Neighbourhood food stories: a secondary analysis across five years of data identifying food practices in a community facing financial constraints

Diet inequalities are one of many social determinants of poor health disproportionately affecting low-income communities. FoodSEqual (the Food Systems Equality consortium) worked across four such communities from 2021-2025, aiming to co-produce changes to reduce food system inequalities. Most outputs had specific purposes (e.g. policy, products) and harnessed specific parts of the data. Our secondary analysis looks across the rich lived/living experiences documented in one location (Whitley, Reading). Following participatory values, we also report participants’ proposals for change. Our qualitative content analysis used an a priori approach, applying social practice theory to identify ‘nexus practices’ which sit at the intersection of many others. The analysis illustrates the utility of shifting thinking from ‘health behaviours’ to ‘health practices’ and using mixed methods which integrate lived/living experience to identify targeted food environment interventions.

The most connected nexus practice was ‘managing financial constraints’; broad impacts from low or unpredictable incomes include choosing long-life foods to avoid waste and navigate financial instability. Participants proposed upstream and ‘sideways’ interventions like improving wages and routes to work alongside targeted cash or voucher assistance. The next most connected practice was ‘a need for moments of ease’, an alternative intervention focus than ‘convenience’ which recognises inequalities of ease accompany low incomes. The third most connected was ‘selective children influencing household foods’, varied reasons included sensory issues and familiarity with only a narrow range of foods. This could be addressed via community-based and regulatory interventions. ‘Managing wellbeing’ had the most competing connections, with broader wellbeing needs sometimes prioritised over nutrition. Experiences and impacts of stigma were evident, impacting wellbeing. Community feedback further emphasised physical access. This is influenced by life circumstances, requiring targeted interventions. We conclude food environment interventions must address stigma and go beyond food to reduce financial constraints and identify how to meet needs for wellbeing and ease.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to all the community researchers who supported and shaped this research, and to the community partners and other community actors who engaged in providing iterative feedback throughout the analysis and write-up. We also acknowledge the work of all the community partners and academic researchers who delivered the primary data collection over the five years of FoodSEqual, upon which this secondary analysis was based.