Public acceptability of proposals to manage new takeaway food outlets near schools: cross-sectional analysis of the 2021 International Food Policy Study

Figures & data

Table 1. Survey questions and response options used as outcome measures to investigate public acceptability among adults towards takeaway management zones around schools¹.

Concept	Question wording	Response options	Analytic categories ^2
Adoption support ^3	Some local councils are introducing regulations designed to stop new takeaways opening near schools. The aim is to help young people eat better If your local council was planning to introduce such regulations, would you support or oppose them?	Support	Support
		Neutral Oppose Don’t know Refuse to answer	Not support
Adoption effectiveness	Preamble as above How effective do you think these regulations will be?	Somewhat effective Mostly effective Very effective	Effective
		Not at all effective Don’t know Refuse to answer	Not effective
Ability for adoption to reduce takeaway food consumption	Please tell us whether you agree or disagree with the following: If there were fewer takeaways near schools: Young people would eat takeaway food less often.	Agree	Agree
		Neutral Disagree Don’t know Refuse to answer	Not agree
Ability for adoption to make it easier to promote healthier food in schools	Preamble as above Schools would find it easier to promote healthier eating.	Agree	Agree
		Neutral Disagree Don’t know Refuse to answer	Not agree
Ability for adoption to create healthier food environments near schools	Preamble as above Other types of healthier food outlets would be able to open.	Agree	Agree
		Neutral Disagree Don’t know Refuse to answer	Not agree

¹Data were from Wave 5 of the International Food Policy Study, conducted November-December 2021. ²Analytic categories used in adjusted logistic regression, all response options reported as part of descriptive analysis.³ ‘local council’ = ‘local authority’.

Table 2. Weighted summary statistics for adult respondents living in Great Britain in analytic sample (n = 3323). Data were from wave 5 of the International Food Policy Study, collected November-December 2021.

Measure	Category	n = 3323^1
Age (years; mean (SD))	–	49.8 (17.0)
Age group (years)	18–29	556 (16.7%)
	30–44	802 (24.1%)
	45–59	851 (25.6%)
	60 or over	1114 (33.5%)
Sex	Male	1656 (49.8%)
	Female	1667 (50.2%)
Ethnic group identified with	Majority	2987 (89.9%)
	Minority	336 (10.1%)
Education level	Low	1630 (49.1%)
	Medium	719 (21.6%)
	High	973 (29.3%)
Ability to make ends meet	Not easy	1869 (56.2%)
	Easy	1454 (43.8%)
Child under 18 years in household	Yes	945 (28.4%)
Quartile (Q) of neighbourhood food outlet count	Q1 (0–9 outlets)	813 (24.5%)
	Q2 (10–25 outlets)	828 (24.9%)
	Q3 (26–55 outlets)	836 (25.1%)
	Q4 (56–581 outlets)	847 (25.5%)
Number of meals purchased from takeaways in the past week	0	1681 (50.6%)
	1	938 (28.2%)
	2 or more	704 (21.2%)
Perceived takeaway number appropriateness	Too many	1567 (47.2%)
	Too few	194 (5.8%)
	About the right number	1562 (47.0%)
Takeaways:
Usually sell food that is affordable	Agree	1714 (51.6%)
	Disagree	375 (11.3%)
	Neutral	1209 (36.4%)
	Not stated	25 (0.8%)
Usually sell food that is poor quality	Agree	943 (28.4%)
	Disagree	782 (23.5%)
	Neutral	1569 (47.2%)
	Not stated	29 (0.9%)
Usually sell healthy food	Agree	453 (13.6%)
	Disagree	1862 (56.0%)
	Neutral	976 (29.4%)
	Not stated	33 (1.0%)
Cause litter, noise and smells	Agree	1942 (58.4%)
	Disagree	353 (10.6%)
	Neutral	998 (30.0%)
	Not stated	30 (0.9%)
Cause antisocial behaviour	Agree	907 (27.3%)
	Disagree	933 (28.1%)
	Neutral	1419 (42.7%)
	Not stated	65 (1.9%)
Contribute to the local economy	Agree	2033 (61.2%)
	Disagree	221 (6.6%)
	Neutral	1007 (30.3%)
	Not stated	62 (1.8%)
Support for management zone adoption^2	Support	1687 (50.8%)
	Oppose	297 (8.9%)
	Neutral	1238 (37.3%)
	Not stated	101 (3.0%)
Perceived effectiveness of management zone adoption^2	Somewhat effective	1646 (49.5%)
	Mostly effective	449 (13.5%)
	Very effective	246 (7.4%)
	Not effective	820 (24.7%)
	Not stated	161 (4.9%)
Following management zone adoption:^2
Takeaways would be replaced by healthier food outlets	Agree	1449 (43.6%)
	Disagree	499 (15.0%)
	Neutral	1268 (38.1%)
	Not stated	108 (3.3%)
It would be easier for schools to promote healthier food	Agree	1503 (45.2%)
	Disagree	585 (17.6%)
	Neutral	1148 (34.6%)
	Not stated	87 (2.6%)
Young people would eat takeaway food less often	Agree	1254 (37.7%)
	Disagree	807 (24.3%)
	Neutral	1153 (34.7%)
	Not stated	109 (3.3%)

¹number (%) unless stated. May vary from total due to rounding after weighting. ‘Not stated’ = ‘Don’t know’ or ‘Refuse to answer’ responses. ² ‘management zone’ = takeaway management zone around schools, sometimes referred to as ‘exclusion zones’ elsewhere.

Table 3. Weighted summary statistics for youth respondents living in the UK (n = 354). Data were from wave 5 of the International Food Policy Study, collected November-December 2021.

Measure	Category	n=354^1
Age (years)	16	183 (51.7%)
	17	171 (48.3%)
Sex	Male	182 (51.4%)
	Female	172 (48.6%)
Ethnic group identified with	Majority	295 (83.3%)
	Minority	58 (16.5%)
	Not stated	1 (0.3%)
Parents ability to make ends meet^2	Not easy	224 (63.2%)
	Easy	130 (36.8%)
Family income^3	Not enough	92 (25.9%)
	Enough	262 (74.1%)
Purchase of food prepared out-of-home in the past week^4	Yes	191 (53.9%)
	No	159 (44.9%)
	Not stated	4 (1.3%)
Consumption of takeaway food in past 24-hours	Yes	107 (30.2%)
	No	246 (69.4%)
	Not stated	1 (0.4%)
Perceived takeaway number appropriateness	Too many	56 (15.8%)
	Too few	66 (18.7%)
	About the right number	212 (59.8%)
	Don’t know	20 (5.6%)
Takeaways usually:
Sell healthy food	True	69 (19.6%)
	False	275 (77.6%)
	Don’t know	10 (2.8%)
Have special offers for young people	True	175 (49.6%)
	False	145 (40.9%)
	Don’t know	34 (9.6%)
Usually sell food that is low-cost	True	207 (58.5%)
	False	128 (36.0%)
	Don’t know	19 (5.4%)
Are an important place for young people to hang out	True	187 (52.8%)
	False	132 (37.3%)
	Don’t know	35 (9.9%)
If there were fewer takeaways near schools, young people would:
Be more likely to eat lunch in the school canteen	Checked	175 (49.4%)
	Not checked	179 (50.6%)
Buy unhealthy food from other types of food outlets	Checked	146 (41.3%)
	Not checked	208 (58.7%)
Eat takeaway food less often	Checked	118 (33.3%)
	Not checked	236 (66.7%)
Travel to takeaways further away from school	Checked	90 (25.5%)
	Not checked	264 (74.5%)
Have takeaway food delivered to school	Checked	43 (12.2%)
	Not checked	311 (87.8%)
Unclear what the effect of adoption would be^6	Checked	33 (9.3%)
	Not checked	321 (90.7%)

¹number (%) unless stated. May vary from total due to rounding after weighting. ²Youth respondent’s parent/guardian perceived ability to make ends meet. ³Family income answered by youth respondent. ⁴‘out-of-home’ = from ‘restaurants, fast food or take-away places, food stands, or vending machines’. ⁵‘Checked’ = agree, ‘Not checked’ = disagree. ⁶‘Don’t know’ or ‘Refuse to answer’ responses, only available when no other responses checked.

Table 4. Adjusted Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of sociodemographic characteristics, measures of the neighbourhood food environment, and takeaway food purchasing practices and beliefs associated with public acceptability of takeaway management zones among adults in Great Britain in 2021 (n = 3323)¹. Data were from wave 5 of the International Food Policy Study, collected November-December 2021, analysed using logistic regression.

	Support for adoption		Perceived effectiveness		Healthier outlets able to open		Healthier school food promotion		Less takeaway food consumption
Measure^2	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI
Age group (years); 18-29 = ref
30-44	1.08	0.80, 1.45	0.51	0.37, 0.71	1.13	0.85, 1.49	0.80	0.60, 1.07	1.13	0.85, 1.50
45-59	1.51	1.11, 2.07	0.42	0.30, 0.59	1.00	0.74, 1.34	0.93	0.69, 1.26	1.16	0.85, 1.58
60 or over	2.07	1.51, 2.83	0.46	0.32, 0.64	1.02	0.75, 1.38	1.19	0.88, 1.62	1.29	0.95, 1.77
Sex; Female (vs Male)	1.17	0.98, 1.39	1.10	0.92, 1.32	1.29	1.09, 1.52	1.29	1.08, 1.52	0.99	0.83, 1.18
Ethnic group identified with; Minority (vs Majority)	1.31	0.97, 1.77	1.57	1.10, 2.24	1.28	0.97, 1.70	1.46	1.10, 1.94	1.43	1.07, 1.92
Education level; Low = ref
Medium	1.25	1.00, 1.55	1.03	0.83, 1.28	0.92	0.75, 1.13	0.97	0.79, 1.19	1.04	0.84, 1.29
High	1.57	1.29, 1.92	1.17	0.96, 1.42	0.88	0.73, 1.06	1.09	0.90, 1.32	1.08	0.90, 1.31
Ability to make ends meet; Easy (vs Not easy)	1.36	1.13, 1.63	1.16	0.97, 1.40	1.01	0.84, 1.20	1.03	0.86, 1.22	1.08	0.91, 1.29
Child under 18 years in household; Yes (vs No)	0.97	0.77, 1.24	1.47	1.14, 1.89	0.95	0.76, 1.19	1.22	0.98, 1.53	1.05	0.83, 1.32
Quartile (Q) of neighbourhood food outlet access (count); Q1 (0-9 outlets) = ref
Q2 (10-25 outlets)	0.80	0.63, 1.02	1.22	0.96, 1.55	1.00	0.79, 1.26	0.95	0.76, 1.20	0.92	0.73, 1.17
Q3 (26-55 outlets)	0.89	0.69, 1.14	1.05	0.83, 1.35	1.01	0.80, 1.28	1.00	0.79, 1.27	1.10	0.87, 1.40
Q4 (56-581 outlets)	0.78	0.61, 1.01	1.09	0.85, 1.41	0.98	0.77, 1.24	1.07	0.84, 1.36	1.10	0.86, 1.40
Meals purchased from takeaways in the past week (count); 0 = ref
1	0.90	0.72, 1.13	1.04	0.83, 1.31	1.14	0.93, 1.41	1.18	0.95, 1.46	1.24	1.00, 1.53
2 or more	0.80	0.62, 1.04	1.14	0.87, 1.49	1.23	0.96, 1.57	1.05	0.82, 1.35	1.16	0.90, 1.48
Perceived takeaway number appropriateness; Too few = ref
Too many	2.32	1.61, 3.35	1.29	0.87, 1.92	1.01	0.70, 1.46	0.94	0.65, 1.35	1.05	0.73, 1.50
About the right number	0.90	0.63, 1.29	1.40	0.95, 2.08	0.78	0.54, 1.11	0.63	0.44, 0.89	0.62	0.44, 0.88
Takeaways:
Usually sell affordable food; Agree (vs Not agree)	1.26	1.05, 1.52	1.03	0.86, 1.24	1.65	1.38, 1.96	1.69	1.42, 2.01	1.29	1.08, 1.54
Usually sell poor quality food; Agree (vs Not agree)	1.39	1.12, 1.73	1.18	0.95, 1.46	1.41	1.15, 1.73	1.23	1.00, 1.50	1.37	1.13, 1.67
Usually sell healthy food; Agree (vs Not agree)	1.37	1.05, 1.79	1.15	0.86, 1.54	1.42	1.10, 1.83	1.37	1.06, 1.76	1.62	1.27, 2.07
Cause litter, noise and smells; Agree (vs Not agree)	1.91	1.56, 2.33	1.19	0.97, 1.47	1.76	1.44, 2.15	2.02	1.66, 2.47	1.72	1.40, 2.12
Cause antisocial behaviour; Agree (vs Not agree)	1.33	1.07, 1.66	1.14	0.92, 1.42	1.51	1.23, 1.85	1.70	1.38, 2.10	1.36	1.11, 1.67
Contribute to the economy; Agree (vs Not agree)	1.37	1.13, 1.67	0.69	0.57, 0.84	1.21	1.01, 1.46	1.12	0.93, 1.35	1.19	0.98, 1.43

¹All results are adjusted for all other measures listed. Bold = significant at the p < 0.05 level. ²‘ref’ = reference category.

Data availability statement

Data from the International Food Policy Study cannot be made publicly available due to confidentiality considerations. Information about access to these data is available at https://foodpolicystudy.com/contact/. Data from the Ordnance Survey Points of Interest cannot be made publicly available due to licensing restrictions. Information about access to these data is available at https://digimap.edina.ac.uk/. The corresponding author can be contacted for assistance with processes to access these data.