealthy foods. Identified advertisements are analysed and communicated to the public for transparency and education [39].

In support of an ecological approach to food choices, to effect change, and in acknowledgement of the diverse and complex information and the constraints of time, parents have indicated the need for healthy, practical approaches that empower them to choose healthy food for their children. To support this, opportunities that facilitate parental engagement across a diverse range of school community stakeholders, such as parents, children, educators, nutritionists/dietitians, and local producers and grocers, should form a cohesive parent‐teacher association. Ongoing support and networking are encouraged to influence how nutritional information can be consistent and inform parents. In this study, parents have indicated their willingness to try to implement new approaches to school lunchboxes, based on the influential factors of being reasonably priced, quick, suitable for the lunchbox, and, most importantly, healthier.

One example of a cohesive microsystemic approach is parental engagement with the school's Parent Committee, which includes parents, children, and representatives from various partners to promote healthy eating patterns through easy, nutritious, and appealing lunchboxes. With the information gathered, schools can publish through their community communication channels examples of healthy lunchboxes.

The potential for such school‐based interventions to promote healthier eating habits among children and parents is crucial, given that dietary habits formed in early childhood often persist into adulthood. By empowering children as well as their parents, the inclusion of children in the preparation or choice of their meals may enhance the acceptance and nutritional quality of school lunches [40]. As well as the online material for healthy lunchbox ideas, schools can run cooking classes and engage children to learn how to make healthy food to make the process enjoyable.

Community gardening initiatives assist families to work together for a common cause and to understand food processing from farm to table, the appreciation of healthy foods, and reducing food waste. Overall, these practical steps can be sustainable to educate children and parents about healthy eating habits to make wholesome choices right from childhood.

Collaborative efforts across the school community ecosystem should involve parents, teachers, and policymakers to support and educate on healthier lunchbox preparation and enforce school policies that promote nutritious eating habits. The school website can provide information for health literacy purposes, and incorporating them in training programs with explicit examples and empowering approaches can be effective for enhancing awareness.

Enhancing the school curriculum and providing nourishing, fresh food rather than ultra‐processed foods (in line with current canteen directives) can effectively complement community and parental roles. Although there have been initiatives for the promotion of healthy eating patterns in school canteens [41], the school canteen may still include highly processed foods; students may still choose to purchase unhealthy foods.

There is a pressing need for targeted public health strategies to provide information for families about the nutritional quality of lunchboxes. Ongoing research and policy reforms are essential for macrosystemic influences to monitor and enhance the dietary impacts of school lunchbox contents, including regulatory measures that encourage the production of healthier, well‐portioned food options for children [32]. A striking example is seen in Niteroi, Brazil, where recent legislative measures have successfully banned the sale, marketing, and distribution of unhealthy foods in schools, including all ultra‐processed foods.

5. Conclusion

This study aimed to achieve a detailed understanding of the factors impacting parents' decision‐making regarding their choices of food to place in their children's lunchboxes. 52 participants completed the survey, consisting of both closed‐ended and open‐ended questions, to use rich qualitative data to provide a deeper understanding of the factors that influence food choices. The analysis of the quantitative results revealed that parents choose food based on perceived healthiness, child agency based on whether they eat or share food, and preparation time and the ease of packing food into lunchboxes destined for a school bag.

A greater depth of understanding was revealed through an analysis of the qualitative responses, which revealed four factors that influence food choices. The themes of being informed, balancing nutrition versus child preferences, information overload, and external pressure, as well as practical approaches were generated from the qualitative data. These highlighted the need for a variety of ecosystemic supports for families to make food choices. The establishment of microsystemic school community networks to support parent education and greater regulation of food marketing influence from macrosystemic and exosystemic sources has been discussed. Parents need to consider the influence of children regarding what they can, are willing to, and want to eat. A suggestion to be inclusive of children in collaborative microsystemic networks has the potential to influence child agency towards wanting to eat healthy food.

6. Limitations

This study has some limitations, including a small sample size in the quantitative phase, which has been complemented by the qualitative phase of the study (e.g., open‐ended questions). The participants were well‐educated parents and were very interested in providing a healthy lunchbox for their children. Hence, the work cannot be generalised to the whole population.

Ethics Statement

Ethical approval was received from Removed for Peer Review approval number 2022/080 before commencing the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Data S1: Supporting Information.

Boyd W., Salehi N., Doran F., Ellis D., MCGuigan H., and Lee M., “A Journey Into School Lunchbox Decision‐Making: A Mixed Methods Exploration of Australian Parents,” Health Promotion Journal of Australia 36, no. 4 (2025): e70089, 10.1002/hpja.70089.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.