research about food delivery apps

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, online food delivery research: a systematic literature review.

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management

ISSN : 0959-6119

Article publication date: 26 May 2022

Issue publication date: 26 July 2022

Online food delivery (OFD) has witnessed momentous consumer adoption in the past few years, and COVID-19, if anything, is only accelerating its growth. This paper captures numerous intricate issues arising from the complex relationship among the stakeholders because of the enhanced scale of the OFD business. The purpose of this paper is to highlight publication trends in OFD and identify potential future research themes.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors conducted a tri-method study – systematic literature review, bibliometric and thematic content analysis – of 43 articles on OFD published in 24 journals from 2015 to 2021 (March). The authors used VOSviewer to perform citation analysis.

Systematic literature review of the existing OFD research resulted in six potential research themes. Further, thematic content analysis synthesized and categorized the literature into four knowledge clusters, namely, (i) digital mediation in OFD, (ii) dynamic OFD operations, (iii) OFD adoption by consumers and (iv) risk and trust issues in OFD. The authors also present the emerging trends in terms of the most influential articles, authors and journals.

Practical implications

This paper captures the different facets of interactions among various OFD stakeholders and highlights the intricate issues and challenges that require immediate attention from researchers and practitioners.

Originality/value

This is one of the few studies to synthesize OFD literature that sheds light on unexplored aspects of complex relationships among OFD stakeholders through four clusters and six research themes through a conceptual framework.

• Online food delivery
• Sharing economy
• Systematic literature review
• Bibliometric analysis
• Content analysis

Acknowledgements

The authors thank three anonymous reviewers, the guest editor, and the editor-in-chief for their critical and valuable comments in developing the manuscript in stages.

Shroff, A. , Shah, B.J. and Gajjar, H. (2022), "Online food delivery research: a systematic literature review", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 2852-2883. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2021-1273

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• Open access
• Published: 16 July 2022

Investigating experiences of frequent online food delivery service use: a qualitative study in UK adults

• Matthew Keeble 1 ,
• Jean Adams 1 &
• Thomas Burgoine 1  

BMC Public Health volume  22 , Article number:  1365 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

16k Accesses

17 Citations

60 Altmetric

Metrics details

Food prepared out-of-home is typically energy-dense and nutrient-poor. This food can be purchased from multiple types of retailer, including restaurants and takeaway food outlets. Using online food delivery services to purchase food prepared out-of-home is increasing in popularity. This may lead to more frequent unhealthy food consumption, which is positively associated with poor diet and living with obesity. Understanding possible reasons for using online food delivery services might contribute to the development of future public health interventions, if deemed necessary. This knowledge would be best obtained by engaging with individuals who use online food delivery services as part of established routines. Therefore, we aimed to investigate customer experiences of using online food delivery services to understand their reasons for using them, including any advantages and drawbacks.

Methods and results

In 2020, we conducted telephone interviews with 22 adults living in the UK who had used online food delivery services on at least a monthly basis over the previous year. Through codebook thematic analysis, we generated five themes: ‘The importance of takeaway food’, ‘Less effort for more convenience’, ‘Saving money and reallocating time’, ‘Online food delivery service normalisation’ and ‘Maintained home food practices’. Two concepts were overarching throughout: ‘Place. Time. Situation.’ and ‘Perceived advantages outweigh recognised drawbacks’.

After considering each of the accessible food purchasing options within the context of their location and the time of day, participants typically selected online food delivery services. Participants reported that they did not use online food delivery services to purchase healthy food. Participants considered online food delivery service use to be a normal practice that involves little effort due to optimised purchasing processes. As a result, these services were seen to offer convenient access to food aligned with sociocultural expectations. Participants reported that this convenience was often an advantage but could be a drawback. Although participants were price-sensitive, they were willing to pay delivery fees for the opportunity to complete tasks whilst waiting for delivery. Furthermore, participants valued price-promotions and concluded that receiving them justified their online food delivery service use. Despite takeaway food consumption, participants considered home cooking to be irreplaceable.

Conclusions

Future public health interventions might seek to increase the healthiness of food available online whilst maintaining sociocultural values. Extending restrictions adopted in other food environments to online food delivery services could also be explored.

Peer Review reports

Purchasing food that is prepared out-of-home and served ready-to-consume is prevalent across the world [ 1 ]. The neighbourhood food environment includes all physically accessible food outlets where individuals can purchase and consume foods, including food prepared out-of-home (often referred to as ‘takeaway food’) [ 2 ]. An increased number of outlets selling this food in the neighbourhood food environment may have contributed to normalising its consumption [ 3 ]. Purchasing formats represent ways to buy takeaway food. Although the opportunity to purchase this food was once limited to visiting food outlets in person or placing orders directly with food outlets by phone, additional purchasing formats such as online food delivery services now exist [ 4 ]. Unlike physically accessing outlets in the neighbourhood food environment or contacting outlets by telephone before collection or delivery, online food delivery services exist within a digital food environment. On a single online platform, customers receive aggregated information about food outlets that will deliver to them based on their location. Customers then select a food outlet, and place and pay for their order. Orders are forwarded to food outlets where meals are prepared before being delivered to customers [ 5 ]. Online food delivery services have been available in the UK since around 2006. However, widespread internet and smartphone access has increased their use [ 6 ], with global online food delivery service revenue estimated at £2.9 billion in 2021 [ 7 ]. The COVID-19 pandemic may have accelerated and perpetuated market development [ 8 ].

Food sold by takeaway food outlets, and therefore available online, is typically nutrient-poor and served in portion sizes that exceed public health recommendations for energy content [ 9 , 10 ]. More frequent takeaway food consumption has been associated with poorer diet quality and elevated bodyweight over time [ 11 ]. Although it is currently unclear, using online food delivery services might lead to more frequent and higher overall takeaway food consumption. In turn, this could lead to increased risk of elevated bodyweight and associated comorbidities. Since an estimated 67% of men and 60% of women in the UK were already considered overweight or obese in 2019 [ 12 ], the possibility that using online food delivery services increases overall takeaway food consumption is a major public health concern, as recognised by the World Health Organization [ 4 , 13 , 14 ].

With respect to the neighbourhood food environment, food outlet accessibility (number) and proximity (distance to nearest), food availability (presence of variety), and attitudinal dimensions (acceptability) contribute to takeaway food purchasing practices [ 15 ]. Each of these domains apply to takeaway food access through online food delivery services. In 2019, the number of food outlets accessible through the leading online food delivery service in the UK ( Just Eat ) was 50% greater in the most deprived areas compared with the least deprived areas [ 16 ]. Furthermore, adults living in the UK with the highest number of food outlets accessible online had greater odds of any online delivery service use in the previous week compared to those with the lowest number [ 17 ]. To our knowledge, however, attitudinal dimensions of online food delivery service use have not been investigated in the public health literature. Given the complexity of takeaway food purchasing practices, there are likely to be unique and specific reasons for using online food delivery services. Understanding these reasons from the perspective of customers could contribute to more informed public health decision-making and intervention, which is important since public health interventions that include online food delivery services may be increasingly necessary as their growth in popularity continues worldwide [ 13 , 18 ].

In our study, we investigated experiences of using online food delivery services from the perspective of adults living in the UK who use them frequently. We aimed to understand their reasons for using these services, the possible advantages and drawbacks of doing so, and how they coexist with other food-related practices.

Between June and August 2020, we used semi-structured telephone interviews to study experiences of using online food delivery services from the perspective of adults living in the UK. We used the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist to guide the development and reporting of our study [ 19 ].

The University of Cambridge School of the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee provided ethical approval (Reference: 19/220).

Methodological orientation

We used a qualitative description methodological orientation to investigate our study aims. Qualitative description has been framed as less interpretative than other approaches [ 20 ]. However, it is theoretically and epistemologically flexible and can facilitate a rich description of perspectives [ 21 ], which matched our study aims.

Participants and recruitment

We used convenience sampling to recruit adults that used online food delivery services frequently. For the purpose of our study, we defined frequent customers as those who had used online food delivery services on at least a monthly basis over the previous year. We believed this level of use would make participants well-positioned to provide their experiences of using this purchasing format within established takeaway food purchasing practices. We also based participant recruitment on reported sociodemographic characteristics of online food delivery service customers [ 22 , 23 ]. As data collection progressed, we additionally considered level of education so that our sample included frequent customers who were less highly educated (see Table 1 ).

We used two social media platforms (Twitter and Reddit) to recruit participants. Participant recruitment through social media platforms can be fast and efficient [ 24 , 25 , 26 ]. If targeted advertising is not used (as in our study), participant recruitment in this way is also typically free. In our study, participant recruitment through social media was particularly appropriate, given that our aims were related to understanding experiences of using a digital purchasing format. Twitter users can publish and re-publish information, images, videos, and links to external sites. Reddit users can publish information, images and videos, and discuss topics within focused forums known as ‘Subreddits’. For Twitter, the primary researcher (MK) published recruitment materials using his personal account and relied on existing connections to re-publish them. For Reddit, MK created an alias account (he did not have a personal account at the time of our fieldwork) and published recruitment materials in Subreddits for cities in the UK with large populations according to the 2011 UK census, those related to online food delivery services, and those that discuss topics relevant to the UK [ 27 ]. See Additional file 1 (Box A1) for a complete list of Subreddits.

Recruitment materials asked interested individuals to contact MK by email. When contacted, MK responded by email with screening questions that asked about self-reported frequency of online food delivery service use over the past year, age, and level of education. When eligibility was confirmed, MK provided information about the study by email. This information included the study aims, details about researchers involved, the offer of a £20.00 electronic high street shopping voucher, and a formal invitation to participate. After five business days with no response to the invitation, MK sent a further email. After another five business days, we classified individuals that did not respond as ‘non-respondents’.

Data collection

Before data collection.

Before starting data collection, we planned to complete a maximum of 25 interviews. We did not target data saturation. Food purchasing and consumption are highly individual and influenced by previous experiences, cultural backgrounds, and preferences [ 28 ]. Therefore, we felt that it would be difficult to conclude data saturation was achieved based on the traditional conceptualisation of no new information being reported by participants [ 29 , 30 ]. Instead, we prioritised conceptual depth and information strength. This approach was aligned with the qualitative description methodological orientation of our study [ 30 ].

We wanted to investigate experiences of using online food delivery services from before the COVID-19 pandemic, when there were no restrictions on accessing multiple purchasing formats or consuming food on the premises. Therefore, we pre-specified that we would stop data collection if it became difficult for participants to refer to the time before March 2020, which is when pandemic related travel and food outlet access restrictions were first introduced in the UK. MK piloted an initial protocol with an eligible individual to confirm this would be possible, and made amendments based on their feedback.

Before starting data collection, MK reflected on his position as a population health researcher, and his previous training and experience in qualitative research [ 31 ]. MK also reflected on his own takeaway food consumption and previous use of online food delivery services. As of June 2020, MK consumed takeaway food infrequently and had previously placed one order with an online food delivery service. Although he was not a frequent customer according to our classification, MK was familiar with online food delivery services operating in the UK. MK concluded that despite having a broad understanding about why online food delivery services might be used, he could not use his own experiences to provide detailed reasons for favouring this purchasing format over alternative options.

Throughout data collection

MK completed one-off semi-structured telephone interviews with participants at a convenient time selected by them. At the start of the interview process, MK confirmed the rationale for the study, gave participants the opportunity to ask clarifying questions and asked them to provide verbal consent. MK used a topic guide that was developed based on a priori knowledge, pilot interview feedback and previous research related to takeaway food and online food delivery services [ 22 , 32 , 33 ]. MK amended the topic guide as data collection progressed so that points not initially considered could be discussed in future interviews. Interview questions focused on reasons for using online food delivery services, the perceived advantages and drawbacks of using these services, and how using them coexisted with other purchasing formats and food-related practices (see Box A2 in Additional file 1 for the final topic guide).

Although MK completed interviews during the COVID-19 pandemic, he did not ask questions related to this period of time, and prompted participants to think about the time before March 2020 so that pre-pandemic experiences could be discussed. MK digitally recorded interview audio and made field notes to track points for discussion within the interview.

After data collection

MK immediately reflected on topics discussed, data collection progress, possible links with existing theory, and the ability of participants to think about the time before the COVID-19 pandemic. We used these post-interview reflections to help inform our decision to stop data collection.

Data analysis

A professional company transcribed interview audio verbatim. Whilst listening to the corresponding audio, MK quality assured each transcript and anonymised it. Participants did not review their transcripts.

We used codebook thematic analysis. When using this analytic approach, researchers develop a codebook based on the final topic guide used during data collection and data familiarity that is achieved by reviewing collected data [ 34 , 35 ]. Codebook thematic analysis is aligned with qualitative description methodological orientations as it allows researchers to remain ‘close to the data’ and facilitates an understanding of a topic through the ‘spoken word’ of participants [ 36 ]. In practice, MK developed an initial codebook. MK, JA, and TB then reviewed three transcripts (a 10% sample). This number was manageable and allowed us to discuss a sample of collected data [ 37 ]. After discussion, MK refined the initial codebook to collapse codes that overlapped and to add new codes, which formed the final codebook. MK coded each transcript with the final codebook and reviewed reflections written after each interview. MK then studied the coded data to generate themes that were discussed and finalised with JA and TB. In the context of our study, themes summarise experiences of using online food delivery services from the perspective of participants. After discussion, we also identified that across the themes we generated, there were overarching concepts. For our study, concepts should be seen to offer an overall and consistent structure that capture the common and overlapping elements of each of the generated themes.

MK used NVivo (version 12) to manage the data and facilitate interpretation.

Participant and data overview

MK conducted interviews with 22 frequent online food delivery service customers between June and August 2020. Interviews lasted between 35 and 61 min. There were 12 male participants, 13 participants were aged between 20 and 29 years, and 15 had completed higher education. Since initial adoption, participants had typically used online food delivery services at least fortnightly but as often as daily, and during interviews they consistently referred to using the three most well-established online food delivery services operating in the UK ( Just Eat, Deliveroo, and Uber Eats ) (see Table 2 ).

During the 19 th interview, conducted in August 2020, it was difficult for the participant to think about the time before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. MK completed three further interviews and then concluded that this difficulty was consistent so stopped data collection. We included data from all interviews in analyses. In addition to those who took part, three interviews were scheduled but cancelled by individuals without providing a reason, and there were nine non-respondents.

Summary and structure

We generated two concepts that were overarching throughout our data: ‘Place. Time. Situation.’ and ‘Perceived advantages outweigh recognised drawbacks’. Within these overarching concepts, we generated five themes: ‘The importance of takeaway food’, ‘Less effort for more convenience’, ‘Saving money and reallocating time’, ‘Online food delivery service normalisation’ and ‘Maintained home food practices’.

In the following sections, we present the findings for each of the overarching concepts, followed by each of the themes. Whilst we discuss each concept and theme in turn, all of their elements were present throughout the data and should be thought of as dynamic, overlapping, and non-hierarchical. For example, participants consistently reflected on features of online food delivery services within the context of their location at a specific time. The conclusion of this process dictated whether a feature was viewed as an advantage or a drawback, and in some cases whether an online food delivery service would be used. We provide examples of this comparison process at the end of our Results (Table 3 ).

Overarching concepts

Place. time. situation..

Participants described how their location and the time of day impacted their ability to access different types of food, including both ‘takeaway’ food and other types of food. When choosing one type of food over another, participants had a multi-factorial thought process that considered their food at home, immediate finances available for food, and the food already eaten that day.

Although data collection focused on takeaway food, participants were clear that this type of food was not always appropriate. As participant 10 (Female: 20–29 years) stated; “ I don’t always just go and get a takeaway; sometimes I’ll walk to the shop, get some food, and make something ”. This view was shared by participant 11 (Male 30–39 years); “ some days I’ll decide that it’s too expensive and I’ll either get something else direct from the restaurant or go to the supermarket and then make food ”.

Nonetheless, participants indicated that purchasing takeaway food was preferable in many situations. For example, when acting spontaneously, when meals had not been planned or if other types of food could not satisfy needs, then takeaway food was appropriate.

“ I think you’re more likely to get delivery and order online when it’s unplanned and you need a pick-me-up, or you need something quick, or you don’t have something and you’re really hungry .” Participant 15 (Male: 40-49 years)

When participants decided to purchase takeaway food, they recognised that their location and the time of day dictated the purchasing formats they could access and potentially use. Access to multiple purchasing formats created a second decision making process. Participants considered the cuisines they wanted, delivery times estimated by online food delivery services versus the time it would take to travel to a food outlet, the weather, their willingness to leave home, and previous experience with accessible food outlets. Alongside these influential factors, choosing one purchasing format over another was often based on what was most convenient.

“ If I’m out and about, on the way home and I’m passing via an outlet, then I’ll pick it up. If I’m at home and just kind of, don’t want to leave the house, then I’ll order via an app or online, just because it’s just convenient .” Participant 2 (Male: 20-29 years)

Despite having apparently decided how they would purchase takeaway food, participants stated that they could change their mind. In the case of online food delivery services, if estimated delivery times failed to meet expectations, this purchasing format would no longer be appropriate and another purchasing format or type of food would be selected. The need for food practices to align with other routines and schedules, and therefore meet expectations, was particularly clear when participant 8 (Female: 40–49 years) described that they used online food delivery services when they could “ relax on a Friday night with the whole evening free ”. However, if they do not have time to select a food outlet, place their order, and then wait for delivery they “ normally just have some spaghetti because that takes 10 min ”.

Participants also referred to online food delivery service marketing in their day-to-day environments, including branded food outlet signs and equipment used by delivery couriers. Participants stated that these things did not always trigger immediate use of online food delivery services, however, their omnipresence reminded them that these services were available.

“ I don’t know if I ever go onto Just Eat after seeing it advertised, I don’t think that’s ever directly led me to do it. But it certainly keeps it in your mind, it’s certainly at the forefront of your mind whenever you think of takeaway .” Participant 11 (Male: 30-39 years)

Perceived advantages outweigh recognised drawbacks

Throughout the data, participants recognised that a single online food delivery service feature could be an advantage or a drawback based on their location and the time of day. This was clearest when participant 2 (Male: 20–29 years) discussed the number of food outlets accessible online compared with those available through other purchasing formats. There was value in having access to “ 20, 30, 40 food outlets ” through online food delivery services as it meant more options, otherwise “ you’re more limited just by the virtue of where you are or what shops you’re passing ”. However, access to a greater number of food outlets was a drawback when it meant that making a selection was difficult. The constant comparison of advantages and drawbacks prompted MK to ask participants why they kept using online food delivery services. There was a consensus that features of these services were unique, mostly advantageous, and outweighed the instances where they were seen as drawbacks. Since participants continued to use online food delivery services to access unique features, this practice appears to be self-reinforcing, even if this means accepting that the same feature can sometimes be a drawback.

Participants favoured online food delivery services in many situations. Nevertheless, they acknowledged that if the overall balance between advantages and drawbacks changed then they would purchase takeaway food in other ways. This solution emphasises that takeaway food can often be accessed in multiple ways dependent on place and time. As it stands, participants anticipated that they would continue to use online food delivery services indefinitely.

“ I can’t see any reason why I would [stop using online food delivery services] , unless something went wrong with Just Eat, you know, the service had a massive problem, but at the moment I can’t see any reason why I would. ” Participant 16 (Male: 20-29 years)

Analytic themes

We now present each of the five themes generated from our analyses. As described, elements of each theme overlapped within the two overarching concepts presented above.

The importance of takeaway food

Participants emphasised that, ultimately, it was “ the food ” that they valued, and that directed them towards using online food delivery services.

“ It’s the food really, that leads me to use [online food delivery service] apps .” Participant 10 (Female: 20-29 years)

Participants reported that they did not use online food delivery services with the intent of purchasing healthy food. Participants told us that they expected takeaway food to be unhealthy and that online food delivery services facilitated access to this food. This perspective influenced the types of food that participants were willing to purchase through online food delivery services. For example, pizza (seen as unhealthy) was appropriate but a salad (seen as healthy) was not. Moreover, participants recognised that if they wanted to consume healthy food, they would most likely cook for themselves.

Participants stated that takeaway food had social, cultural, and behavioural value. For many, purchasing and consuming takeaway food at the end of the working week signified the start of the weekend, which was seen as a time for relaxation and celebration. This tradition was carried forward from childhood, with Friday night referred to as “ takeaway night ”. For participants, using an online food delivery service allowed them to maintain, yet digitalise, traditions.

“ It’s always a weekend thing, besides it being a convenient, really quick way of accessing food that is filling and tastes nice, for me, it marks the end of a work week .” Participant 4 (Female: 30-39 years)

Participants reported that in some situations consuming takeaway food as a group could be a way to socialise. This was especially the case during life transitions such as leaving home to start university.

“ When you move out you’re concentrating on making friends and getting a takeaway was quite an easy way for everyone to sit down around the table and socialise and to have drinks .” Participant 14 (Female: 20-29 years)

Participants did not value online food delivery services to the same extent that they did takeaway food. This perspective reinforced that online food delivery services were primarily used to satisfy takeaway food purchasing needs.

“ If Just Eat as an entity disappeared, or all online takeaways disappeared, I wouldn’t be upset […] it’s a luxury, it makes life easier .” Participant 9 (Male: 30-39 years)

Less effort for more convenience

Participants reported that it took little effort to use online food delivery services because they receive information about all food outlets that will deliver to them on a single platform. Additionally, participants valued the opportunity to save payment details, previous orders, and favourite food outlets for future use. Participants also informed us that they had a greater number of food outlets and a more diverse range of foods and cuisines to choose from compared with other purchasing formats. Due to the number of accessible food outlets, the selection process was not always fast. Nonetheless, participants indicated that online food delivery services make purchasing takeaway food easier and more convenient than other purchasing formats where information is less readily available.

“Y ou’ve got all of the different options laid out in front of you, it’s like one resource where everything is there and you can choose and make a decision, rather than having to pull out leaflets from a drawer or Google different takeaways in the area. It’s all there and it’s all uniform and it’s in one place .” Participant 3 (Female: 20-29 years) “ I can pick through a whole wide selection rather than being limited to the few takeaways down on my road or having to drive somewhere .” Participant 21 (Male: 20-29 years)

Participants emphasised that smartphone applications had been optimised to enhance this experience.

“ I guess it’s the convenience of just being able to open the app on my phone, and not have to go searching for menus or phone numbers and checking if places are open. So yeah, it’s the convenience .” Participant 15 (Male: 40-49 years) “ For me it’s just the ease of going on, clicking what you want, paying for it and it arriving. You don’t have to move, you don’t have to cook, you don’t have to think, it’s just there ready to go, someone’s doing the hard work for you .” Participant 1 (Female: 20-29 years)

However, greater convenience was not always advantageous. Some participants were concerned that convenient and easy access to takeaway food through online food delivery services might have negative consequences for health and other things.

“ It’s quite addictive in the way that it’s just so convenient to order. I’m not making stuff fresh at home, and I’m eating unhealthier .” Participant 21 (Male: 20-29 years) “ I think it adds to a general kind of laziness that is not good for people really. If you actually got up and went for a walk to go and get this food, at least there’s a slightly positive angle there .” Participant 17 (Male: 30-39 years) “ The convenience is not necessarily a positive thing, these apps can be abused because it’s so easy to access foods .” Participant 10 (Female: 20-29 years)

Saving money and reallocating time

Participants were price-sensitive and valued the opportunity to save money. When discussing financial aspects of online food delivery service use, participants referred to special offers they had received by email or through mobile device push notifications. Participants recognised that direct discounts (e.g. 10% off), free items (e.g. free appetizers on orders over £20.00), free delivery (e.g. on orders over £30.00), or time-limited price-promotions (e.g. 40% off all orders for the next three-hours) can justify takeaway food purchasing and online food delivery service use.

“ Getting a takeaway is always a treat, every time I do it I know I shouldn’t but then basically I’m convinced to treat myself, if there’s a discount I’m much more likely to do it because I don’t feel like it’s such a waste of money .” Participant 18 (Male: 20-29 years)

Participants recognised takeaway food as a distinct food category. Nevertheless, they appreciated that that they could use online food delivery services to purchase ‘restaurant food’. Since this food is usually accompanied by a complete dining experience that online food delivery services cannot replicate, participants expected to spend less on this food purchased online compared to when they dined inside a restaurant.

“ Some restaurants deliver through Deliveroo, [places] where you can sit down and have an experience, a dining experience, well that’s different […] you might go there for the dining experience .” Participant 4 (Female: 30-39 years) “ Sometimes I’m deterred from using Uber Eats because I noticed that the restaurants increase their prices if you buy it through them rather than directly […] I don’t want to pay over £10 for a takeaway dish, whereas I would pay that if I ate at a restaurant .” Participant 3 (Female: 20-29 years)

Although participants considered the price of food when deciding which outlet to order from, they traded money for time. Participants compared the time they would spend cooking or travelling to takeaway food outlets with the time taken to place orders through online food delivery services plus the tasks they could complete whilst waiting for meal delivery. Paying a delivery fee to have the opportunity to use time that would not have otherwise been available was acceptable.

“ Yeah, it costs money but at the same time we’re getting more time with the kids, and more time to do other stuff, so it’s absolutely fine as far as I’m concerned .” Participant 9 (Male: 30-39 years)

However, some participants were unsure about the appropriateness of paying to have food delivered as it might be unfair to delivery couriers.

“ I don’t feel like it’s necessarily right to make a delivery driver drive two minutes up the road just because I can’t be bothered to go and collect something that’s not very far away .” Participant 10 (Female: 20-29 years)

Online food delivery service normalisation

Participants had positive previous experiences of using online food delivery services. These experiences influenced future custom and contributed to an overall sense that using this purchasing format was now a normal part of living in a digital society. Some participants referred to watching television online to exemplify this point.

The normalisation of using online food delivery services was particularly evident when MK prompted participants to think about the term ‘takeaway food’. Participants often referred to online food delivery services in the first instance and saw them as synonymous with takeaway food.

“ If you were to say ‘takeaway food’ I’d pull out my phone and I’d open one of the apps and say ‘okay, what should we order’, I wouldn’t say ‘oh let’s go to this road’, or ‘let’s go to that road’, I’d say ‘yeah, let’s look on the app’ .” Participant 21 (Male: 20-29 years)

For participants in our study, using online food delivery services replaced purchasing takeaway food in other ways. This perspective was linked to habitual takeaway food purchasing and sociocultural values. Participants rarely purchased takeaway food outside of set routines (for example only doing so at the weekend) because they did not think it was appropriate. As a result, participants reported that they had a limited number of opportunities to use multiple purchasing formats and thus increase their existing levels of consumption.

Maintained home food practices

Most participants were responsible for cooking at home, enjoyed doing so, and said they were competent at it. Nonetheless, cooking at home required personal effort and being “ lazy ” or “ tired ” or “ having nothing in the cupboards ” was used as a justification for using online food delivery services.

“ I cook, when I’m not using these apps I cook and prepare food for myself , it’s just on the odd occasion I might be feeling tired or want something different […] the rest of the time, I’m quite happy to cook .” Participant 10 (Female: 20-29 years)

Despite the apparent normalisation of using online food delivery services, participants did not feel that they would ever completely eliminate cooking at home. Most participants consumed home cooked food daily, whereas they consumed takeaway food less frequently. This contributed to the view that these two types of food were different. As a result, participants used online food delivery services to purchase food they could not or would not cook at home; for a break from normality, and as a “ cheat ” or “ treat ”.

Summary of findings

To our knowledge, this is the first published study in the public health literature to investigate experiences of using online food delivery services from the perspective of frequent customers.

Participants recognised that their location and the time of day meant that they could often access different types of food through multiple purchasing formats, at the same time. Participants stated that purchasing takeaway food was appropriate in many situations and typically favoured using online food delivery services. For many participants, using these services was now part of routines in their increasingly digital lives. As such, using online food delivery services appeared to be synonymous with takeaway food purchasing. This meant that participants expected food sold online to be unhealthy and that it was inappropriate to purchase healthy food in this manner. Participants consistently thought about how features of online food delivery services were an advantage or a drawback within the context of their location at any given point in time. This was a complex and dynamic thought process. Participants described how the advantages of these services were a strong enough reason to continue use, overcoming drawbacks such as the acknowledged unhealthfulness of takeaway food. Participants reported that using online food delivery services involved little effort as they were provided with food outlet information, menus, and payment facilities on one platform that had been optimised for use. Moreover, although the cost of food was an important consideration for participants, they were willing to pay a fee in exchange for the opportunity to complete tasks whilst waiting for meal preparation and delivery. Finally, using online food delivery services substituted purchasing takeaway food in other ways. Nevertheless, participants reported that cooking at home was a distinct food practice that occurred more frequently and was irreplaceable.

Interpretations

Participants described sociocultural values assigned to takeaway food. These values are proposed to develop from previous experiences [ 38 , 39 ]. For our participants, purchasing takeaway food at the weekend was a traditional routine that celebrated the end of the working week. In the past, this tradition might have meant visiting food outlets in the neighbourhood food environment. However, online food delivery services are now used and favoured. Since participants reported that it was takeaway food in and of itself that was a fundamental reason for seeking out online food delivery services, it is reasonable to conclude that sociocultural values linked to this food exist, and transfer, across purchasing formats.

Food purchasing has been recognised as situational and made in the context of place and time [ 40 , 41 ], with convenience reported as a consistent consideration [ 42 ]. Participants in our study reported that takeaway food was appropriate in many situations and acknowledged that it could often be accessed through multiple purchasing formats. Using one purchasing format over another came after considering multiple factors, including the level of effort required to find a suitable food outlet and place orders. As using online food delivery services took little effort, this purchasing format was often most convenient. However, participants were clear that although their decision had seemingly been made, it could be changed, especially if an online food delivery service feature that was supposedly an advantage became a drawback. For example, if estimated delivery times were too long or delivery fees were too high an alternative option would be considered. Our findings support that the decision about if and how to purchase takeaway food is dynamic and influenced by place and time [ 32 ].

Food access has previously been summarised within the domains of availability, accessibility, affordability, accommodation, and acceptability [ 15 ]. Although Caspi and colleagues described these domains in the context of physical food access, they are applicable to digital food environments. Broadly speaking, our research investigated the ‘acceptability’ of using online food delivery services, and participants made explicit reference to the domains of food ‘accessibility’ and ‘affordability’.

For example, participants told us that one particularly valuable aspect of using online food delivery services was the ability to access a greater number of food outlets compared with other purchasing formats. This finding speaks to our previous research that found a positive association between having the highest number of food outlets accessible online and any use of online food delivery services in the previous week amongst adults living in the UK [ 17 ]. The experiences of using online food delivery services reported in the current study support the possibility that having more food outlet choice contributes to the decision to adopt, and maintain, use of these services rather than necessarily increasing the frequency in which they are used. Other features of online food delivery services, such as having information about each of the accessible food outlets on one platform, likely amplify the perceived benefit of greater food outlet access. Notably, however, access to an increased number of food outlets was not always advantageous. This finding recognises a general awareness about the negative aspects of takeaway food consumption, previously captured from the perspectives of young adults in Australia and Canada [ 38 , 43 ].

Participants also discussed how the price of food influenced their use of online food delivery services. This reflects that food affordability is a fundamental purchasing consideration [ 32 ]. Beyond this, our findings provide insight into actions that food outlets registered to accept orders online might take to attract customers. Given that online food delivery service customers can often select from multiple food outlets at the same time, food outlets might aim to compete with one another by lowering the price of food sold or by introducing price-promotions in an attempt to capitalise on customer demand. Particularly in the case of the latter, participants acknowledged the importance of price-promotions. Previous evidence shows that price-promotions contribute to unhealthy food purchasing practices [ 44 , 45 ]. Access to price-promotions through online food delivery services has not been systematically documented. However, it is possible that their availability is positively associated with the number of food outlets accessible online. Since both price-promotions and the number of food outlets accessible online appear to influence online food delivery service use, the possibility of interaction between them is concerning for overall consumption of food prepared out-of-home, and subsequently, diet quality and health.

In some cases, participants reported that they used online food delivery services because they did not have time to cook at home. A number of tasks, including household chores, work, travel, and childcare, can limit the time available for, and take priority over, home cooking [ 46 ]. Using online food delivery services (and paying associated delivery fees) instead of cooking at home allowed participants in our study to complete non-food related tasks whilst waiting for meal preparation and delivery. Due to sociocultural values and perceived ‘rules’ about how frequently takeaway food 'should' be purchased, participants did not see online food delivery services as a complete replacement for cooking at home. Nevertheless, even partial replacement has implications for diet quality and health, especially since the food available and purchased online was acknowledged as unhealthy by participants in the current study.

Possible implications for public health and future research

Participants reported that using online food delivery services had mostly substituted, not supplemented, their use of other purchasing formats. Given the perspectives of participants in our study, an increasing number of food outlets could be registering to accept orders online to supply an apparent customer demand. Further research is required to understand the extent to which customer demand is driven by food outlet accessibility, and vice versa.

Participants in our study reported that despite using online food delivery services frequently, their overall takeaway food consumption had remained the same. We do not yet know if this perception would be reflected in objective assessment of takeaway food consumption. Further research that quantifies the use of multiple purchasing formats and takeaway food consumption over time is required to understand the potential public health implications as a result of using online food delivery services. Although evidence from Australia suggests that food sold through online food delivery services tends to be energy-dense and nutrient-poor [ 47 ], this has not been established in the UK, to our knowledge. Nor does it necessarily reflect the balance of what food is purchased. Objective assessment of the nutritional quality of foods available, and purchased, through online food delivery services in the UK could be the focus of future research. This evidence will help to better understand the extent to which public health concern is warranted.

With a few exceptions, food sold through online food delivery services is prepared in food outlets that are also physically accessible in the neighbourhood food environment [ 13 ]. From a public health perspective, this reinforces the intrinsic link between neighbourhood and digital food environments [ 48 ]. Therefore, public health interventions adopted in the neighbourhood food environment may also influence the digital food environment. For example, urban planning policies have been adopted to prevent new takeaway food outlets from opening in neighbourhoods [ 49 ]. By extension, this stops new food outlets from becoming accessible online. Other public health interventions that operate synergistically between physical and digital food environments might be increasingly required in the future. It will also be vital for any future interventions to consider how the geographical coverage of online food delivery services expands neighbourhood food outlet access [ 50 ], potentially undermining the effectiveness of interventions adopted in the neighbourhood food environment. Doing so would help address concerns that these services increase access to food prepared out-of-home [ 4 , 13 ]. Interventions of this nature could be particularly important in more deprived areas that have the highest number of accessible food outlets across multiple purchasing formats [ 16 , 51 ].

Participants recognised that online food delivery services provide access to takeaway food that was associated with being unhealthy. Participants were aware that they could purchase healthy food through online food delivery services, but this did not mean that they would . From a public health perspective, this finding indicates that the success of interventions intended to promote healthier takeaway food purchasing through online food delivery services might be limited by existing sociocultural values if they are not taken into consideration. A possible way to navigate this would be to improve the nutritional quality of food available online without necessarily making any changes salient. Interventions of this nature include healthier frying practices and reduced food packaging size [ 52 , 53 ]. Although these interventions were acceptable and feasible when implemented inside takeaway food outlets [ 54 ], further investigation is required to understand the extent to which they are appropriate in the context of online food delivery services. Changing the types of food available to purchase through online food delivery services could also lead to improved food access for those with limited kitchen facilities at home or limited mobility.

Public health interventions intended specifically for online food delivery services could also be developed. Potential approaches include preferential placement of healthy menu items, introducing calorie labelling and offering healthier food swaps. Embedding these approaches within existing online food delivery service infrastructures would allow implementation to be uniform [ 55 ], and their implementation could be optimised to enhance customer awareness and interaction. The potential success of approaches of this nature requires exploration. Nevertheless, in February 2022, the UK Behavioural Insights Team (formerly of the UK Government) published a protocol to investigate approaches to promoting the purchase of lower energy density foods through a simulated online food delivery service platform [ 56 ].

Price-promotions influenced and justified the use of online food delivery services. Legislation to restrict the use of volume-based price-promotions (e.g. buy-one-get-one-free, 50% extra free) on less healthy pre-packaged food sold both in-store and online were due to be introduced in England in October 2022 [ 57 ]. However, the introduction of this legislation has now been delayed. Although hot food served ready-to-consume was due to be excluded, given what is known about the impact of price-promotions on purchasing other food [ 58 ], and our participants’ description of the importance of price-promotions on their purchasing practices, extension of these restrictions to hot food served ready-to-consume might be warranted. Understanding how price-promotions influence food purchased from online food delivery services represents a first step to understand the need for future regulation.

Limitations

We recruited participants through two social media platforms, which means that our study sample was formed from a subset of all social media users. However, online recruitment was appropriate since we wanted to understand experiences of using a digital purchasing format. Moreover, the participants we recruited were mostly highly educated, potentially reflecting reported online food delivery service use amongst this socioeconomic group [ 22 , 23 ]. After 12 telephone interviews we acknowledged this and adjusted our recruitment strategy to ensure a more balanced sample with respect to level of education. Nevertheless, future research should explore the perspectives of frequent online food delivery service customers with lower levels of education, since it is possible that they have different reasons for using these services. Although we did not recruit infrequent online food delivery service customers or non-customers, they would not have been well-positioned to help us investigate our study aims. However, since we have described experiences of using online food delivery services from the perspective of frequent customers, future work should seek to understand perspectives of non-customers, customers who use them less frequently, and customers who use them for specific reasons.

As the first study in the public health literature to investigate frequent customer experiences of using online food delivery services, we chose a descriptive methodological orientation. Our descriptive approach meant that we did not investigate the underlying meaning of the language used by participants, however, this was not aligned with our aims. Furthermore, our descriptive methodological orientation allowed us to use codebook thematic analysis and include multiple researchers in analysis. Coding a 10% sample of interviews transcripts and discussing analytic themes would have been less appropriate with reflexive approaches to thematic analysis [ 34 , 35 , 59 ], but assisted with our interpretations.

We conducted fieldwork during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, which might have altered the recent experiences of online food delivery service use and participant perspectives. However, MK asked participants to think about the time before the COVID-19 pandemic and reflected on their ability to do so. This reflexivity is in line with established practices regarding qualitative rigour [ 20 , 60 ], and allowed us to determine when it would be most appropriate to stop fieldwork. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the possibility that food-related practices have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, it is possible that online food delivery services are now used for different reasons, both initially and over time, and by individuals with different sociodemographic characteristics than those in our study.

We used telephone interviews with frequent online food delivery service customers to investigate experiences of using this purchasing format. We found that the context of place and time influenced if and how takeaway food would be purchased. Online food delivery services were often seen as most appropriate. In part, this was due to the opportunity to access advantages not available through other purchasing formats, such as efficient and convenient ordering processes that had been optimised for customers. Fundamentally, however, online food delivery services provide access to takeaway food, which despite being acknowledged as unhealthy, has strong sociocultural value. There was a consistent awareness that some advantages of online food delivery services may also be drawbacks. Despite this, the drawbacks were not sufficiently negative to stop current or future online food delivery service use. Finally, price-promotions justified online food delivery service use and made this practice appealing. Public health interventions that seek to promote healthier food purchasing through online food delivery services may be increasingly warranted in the future. Approaches might include increasing the healthiness of the food available whilst maintaining sociocultural values and expectations, and extending restrictions on price-promotions to hot food prepared out-of-home.

Availability of data and materials

Processed and anonymised qualitative data from this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Additional raw data related to this publication cannot be openly released; the raw data contains interview audio containing identifiable information.

Wellard-Cole L, Davies A, Allman-Farinelli M. Contribution of foods prepared away from home to intakes of energy and nutrients of public health concern in adults: a systematic review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1887075 .

Lake A. Neighbourhood food environments: food choice, foodscapes and planning for health. Proc Nutr Soc. 2018;77:1–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Burningham K, Venn S. “Two quid, chicken and chips, done”: understanding what makes for young people’s sense of living well in the city through the lens of fast food consumption. Local Environ. 2021;27:1–17.

Google Scholar  

World Health Organization: Regional Office for Europe. Digital food environments: factsheet. 2021. https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/nutrition/publications/2021/digital-food-environments-factsheet-2021 . Accessed 07 Mar 2022

Granheim SI, Løvhaug AL, Terragni L, Torheim LE, Thurston M. Mapping the digital food environment: a systematic scoping review. Obes Rev. 2022;23:e13356.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Maimaiti M, Ma X, Zhao X, Jia M, Li J, Yang M, Ru Y, Yang F, Wang N, Zhu S. Multiplicity and complexity of food environment in China: full-scale field census of food outlets in a typical district. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2020;74:397–408.

Mak G. Online food ordering and delivery platforms in the UK. 2021. https://my.ibisworld.com/uk/en/industry-specialized/sp0.040/about . Accessed 08 Jan 2022.

Chang M, Green L, Cummins S. All change. Has COVID-19 transformed the way we need to plan for a healthier and more equitable food environment? URBAN DES Int. 2020;26:291–5.

Jaworowska A, Toni MB, Rachel L, Catherine T, Matthew A, Leonard S, Ian GD. Nutritional composition of takeaway food in the UK. Nutr Food Sci. 2014;44:414–30.

Robinson E, Jones A, Whitelock V, Mead BR, Haynes A. (Over)eating out at major UK restaurant chains: observational study of energy content of main meals. BMJ. 2018;363:1–8.

Pereira MA, Kartashov AI, Ebbeling CB, Van Horn L, Slattery ML, Jacobs DR Jr, Ludwig DS. Fast-food habits, weight gain, and insulin resistance (the CARDIA study): 15-year prospective analysis. Lancet. 2005;365:36–42.

NHS Digital. Health Survey for England, 2019: data tables. 2020. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health-survey-for-england/2019/health-survey-for-england-2019-data-tables . Accessed 07 Jan 2022.

World Health Organization: Regional Office for Europe. Slide to order: a food systems approach to meals delivery apps: WHO European Office for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. 2021. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/350121 . Accessed 08 Mar 2022.

World Health Organization. WHO European Regional Obesity Report. 2022. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/353747/9789289057738-eng.pdf . Accessed 28 May 2022.

Caspi CE, Sorensen G, Subramanian SV, Kawachi I. The local food environment and diet: a systematic review. Health Place. 2012;18:1172–87.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Keeble M, Adams J, Bishop TRP, Burgoine T. Socioeconomic inequalities in food outlet access through an online food delivery service in England: a cross-sectional descriptive analysis. Appl Geogr. 2021;133:102498.

Keeble M, Adams J, Vanderlee L, Hammond D, Burgoine T. Associations between online food outlet access and online food delivery service use amongst adults in the UK: a cross-sectional analysis of linked data. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:1968.

Stephens J, Miller H, Militello L. Food delivery apps and the negative health impacts for Americans. Front Nutr. 2020;7:1–2.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–57.

Milne J, Oberle K. Enhancing rigor in qualitative description: a case study. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2005;32:413–20.

Bradshaw C, Atkinson S, Doody O. Employing a qualitative description approach in health care research. Global Qual Nurs Res. 2017;4:1–8.

Keeble M, Adams J, Sacks G, Vanderlee L, White CM, Hammond D, Burgoine T. Use of online food delivery services to order food prepared away-from-home and associated sociodemographic characteristics: a cross-sectional, multi-country analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:5190.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dana LM, Hart E, McAleese A, Bastable A, Pettigrew S. Factors associated with ordering food via online meal ordering services. Public Health Nutr. 2021;24:5704–9.

O’Connor A, Jackson L, Goldsmith L, Skirton H. Can I get a retweet please? Health research recruitment and the twittersphere. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70:599–609.

Hokke S, Hackworth NJ, Bennetts SK, Nicholson JM, Keyzer P, Lucke J, Zion L, Crawford SB. Ethical considerations in using social media to engage research participants: perspectives of Australian researchers and ethics committee members. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020;15:12-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619854629 .

Gelinas L, Pierce R, Winkler S, Cohen IG, Lynch HF, Bierer BE. Using social media as a research recruitment tool: ethical issues and recommendations. Am J Bioeth. 2017;17:3–14.

Office for National Statistics. 2011 Census: Key statistics for England and Wales: March 2011. 2011. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/2011censuskeystatisticsforenglandandwales/2012-12-11#qualifications . Accessed 20 Jan 2021.

Okumus B. A qualitative investigation of Millennials’ healthy eating behavior, food choices, and restaurant selection. Food Cult Soc. 2021;24:509–24.

Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019;13:1–16.

Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, Burroughs H, Jinks C. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant. 2018;52:1893–907.

Keeble M, Burgoine T, White M, Summerbell C, Cummins S, Adams J. Planning and public health professionals’ experiences of using the planning system to regulate hot food takeaway outlets in England: a qualitative study. Health Place. 2021;67:102305.

Lachat C, Nago E, Verstraeten R, Roberfroid D, Van Camp J, Kolsteren P. Eating out of home and its association with dietary intake: a systematic review of the evidence. Obes Rev. 2012;13:329–46.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Janssen HG, Davies IG, Richardson LD, Stevenson L. Determinants of takeaway and fast food consumption: a narrative review. Nutr Res Rev. 2018;31:16–34.

Braun V, Clarke V. Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Couns Psychother Res. 2020;21:1–11.

Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019;11:589–97.

Willis DG, Sullivan-Bolyai S, Knafl K, Cohen MZ. Distinguishing features and similarities between descriptive phenomenological and qualitative description research. West J Nurs Res. 2016;38:1185–204.

Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ. 2001;322:1115–7.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Grunseit AC, Cook AS, Conti J, Gwizd M, Allman-Farinelli M. “Doing a good thing for myself”: a qualitative study of young adults’ strategies for reducing takeaway food consumption. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:525–37.

Neve KL, Isaacs A. How does the food environment influence people engaged in weight management? A systematic review and thematic synthesis of the qualitative literature. Obes Rev. 2021;23:1–14.

Sobal J, Bisogni CA. Constructing food choice decisions. Ann Behav Med. 2009;38:s37–46.

Devine CM. A life course perspective: understanding food choices in time, social location, and history. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2005;37:121–8.

Verain MCD, van den Puttelaar J, Zandstra EH, Lion R, de Vogel-van den Bosch J, Hoonhout HCM, Onwezen MC. Variability of food choice motives: two Dutch studies showing variation across meal moment, location and social context. Food Qual Prefer. 2021;98:1–12.

McPhail D, Chapman GE, Beagan BL. “Too much of that stuff can’t be good”: Canadian teens, morality, and fast food consumption. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:301–7.

Riesenberg D, Backholer K, Zorbas C, Sacks G, Paix A, Marshall J, Blake MR, Bennett R, Peeters A, Cameron AJ. Price promotions by food category and product healthiness in an Australian Supermarket Chain, 2017–2018. Am J Public Health. 2019;109:1434–9.

Hawkes C. Sales promotions and food consumption. Nutr Rev. 2009;67:333–42.

Widener MJ, Ren L, Astbury CC, Smith LG, Penney TL. An exploration of how meal preparation activities relate to self-rated time pressure, stress, and health in Canada: a time use approach. SSM Popul Health. 2021;15:100818.

Partridge SR, Gibson AA, Roy R, Malloy JA, Raeside R, Jia SS, Singleton AC, Mandoh M, Todd AR, Wang T, Halim NK, Hyun K, Redfern J. Junk food on demand: a cross-sectional analysis of the nutritional quality of popular online food delivery outlets in Australia and New Zealand. Nutrients. 2020;12:3107.

Wyse R, Jackson JK, Delaney T, Grady A, Stacey F, Wolfenden L, Barnes C, McLaughlin M, Yoong SL. The effectiveness of interventions delivered using digital food environments to encourage healthy food choices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2021;13:2255.

Keeble M, Burgoine T, White M, Summerbell C, Cummins S, Adams J. How does local government use the planning system to regulate hot food takeaway outlets? A census of current practice in England using document review. Health Place. 2019;57:171–8.

Brar K, Minaker LM. Geographic reach and nutritional quality of foods available from mobile online food delivery service applications: novel opportunities for retail food environment surveillance. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:458.

Maguire ER, Burgoine T, Penney TL, Forouhi NG, Monsivais P. Does exposure to the food environment differ by socioeconomic position? Comparing area-based and person-centred metrics in the Fenland Study, UK. Int J Health Geogr. 2017;16:1–14.

Hillier-Brown F, Lloyd S, Muhammad L, Summerbell C, Goffe L, Hildred N, Adams J. Feasibility and acceptability of a Takeaway Masterclass aimed at encouraging healthier cooking practices and menu options in takeaway food outlets. Public Health Nutr. 2019;22:2268–78.

Hillier-Brown FC, Summerbell CD, Moore HJ, Wrieden WL, Adams J, Abraham C, Adamson A, Araújo-Soares V, White M, Lake AA. A description of interventions promoting healthier ready-to-eat meals (to eat in, to take away, or to be delivered) sold by specific food outlets in England: a systematic mapping and evidence synthesis. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:93–110.

Bagwell S. Healthier catering initiatives in London, UK: an effective tool for encouraging healthier consumption behaviour? Crit Public Health. 2014;24:35–46.

Goffe L, Chivukula SS, Bowyer A, Bowen S, Toombs AL, Gray CM. Appetite for disruption: designing human-centred augmentations to an online food ordering platform. 34th British HCI Conference 34. 2021. p. 155–67.

Chief Scientist Office N. A multi-armed randomised controlled trial comparing the efficacy of four behavioural interventions promoting lower calorie options in a simulated online food delivery platform through product positioning. 2022. https://osf.io/bxjpt .

UK Government. Restricting promotions of products high in fat, sugar and salt by location and by price: government response to public consultation. 2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/restricting-promotions-of-food-and-drink-that-is-high-in-fat-sugar-and-salt/outcome/restricting-promotions-of-products-high-in-fat-sugar-and-salt-by-location-and-by-price-government-response-to-public-consultation#references . Accessed 04 Mar 2022.

Bennett R, Zorbas C, Huse O, Peeters A, Cameron AJ, Sacks G, Backholer K. Prevalence of healthy and unhealthy food and beverage price promotions and their potential influence on shopper purchasing behaviour: a systematic review of the literature. Obes Rev. 2020;21:e12948.

Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16:1609406917733847.

Krefting L. Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness. Am J Occup Ther. 1991;45:214–22.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Matthew Keeble was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) School for Public Health Research (SPHR) [grant number PD_SPH_2015]. This work was supported by the Medical Research Council [grant number MC_UU_00006/7]. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of any of the above named funders. The funders had no role in the design of the study, or collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, or in writing the manuscript. For the purpose of open access. the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 285 Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK

Matthew Keeble, Jean Adams & Thomas Burgoine

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Matthew Keeble: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Jean Adams: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Thomas Burgoine: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Keeble .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Verbal informed consent was obtained from all respondents prior to data collection.

Data for this study were collected through telephone interviews and not in person, therefore, we opted for verbal informed consent, rather than written informed consent.

The University of Cambridge School of the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee provided ethical approval for this research, including the verbal consent process (Reference: 19/220). All research methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations laid out by The University of Cambridge.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:.

Box A1. Names of Subreddits used during participant recruitment. Box A2. Final telephone interview topic guide.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Keeble, M., Adams, J. & Burgoine, T. Investigating experiences of frequent online food delivery service use: a qualitative study in UK adults. BMC Public Health 22 , 1365 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13721-9

Download citation

Received : 11 April 2022

Accepted : 27 June 2022

Published : 16 July 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13721-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Meal delivery
• Online food delivery services
• Qualitative methods
• Thematic analysis

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Food Delivery Apps: Usage and Demographics — Winners, Losers and Laggards

Authors: Aric Zion, MS; Thomas Hollmann, MBA, PhD | 2019

Food & Beverage

Restaurant food delivery services like Grubhub, UberEATS, DoorDash, and Postmates are transforming the way people get their meals. In 2017 alone, Grubhub had nearly $4 billion in gross food sales, and it gobbled up Seamless, Eat24 and Foodler. According to data from Slice Intelligence, UberEATS grew by 230% last year, with its average customer spending more than $220 annually. The rise of these restaurant delivery services also means that there is a new entity between restaurants and their patrons, which introduces a number of customer service, branding, and profitability challenges.

USAGE FREQUENCY

Once the primary domain of restaurant pick-up and pizza delivery, the restaurant delivery industry has been transformed by a number of websites and apps that make an enormous number of restaurants’ food available without leaving home.

To understand how prevalent the use of these multi-restaurant delivery websites/apps is, as well as their relative popularity, the Zion & Zion research team surveyed 2,928 U.S. consumers ages 18+. Figure 1 shows that 41% of consumers have used a multi-restaurant delivery website/app at least once within the past 90 days.

Of those who have used one of these multi-restaurant delivery websites/apps, Figure 2 highlights the fact that nearly 50% have only used one once or twice in the past 90 days. Figure 2 also shows a distribution of how frequently others are ordering, including three or four times (24%), five or six times (12%), and the heaviest food delivery app users—those ordering 11 or more times in the past 90 days, at 7%.

According to our study, Grubhub has been used by 37.8% of all multi-restaurant delivery website/app users, followed by UberEATS at 36.0%, and DoorDash at 19.9%. See Figure 3.

BIGGEST USERS: LOW INCOME AND THE YOUNG

Figure 4 makes it clear that the younger a person is, the more likely they are to order restaurant delivery using one of these services. 63% of people 18 to 29 years old have used a multi-restaurant delivery website or app service in the past 90 days, followed by 51% for those 30 to 44 years old, 29% for those 45 to 60, and just 14% for those 60 and over.

Segmenting by income shows that, in general, the less income a consumer earns, the more likely the consumer is to take advantage of restaurant delivery services. See Figure 5. The lowest incomes have the highest usage: 51.6% for those earning less than $10k per year, and 44.6% for those earning $10k to $24.9K.

PUTTING THE DATA TO WORK

Investment bank UBS projects that online food ordering may rise more than 20% annually to $365 billion by 2030. Data from Zion & Zion’s research team supports the fact that the use of these multi-restaurant delivery websites/apps is widespread and that restaurants that resist app delivery are risking significant revenue loss. Analysts at Morgan Stanley believe that delivery could eventually top 40% of all restaurant sales. Indeed, such sales could even become a restaurant’s core business. Some restaurants are concerned at this trend, and with good reason. Delivery by a third party can make it difficult to control customer service, food quality and branding. And while total sales may increase due to the ease of ordering, restaurants may face profitability issues. The New Yorker quoted a restaurateur who articulates these concerns: “We know for a fact that as delivery increases, our profitability decreases,” with 20% to 40% of delivery revenue going to third-party platforms and couriers.

This is a puzzle not easily solved. Restaurants are likely to lose business if they don’t align with one or more delivery services. At the same time, however, their profitability may either take a hit due to the high fees imposed by such services; or alternatively, the restaurant may have excess capacity that can be leveraged. One thing is certain. Many restaurants will be forced to reconsider their business models.

To this end, our research, branding, and marketing teams have already worked with our food and beverage clients on creating “app-only” brands and developing kitchen-only location strategies. Alongside these strategies has come the need to modify menus and to create packaging to ensure transport tolerance. Also of key concern is ensuring that a mechanism exists for customer feedback to reach the restaurant. Food delivery websites/apps suffer from myriad shortcomings in collecting usable customer feedback as the typical customer interaction subtleties that occur during a customer’s visit to a brick and mortar restaurant are substantially lacking from the food delivery website/app feedback process.

Share this article

Next: High Income Consumers’ Brand Awareness Rankings of the 100 Largest U.S. Charities

Get the latest .

Enter your email to join our newsletter and for updates on new articles, research, and more.

Ordering in: The rapid evolution of food delivery

How the world eats is changing dramatically. A little under two decades ago, restaurant-quality meal delivery was still largely limited to foods such as pizza and Chinese. Nowadays, food delivery has become a global market worth more than $150 billion, having more than tripled since 2017. In the United States, the market has more than doubled during the COVID-19 pandemic, following healthy historical growth of 8 percent.

The advent of appealing, user-friendly apps and tech-enabled driver networks, coupled with changing consumer expectations, has unlocked ready-to-eat food delivery as a major category. Lockdowns and physical-distancing requirements early on in the pandemic gave the category an enormous boost, with delivery becoming a lifeline for the hurting restaurant industry. Moving forward, it is poised to remain a permanent fixture in the dining landscape.

Even as the food-delivery ecosystem continues to expand, its economic structure is still evolving. Considerations such as brand, real estate, operating efficiency, breadth of offerings, and changing consumer habits will determine which stakeholders win or lose as the industry develops. Potential regulatory constraints, including possible changes to how drivers are compensated, will figure into the reshuffling. And while the industry has experienced explosive growth during the global pandemic, delivery platforms, with few exceptions, have remained unprofitable. As DoorDash chief operating officer Christopher Payne told the Wall Street Journal recently, “This is a cost-intensive business that is low-margin and scale driven.” 1 Preetika Rana and Heather Haddon, “DoorDash and Uber Eats are hot. They’re still not making money,” Wall Street Journal , May 28, 2021, wsj.com.

Despite such challenges, there are still major investments happening in the space, with recent fundraises, including Wolt (which raised $530 million in January 2021), REEF Technology ($700 million in November 2020), and Rebel Foods ($26.5 million in July 2020), and consolidation, including Uber’s acquisition of Postmates (for $2.65 billion in December 2020) and Just Eat Takeaway’s acquisition of Grubhub (for $7.3 billion in June 2021). Two recent IPOs—DoorDash in December 2020 and Deliveroo in March 2021—demonstrate the excitement and uncertainty still present in the sector. As the landscape shifts further in the wake of the global pandemic, new challenges, opportunities, and decision points are emerging for a complex web of players—including delivery platforms, restaurants, drivers, consumers, and other tech enablers. In parallel, the emergence of rapid delivery/quick-commerce platforms that have themselves raised significant funding, such as Getir ($550 million in June 2021) and JOKR ($170 million in July 2021), adds a new class of competitors to the fight for “share of stomach.”

Sizing the market

The most mature delivery markets worldwide—including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States—grew twofold (in the United States) to as much as fourfold (in Australia) in 2018 and 2019 (Exhibit 1). This exponential growth continued in 2020 and early 2021 to the point where these markets are now four to seven times larger than they were in 2018. 2 Global food delivery trends 2018 vs. 2021 , Edison Trends, September 2021, trends.edison.tech.

Before the pandemic put thousands of establishments out of business, the US restaurant industry was growing 3 to 4 percent per year. Delivery sales were increasing at roughly twice that pace (7 to 8 percent). While population growth was a factor, the bulk of the increase came at the expense of the grocery sector, with millennials and Gen Zers preferring the convenience of prepared meals.

This trend toward convenience has grown more pronounced during the pandemic. Between March and May 2020, when lockdowns in Europe and the United States were the most severe, the food-delivery market spiked. Significantly, it has maintained that trajectory, continuing to grow throughout 2020 and into 2021.

As we move into the last quarter of 2021, with vaccinations spurring many cities to reopen even as the Delta variant becomes more prevalent, the permanent implications of the 2020 market surge should become clearer. This includes the extent to which eating habits that formed during the start of the pandemic will endure.

Emerging delivery battlegrounds

In the not-so-distant past, restaurants directly handled the limited food delivery that existed. These days, an entire ecosystem of players is involved.

The United States is one of the more complex food-delivery markets, with four active players—DoorDash, Grubhub, Postmates, and Uber Eats—at the top, each commanding certain large urban markets. As of May 2021, DoorDash prevailed in San Jose (with 77 percent of the market), Houston (56 percent), Philadelphia (51 percent), and San Antonio (51 percent). Uber’s 2020 acquisition of Postmates leveled the playing field, but only slightly. Combined, Uber Eats and Postmates led the market in Los Angeles (50 percent) and New York City (41 percent) as of May 2021 (Exhibit 2). These figures change monthly as platforms continue to vie for local markets.

As the food-delivery business continues to expand, a few key factors, from market dynamics to legal and regulatory issues, will help determine the levels of success for the various players.

Adding to this competitive environment, specialized delivery apps focusing on a single customer segment or cuisine type—such as Slice, for pizza, and HungryPanda, for Chinese—have also come to market successfully in recent years.

This pressure on traditional restaurants could be tightened further by the proliferation of “dark kitchens” (a restaurant that has no front of house for customers) and other delivery-first and delivery-only restaurant models. Since these lower-overhead businesses can afford to pay the platforms’ higher commissions, they are often featured more prominently in the platforms’ apps. They may also be able to lower the service fees placed on customers. Increasingly, a greater share of delivery volume is likely to go their way at the expense of traditional restaurants, some of which may be forced to consider whether they can afford to continue playing in the delivery space at all. At the same time, dark kitchens also present an opportunity for restaurants, which may choose to supplement their on-premises facilities with remote locations devoted exclusively to delivery.

Increasingly, a greater share of delivery volume is likely to go to dark kitchens, while some traditional restaurants may consider not playing in the delivery space at all.

• Driver compensation and benefits constitute another persistent hot-button issue . Delivery platforms rely on the gig economy, with its system of on-demand drivers offering much-needed flexibility. This model, however, is still in flux, amid an ongoing national (and international) debate about whether gig workers, particularly drivers, should be considered employees. Shifts in how independent contractors are paid, as well as what benefits they receive, could significantly shake up the economics for all major stakeholders across the marketplace.

Evolving stakeholder economics

As consumer expectations and regulations evolve over the coming years, and as emerging technologies continue to reshape the industry, the long-term economics will likely look different than they currently do. To better understand how the landscape is poised to shift, it’s helpful to delve into the economic and cultural forces affecting restaurants, food-delivery platforms, drivers, and customers.

Restaurants

Historically, restaurants have measured their profits against three basic costs: food (generally 28 to 32 percent of total costs), labor (another 28 to 32 percent), and occupancy- or real-estate-related costs (22 to 29 percent). Looking at a unit economics view of a restaurant, the business should run between 78 to 93 percent—allowing for a profit margin of between 7 to 22 percent (franchise restaurants pay additional franchise fees to corporate).

Delivery orders used to be viewed as an extra table for the restaurant, serviced by a driver instead of a waiter. Drivers were paid minimum wage by the restaurant and earned tips from customers, typically delivering several orders at a time within a set radius. Overall, delivery was intended to improve a restaurant’s revenue by increasing the utilization of its kitchen at a decent margin.

As the COVID-19 pandemic began to pose an existential threat to restaurants, delivery became a saving grace. Many restaurants that delivered through online platforms were able to grow their delivery revenue throughout 2020. Even so, their overall profits generally declined, occasionally resulting in negative margins (Exhibit 3). This trend may have been accelerated by dining restrictions imposed during the pandemic, but the gap between delivery-fueled revenue spikes and profit declines was already an underlying issue.

Realistically, restaurants’ traditional profit margins of 7 to 22 percent make covering the platforms’ delivery commissions, roughly 15 to 30 percent, unsustainable as delivery orders become a larger part of a restaurant’s business. This is less of a problem when in-house diners, who order high-margin items such as wine and other alcoholic drinks, help cover the costs of occupancy and labor. But the business model is seriously threatened when in-house dining dwindles.

With fewer in-house diners, delivery must cover a greater share of restaurants’ fixed operating costs. If the delivery business grows to such an extent that it requires more physical kitchen space to fulfill, the fixed costs could also increase.

Increasing total sales through delivery may look like a smart way to dilute fixed costs, but restaurants that focus too much on increasing deliveries could cannibalize their in-house dining and compromise the quality of the dining experience, which could eventually reduce the base over which their fixed costs are spread.

At the same time, a booming delivery business could mean that everyone has to work harder—from the cooks to the managers to the maintenance staff. Restaurants will likely need to introduce new processes and systems to accommodate high volumes of delivery orders. Ultimately, restaurants should thoughtfully balance delivery against other parts of the business to ensure that the net impact is positive. As Exhibit 4 illustrates, a typical restaurant would have to increase its total sales significantly to stay at the same profit margin it enjoyed without delivery.

The pizza segment sheds light on how the broader restaurant industry may grapple with the delivery conundrum. Most pizza restaurants have chosen either dine-in or delivery as their primary offering and have anchored their business models around it. It would not be surprising to see restaurants in other segments of the market also deciding to specialize in the experiences they offer, with those built around the dine-in experience potentially choosing not to play in the delivery space, because of their inability to compete on margin. This would leave dark kitchens and other delivery-focused businesses to compete for delivery volume.

Learn more about our tech delivery capabilities at Build by McKinsey

Restaurants that choose to continue serving both dine-in and delivery customers will need to adapt their pricing to cover delivery’s additional costs. Those that favor pricing consistency could raise overall menu prices to cover these costs, with dine-in and pick-up customers effectively subsidizing delivery. Alternatively, restaurants could create separate, higher-priced delivery menus, as some have already done. As Chipotle Mexican Grill’s chief financial officer, Jack Hartung, told Yahoo Finance Live in early February, after a 13 percent rise in delivery-app prices was announced: “It’s no surprise that delivery comes with an added cost. Our belief has been that’s a premium experience from a convenience standpoint. We want to make sure that channel covers the cost.” 4 Brian Sozzi, “Why Chipotle just raised prices,” Yahoo Finance, February 3, 2021, yahoo.com.

Delivery platforms

The pressure is on for the platforms. Despite explosive growth, they are struggling to make a profit. And, as the Wall Street Journal has reported, these companies aren’t expected to become profitable for a number of years. 5 “DoorDash and Uber Eats are hot,” May 2021. Nonetheless, there is opportunity for upside, as platforms tap into new revenue sources and curb certain costs.

Platforms’ current economics are driven largely by fees and commissions paid by restaurants and customers, as well as delivery costs (Exhibit 5). Our analysis shows an average contribution margin of around 3 percent, or roughly $1.20 on the average order.

The cost of delivery is unlikely to decline substantially, as the economics of last-mile delivery remain challenging across sectors, particularly with increasing expectations for speed (typically, 30 minutes or less). However, new technologies (such as autonomous delivery robots), improved routing, and the ability to batch or “stack” multiple orders per delivery should help.

Another important consideration is variable marketing costs, such as advertising. With multiple high-profile players competing in the market, and as restaurants and chain brands are fragmented across platforms, the current cost of attracting customers is becoming unsustainable. As platforms are being combined through acquisition, this cost should decline. Consolidation will also give the platforms an outsize influence over which of the thousands of restaurants are seen by the customer—likely resulting in the further consolidation of volume to leading restaurants, whose brands are well positioned to play in the digital marketplace.

Delivery platforms will likely not see any significant margin growth in the restaurant space, given the economic squeeze that restaurants are already facing, as well as the increasing pressure from platform commissions. But when it comes to consumer demand, delivery platforms are still only scratching the surface. As they continue to tap into this vast pool of potential demand, platforms are poised to grow their overall volume and generate profits at scale—if they can unlock the logistics, operational requirements, and challenges of last-mile delivery.

Delivery platforms are poised to generate profits at scale if they can unlock the logistics, operational requirements, and challenges of last-mile delivery.

Already, many platforms are expanding the use cases for their logistics networks. This activity is likely to increase, with platforms improving their overall economic profiles by delivering other, higher-margin products in new categories such as alcohol, pharmaceuticals, grocery, and more. These new categories attract new customer segments, increase average order value, and allow for the stacking of deliveries to help maximize efficiency of each delivery run.

They also position the platforms to become service providers to businesses beyond restaurants. As the Wall Street Journal notes, DoorDash provides delivery services for companies including Petco, Macy’s, and Walmart. 6 “DoorDash and Uber Eats are hot,” May 2021.

Delivery drivers must complete a certain number of deliveries per hour to make the economics favorable for them. In fact, time is one of the most expensive components of single-point delivery, with the physical handoff to the customer typically taking one to five minutes. As food delivery takes off in less densely populated locations, including suburban and rural areas, the service becomes more costly to both restaurant and driver.

Would you like to learn more about our Technology, Media & Telecommunications Practice ?

As previously discussed, major changes in how independent contractors are compensated would have significant ripple effects throughout the food-delivery ecosystem. Barring such changes, pay per delivery will likely continue to decline in real terms as platforms become more efficient and facilitate more total deliveries per hour. However, with substantial increases in volume, as well as enhancements in platforms’ logistics technology, it is conceivable that overall pay per hour could rise slightly for drivers over time, as they are able to complete more deliveries per hour.

The customers fueling the surge in food delivery are paying a significant premium over the cost of their average order. If a typical meal from a fast casual restaurant is priced on a delivery platform’s menu at around $25, the customer might end up paying a total of roughly $35, excluding tax (Exhibit 6). Customers’ total costs include delivery fees ($2 to $5 per trip), driver tips (usually around 10 to 20 percent), and platform service fees (which are often offset by discounts but generally come out to around $3). Customers do not directly see the service commissions that restaurants pay platforms. Some restaurants raise their delivery-menu prices to cover this cost, while others opt for pricing consistency, spreading the markup among all customers.

Even as customers are paying a 40 percent premium on the cost of their actual meal, it is worth noting that restaurants themselves receive around only 55 percent of the total customer spend.

For much of the ongoing pandemic, many people have had few other restaurant options than to order delivery and have been willing to pay a significant premium for the service. More than a year and a half into the pandemic, a growing number of consumers (particularly those who are vaccinated) are becoming more accustomed to ongoing restrictions and more open to dining out. As dining options begin to increase, customers will likely expect more from food-delivery services, prioritizing the following features:

• speed of delivery, with a goal of under 30 minutes being a differentiator among platforms
• quality of food, with an expectation of restaurant-quality meals even after transit time
• 100 percent order accuracy and completeness, for regular items as well as special requests
• variety in cuisines and meal occasions

High population density and big-ticket orders tend to make food delivery more efficient. As the footprint and economic profile of delivery expands to meet more and varied customers, platforms and restaurants will need to figure out how to serve these different population segments—for example, customers who tend to spend less money on meals, as well as those who live in sparsely populated areas, far apart from one another and from the restaurants serving them (Exhibit 7).

Moving forward, consumers will likely see the cost of their restaurant meals increase (through additional listed fees or menu markups) in order to cover restaurants’ commission costs and driver pay. These fees and markups may eventually decrease as restaurants and delivery platforms become more efficient at scale.

In one example of a market shift that could increase customer retention while also benefiting consumers, many delivery platforms have begun offering monthly subscription services, following similar models such as Amazon Prime. With DoorDash’s DashPass, for example, or Uber Eats’ Eats Pass, customers pay a monthly fee for unlimited free deliveries. These offers reduce the cost burden for customers who order frequently and make the cost of attracting customers more worthwhile for platforms, as customers become more loyal.

New opportunities and untapped revenue pools

As the way people eat continues to evolve, new revenue pools are emerging. Tapping into them will require creativity and a willingness to overhaul operating models built for a different time. The following revenue models are among the most promising:

‘Menu engineering’

Using the data generated through delivery platforms, restaurants can build custom menus for each consumer, increasing opportunistic sales, total order value, and conversion rates. End-to-end customization helps ensure that customer preferences, such as food allergies, are taken into account for every meal and that food recommendations are more accurate.

‘Dark kitchens’

Also called ghost kitchens, dark kitchens market and produce delivery orders but have no physical restaurant or storefront attached. They take delivery out of the “front of house,” allowing restaurants to expand and experiment with minimal investment risks. REEF Technology, with its Neighborhood Kitchens concept, is among the companies offering established and upstart restaurants access to dark kitchens (among other infrastructure and services).

Subscribe to the McKinsey on Start-ups podcast

Virtual brands.

These are incremental offerings targeted at new meal occasions or cuisine types, developed to increase a restaurant’s online presence and capture a different market segment. Virtual brands can help attract new customers, improve labor efficiency, and optimize order stacking for delivery platforms. YouTuber Jimmy Donaldson (known as MrBeast) parlayed his popularity into MrBeast Burger, a virtual brand whose menu items are prepared in existing restaurant kitchens across the United States and in the United Kingdom. Man vs Fries, which started as a Bay Area pop-up, has expanded its virtual brand into several cities, including Atlanta, Miami, and Seattle.

Brand spin-offs

In a digital world, restaurants that enjoy a great deal of brand loyalty in their communities have an even greater opportunity to consolidate their position and grow their business by creating spin-offs targeting new demographics or meal occasions. Au Cheval, for example, the diner-style Chicago restaurant and bar revered for its cheeseburgers, has spawned Small Cheval, which offers a simplified menu. The potential to leverage brand equity in this way is greater with digital ordering and delivery, as consumers turn to valued brands regardless of where they are located.

Consolidation points

One of the largest costs of last-mile delivery stems from poor route optimization when making multipoint pickups and drop-offs. Partnerships with nearby restaurants could help develop a “food hall”-like online market to improve the customer experience and offer more variety. Solutions such as Toronto’s Kitchen Hub Food Hall allow customers to place a single order that includes items from multiple restaurants. Families that can’t agree on what to have for dinner can include a variety of cuisines, such as burgers, sushi, and stir-fry, on the same order.

Virtual concierge

Drivers and consumers alike stand to gain from efficiencies achieved when multiple deliveries are consolidated, or “stacked.” Virtual concierge services make this possible—for example, by having a driver pick up a customer’s dry cleaning or groceries in addition to their restaurant order. These services can also stack orders from different customers who live in the same apartment building or neighborhood. Rappi, based in Bogotá, Colombia, is an example of a multivertical delivery app that combines food delivery with other errands (through services such as RappiFavor or RappiCash), while Uber Eats and DoorDash have started exploring order stacking as part of their food offerings.

Tiny restaurants

Restaurants may want to rethink their design approach in light of the growing delivery market. Burger King, for example, recently unveiled plans for a restaurant that is 60 percent smaller than its traditional outposts, accommodating the influx of to-go orders with features such as “pickup lockers” and dedicated curbside-delivery parking spots.

Innovation in customer attraction

The evolving food-delivery ecosystem requires, and will likely reward, creativity. One potential example: combining dining and television with “taste your favorite cooking shows at home” type of offerings, in which meals are delivered so that viewers can dine at home “alongside” their favorite celebrity chefs. Rachael Ray partnered with REEF and Uber Eats in 2019 to launch her latest cookbook, offering fans in certain cities the opportunity to sample her recipes without so much as turning on their ovens. “It’s me, joining people for dinner,” said Ray. 7 Kate Krader, “With Rachael Ray, Uber Eats starts virtual celebrity restaurants,” Bloomberg, October 10, 2019, Bloomberg.com.

Check, please

Though a great number of restaurants have suffered and even closed during the COVID-19 pandemic, the surge in tech-enabled delivery has been a meaningful silver lining for many. And for homebound customers, the arrival of steaming hot curry or burritos or filet mignon—summoned with a few clicks or swipes—has been revelatory.

Going forward, the food-delivery space is poised for further expansion and evolution as the “next normal” takes shape. Restaurants will need to adapt their strategies, think carefully about how to partner with delivery platforms, and experiment with new ways of doing business. Delivery platforms will need to evolve how they leverage customer data to improve the user experience and find innovative ways to reduce the costs associated with delivery. And as investors pour money into delivery platforms, dark kitchens, new brands, and other infrastructure and services, the companies on the receiving end will face substantial pressure to live up to investors’ expectations.

As these changes in the way the world eats take hold, the implications for new and established businesses, as well as for consumers, will continue to take shape. Unlocking the opportunities inherent in these shifts will require a sophisticated understanding of where the market is heading and the powerful forces shaping its trajectory.

Kabir Ahuja is a partner in McKinsey’s London office, Vishwa Chandra is a partner in the San Francisco office, and Victoria Lord and Curtis Peens are associate partners in the Miami office.

The authors wish to thank Olamide Bada, Rob Bland, Brendan Gaffey, Sajal Kohli, and Vik Krishnan for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

The changing market for food delivery

Eating out(side): Restaurant dining in the next normal

Winning formula: How Europe’s top tech start-ups get it right

Advertisement

Factors Associated with Food Delivery App use Among Young Adults

• Original Paper
• Published: 06 May 2023
• Volume 48 , pages 840–846, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Sarah A. Buettner 1 ,
• Keryn E. Pasch   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9267-2765 1 &
• Natalie S. Poulos 2  

4193 Accesses

5 Citations

Explore all metrics

Food delivery apps are popular among young adults and often used to purchase calorie-dense foods. Limited research exists on the use of food delivery apps among young adults. The purpose of this study was to describe food delivery app use among young adults and examine the correlates of food delivery app use. Data are from a panel of U.S. young adults aged 18–25 (n = 1,576) who completed an online survey between January-April 2022. Participants were 51.8% female and 39.3% identified as non-Hispanic white, 24.4% as Hispanic/Latinx, 29.6% as non-Hispanic Black, and 6.8% as another race/ethnicity. Poisson regression was used to examine the relationship between food delivery app use and age, race, ethnicity, sex, SES, food insecurity, living arrangement, financial responsibility, and full-time student status. Young adults used food delivery apps approximately twice a week. Participants who identified as non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic/Latinx used food delivery apps more frequently than participants who identified as white. Having higher perceived subjective social status, food insecurity, financial responsibility, and being a full-time student were significantly associated with using food delivery apps more frequently. Living with someone else was associated with using food delivery apps less frequently. This study provides a first step in understanding the characteristics of young adults who use food delivery apps. Given that food delivery apps are a new technology that can both increase access to unhealthy food options as well as healthy food options, further research is needed to better understand the types of food purchased through food delivery apps.

Similar content being viewed by others

Ultra-processed food consumption and risk of obesity: a prospective cohort study of UK Biobank

Digital health technology and mobile devices for the management of diabetes mellitus: state of the art

Ultra-processed food consumption in adults across Europe

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Food delivery applications (apps) refer to the $26.8 billion-dollar industry of digital ordering services (e.g., Grubhub, DoorDash, UberEATS) found on mobile phones, the internet, and text messaging [ 1 ]. In the United States, food delivery apps have become a significant component of the food industry next to restaurants and fast-food businesses, often targeting young adults on social media advertising nutrient-poor food items [ 2 , 3 ]. This advertising to young adults is effective, as data show that 18–25-year-olds report the highest use of food delivery apps in the past 90 days of any age group [ 4 ].

Prior studies have labeled food delivery apps as “junk food on demand” [ 5 ], as they offer restaurant meals and fast food at a greater convenience. A recent review found that food delivery apps increase access to unhealthy food as well as alcohol [ 6 ]. Compared to meals made at home, food from restaurants is typically higher in calories from saturated fat and sodium and less nutritionally dense [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. In fact, over 70% of GrubHub users report using food delivery for calorie-dense fast food like pizza, fries, and nachos [ 10 , 11 ]. Regular consumption of these calorie-dense foods could contribute to the risk of becoming overweight or obese [ 1 , 12 ]. Thus, it is important to understand how the emerging food delivery market may contribute to obesity risk among young adults.

To date, most studies on food delivery apps focus only on U.S. adults [ 1 , 2 , 4 ] with little attention given to young adults, although they are among the highest users. For example, we know that young adults use food delivery apps more frequently than older adults [ 4 ]. However, we do not know whether food delivery app use varies across the ages of 18–25 years, the period considered to be emerging adulthood. Given that these years are inclusive of multiple life stages such as transitions to college, work, partnered relationships or marriage, and parenthood [ 13 ], it is likely that food delivery app use may vary across this period.

When considering emerging adulthood, there are unique experiences during this age that may influence use of food delivery apps. For example, many young adults are considered non-financially responsible, relying on their parents, caregivers, or another form of income other than their own, while others are considered financially responsible and pay for their own purchases or bills [ 14 ]. This dichotomy of financial responsibility likely has impacts on food delivery app use given the added delivery fees and per item charges when ordering through these apps as compared to in store food purchasing. Research also suggests that young adults in the United States are at higher risk for developing food insecurity than other age groups because of limited income and high tuition or housing cost [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Given that emerging adults are often juggling many financial obligations, use of delivery apps may be seen as either time saving and convenient or too costly [ 33 , 34 ]. Living status (i.e., alone, with family, or with a roommate) is also likely to impact food delivery app use given that meal patterns vary between individuals living alone or with others [ 18 ].

Food delivery app use may also vary by demographic factors such as sex, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES). Some studies suggest that young adult males eat outside the home more than young adult women [ 19 ], which may increase their likelihood to use food delivery apps if they prefer to cook at home less than women. Yet, other work suggests that men and women have similar rates of fast food consumption [ 20 ], the most ordered food type on food delivery apps. Food access has been found to also vary by the racial/ethnic composition of neighborhoods [ 21 , 22 ], and an individual’s racial or ethnic background has been associated with their likelihood of fast-food consumption [ 23 ]. Yet, little is known about how use of food delivery apps varies across racial/ethnic background. Recent consumer data for food delivery apps shows that 51.6% of adults within the lowest income category ($0-9k) reported using food delivery apps in the past 90 days, while only 25.3% of those in the third-highest income category ($150-175k) reported using food delivery apps [ 4 ]. Another study found that use of food delivery apps and online food services were highest in the poorest neighborhoods [ 24 ]. Food delivery apps provide a quick and easy way to access food, including unhealthy food but also healthy food options through grocery stores. As such food delivery apps may allow those who live in food deserts access to healthier foods. Therefore, determining if food delivery app use frequency varies by these sociodemographic characteristics is the first step in understanding the impact of food delivery apps on food access.

In sum, the literature on food delivery app use is limited. Further, very little research of limited work has focused on young adults, even though young adults are shown to be the highest users of food delivery apps. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to (1) describe food delivery app use among young adults, and (2) examine the association between food delivery app use and factors including age, race, ethnicity, sex, perceived SES, food insecurity, living arrangement, financial responsibility, and full-time student status.

Study Design and Participants

Data were from the Promoting Young Adult Health Survey, a cross-sectional, online survey administered from January-April 2022. We recruited young adults aged 18–25 years old using the Qualtrics survey panel [ 25 ]. A total of 1,630 young adults completed the survey. We oversampled by race and ethnicity to ensure 30% of the participants identified as Hispanic/Latinx or of Spanish origin and 30% identified as Black or African American. For the present study, 1,576 participants (96.7% of full sample) had data available on items included in the analysis. The institutional review board at the University of Texas at Austin approved this study.

Food delivery app use

Participants’ frequency of food delivery app use was assessed by the question, “In the last month, how many times per week on average did you use a delivery app (e.g., DoorDash, Grubhub, UberEATS, Postmates, etc.) for restaurant/prepared food delivery?”. Response options were included on a scale of 0–6 from (0) “0 days/not at all” to (5) “Multiple times a day”, or (6) “delivery apps are not available in my area”. Data were recoded on a scale which included 0 times per week, 1.5 times per week, 3.5 times per week, 5.5 times per week, 7 (every day in the last week), and 8 (multiple times a day).

Sociodemographic factors

The survey included questions about the sociodemographic characteristics of young adult participants such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and SES. Age was measured by one item that asked, “How old are you?”, on a scale from 18 to 25 years old and was coded as continuous. Sex at birth was coded as male (0) and female (1). Race/ethnicity was coded as non-Hispanic white (0), Hispanic (1), non-Hispanic Black (2), and another race (3). Full-time student status was measured with one item that asked, “What is your current employment/student status?”. Responses were coded as (0) other and (1) full-time student. Perceived SES was measured by the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (SSS) (Adult Version), a reliable measure of SSS which asked, “Where would you place yourself on this ladder? Please place a large “X” on the rung where you think you stand at this time in your life relative to other people in the United States” [ 26 ]. Each rung in the ladder was numbered from 1 (bottom) being the lowest compared to others to 10 (top) being the highest compared to others in the U.S.

Financial Responsibility

Financial responsibility was measured with one item that asked, “Are you personally responsible for your credit card bill?” and was coded as Yes (1) or No (0).

Food insecurity

To assess participants’ food insecurity, two items were used: (1) “Within the past 12 months I worried whether my food would run out before I got money to buy more”, and (2) “Within the past 12 months, the food I bought just didn’t last and I didn’t have money to get more” [ 27 ]. From these items, participants were asked to indicate on a scale from 1 to 4 ((1) often true, (2) sometimes true, (3) never true, or (4) don’t know) their agreement with those statements. Participants were considered food insecure if they responded often true or sometimes true to either item (food insecure (1) or not food insecure (0)).

Living Arrangement

Participants were asked, “What are your current living arrangements?”. Response options included, “living with parents/caregivers, living with partner and/or children, living with one or more roommates, or living independently alone”. For the analysis, data were coded as (1) living with someone and (0) living alone.

The data were collected in Qualtrics and exported to Stata Version 19 for all data analyses. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Poisson regression was used to examine the relationship between food delivery app use and age, sex, race/ethnicity, perceived SSS, living arrangement, food insecurity, financial responsibility, and full-time student status.

Descriptive statistics for each of the variables are shown in Table  1 . In the last month, young adults used food delivery apps approximately 1.8 times per week. The average age was 21.8 years. The sample was approximately half female (51.8%) and 39.3% of the participants identified as non-Hispanic white, 29.6% as non-Hispanic Black, 24.4% as Hispanic/Latinx, and 6.8% as another race/ethnicity. Average perceived SSS was 5.9 on the ladder (on a scale from 1 to 10). Most participants lived with someone (78.1%), were food insecure (68.4%), were financially responsible for their own credit card bills (63.1%) and were full-time students (71.6%).

Sex and identifying as another race/ethnicity were not associated with food delivery app use frequency (See Table  2 ). Participants who identified as non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic/Latinx had greater food delivery app use frequency as compared to participants who identified as white. Being older, having higher perceived SSS, being food insecure, living with someone else, being financially responsible, and being a full-time student were all significantly associated with greater food delivery app use frequency.

The use of food delivery apps has increased in recent years [ 6 ]. In our sample of young adults, food delivery apps were used approximately two times per week. Several sociodemographic factors were associated with the use of food delivery apps including identifying as non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic/Latinx, having higher perceived SSS, experiencing food insecurity, living alone, being financially responsible, being a full-time college student, and being an older young adult. No differences in food delivery app use were found by sex once all other factors were considered. These findings suggest that food delivery app use varies across young adults who use these apps more than once per week, thus possibly increasing the number of times they consume foods prepared outside of the home.

Young adults who identified as non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic/Latinx used food delivery apps more than their peers who identified as non-Hispanic white. This finding may further our understanding of sociodemographic differences in consumption. For example, research has documented more fast-food restaurants in neighborhoods with a greater proportion of residents who identify as Black, and this has been associated with increased fast food consumption among populations that identify as Black [ 21 , 22 ]. This increased prevalence of fast food may also be associated with increased availability of unhealthy options on food delivery apps in those areas, thus furthering unhealthy food access.

Although previous consumer data suggested those from the lowest SES and highest SES had the greatest food delivery app use [ 4 ], we found that young adults who reported higher perceived SSS use food delivery apps more frequently. Since prior studies have included older adults and measured SES using income, these findings may indicate that either young adults use food delivery apps differently than older adults, or, that differences in use may be observed depending on how SES is measured. Additionally, young adults who report lower perceived SSS may not be able to afford to purchase from food delivery apps, which are usually more expensive than buying from a food outlet. Work that explores how measures of SES may be differentially related to food delivery app use and the reasons for use and types of purchases by socioeconomic status is needed.

A key finding was that young adults who reported experiencing food insecurity in the last 12 months used food delivery apps more often in the last month. Young adults who are food insecure may use food delivery apps as a quick solution to gain access to a broader range of food options or a less stressful purchasing experience [ 28 ]. Further, food delivery apps may serve as a quick solution to not having enough food on hand at home. Compared to other studies, the percentage of young adults in our sample who reported experiencing food insecurity was very high. Typically, other studies have found that about 11% in a U.S. sample (n = 14,786) are food insecure [ 29 ]. A recent study with young adults in the U.S. found that 23.3% of 1,568 participants experienced food insecurity in the past year [ 15 ]. One reason our sample displayed high food insecurity could be related to the timing of our data collection following the COVID-19 pandemic which increased the intensity of food insecurity in the U.S due to economic challenges and a decrease in food access globally [ 30 ]. Further, oversampling for racially/ethnically minoritized young adults may also have influenced our food insecurity findings, given that individuals who identify as Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic Black experience food insecurity at greater percentages than individuals who identify as non-Hispanic white [ 31 ]. Given that food delivery apps have the potential to increase food access for those who are food insecure, additional research is warranted to better understand food delivery app use among those experiencing food insecurity.

The association between full-time student status and greater food delivery app use is informative as it may be indicative of food access issues on college campuses. For example, because of the lack of perceived healthy or affordable meal options on college campuses, many students view their campuses as a food desert [ 32 ]. Thus, food desert campuses with fast-food restaurants as the only perceived source of affordable food may drive students to use food delivery apps more frequently to get their meals and obtain healthier food options.

Another aspect that may be related to age or increasing financial independence is living status and living alone was associated with greater food delivery app use. Many young adults who live alone lack self-perceived cooking skills and therefore have lower motivation to cook meals for themselves [ 35 ]. Food delivery apps may provide an easy and convenient alternative to cooking at home, and this may be particularly appealing for young adults who live alone. Conversely, young adults who live with someone may have a parent, caregiver, or roommate to cook with or who cooks for them, which may explain their lower food delivery app use.

While this study is one of the first to examine food delivery app use among young adults, it is not without limitations. First, because our survey was cross-sectional, we are unable to determine if the factors examined predicted food delivery app use. As such, future longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the temporality of these relationships. Another limitation to the study is that data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically, between January and April 2022, when the omicron COVID-19 variant was at its peak of cases in the U.S. [ 36 ]. However, all data were collected at the same time, so all participants were experiencing the omicron peak to some degree. Continued research is needed that examines food delivery app use over time. Despite these limitations, our findings still reflect valuable insight into how young adults use food delivery apps.

This study has several implications for future research. First, while this study examined food delivery app use by sociodemographic and social factors, it does not explain food purchasing decisions or motivations for purchases. Thus, future research may benefit from examining decision-making and reasons for purchases. Additionally, a better understanding of the nutritional quality of foods purchased through food delivery apps would help determine if these apps are increasing access to unhealthy foods or opening access to healthy foods. Further, while we know that healthy food is available on food delivery apps for some individuals [ 37 ], there may be disparities in this food access across similar factors. Since COVID-19, dietary behaviors like food insecurity or overconsumption of fast food have been worsened for those already vulnerable to obesity based on risk factors such as race, ethnicity, perceived SSS, and environment [ 37 ]. Thus, understanding the types of foods purchased through food delivery apps is essential. Finally, future work should also examine how food delivery app use may displace either home-prepared meals or dining out. It may be that meals consumed from food delivery apps replace trips to restaurants or it may be that food delivery app meals replace home-prepared meals. There are important distinctions between these two for the impact on overall health.

Food delivery apps introduce a new mode of food access for young adults that raises concern for potential easy access to unhealthy foods. Food delivery apps may provide readily available, easily accessible, unhealthy food options delivered right to the doorstep increasing concerns for obesity and other chronic diseases such as diabetes. Conversely, food delivery apps may open access to healthier food options to communities living in food deserts or food swamps and positively impact health. A better understanding of food delivery app use is the first step in understanding this new technology and the possible impacts it may have on public health.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Stephens, J., Miller, H., & Militello, L. (2020). Food Delivery Apps and the Negative Health Impacts for Americans. Frontiers in Nutrition , 7 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2020.00014

Lee, S. W., Sung, H. J., & Jeon, H. M. (2019). Determinants of continuous intention on food delivery apps: Extending UTAUT2 with Information Quality. Sustainability, 11 (11), 3141. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113141

Article   Google Scholar  

Molenaar, A., Saw, W. Y., Brennan, L., Reid, M., Lim, M. S. C., & McCaffrey, T. A. (2021). Effects of Advertising: A Qualitative Analysis of Young Adults’ Engagement with Social Media About Food. Nutrients , 13 (6), 1934. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13061934

Zion, & Hollmann. (2019). Food Delivery Apps: Usage and Demographics. Zion & Zion . Retrieved from https://www.zionandzion.com/research/food-delivery-apps-usage-and-demographics-winners-losers-and-laggards/

Partridge, S. R., Gibson, A. A., Roy, R., Malloy, J. A., Raeside, R., Jia, S. S., … Redfern, J. (2020). Junk Food on Demand: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Nutritional Quality of Popular Online Food Delivery Outlets in Australia and New Zealand. Nutrients , 12 (10), 3107. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12103107

Duthie, C., Pocock, T., Curl, A., Clark, E., Norriss, D., Bidwell, S., … Crossin, R. (2023). Online on-demand delivery services of food and alcohol: A scoping review of public health impacts. SSM - Population Health , 21 , 101349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2023.101349

Bowman, S. A., & Vinyard, B. T. (2004). Fast food consumption of U.S. adults: Impact on energy and nutrient intakes and overweight status. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 23 (2), 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/07315724.2004.10719357

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kant, A. K., & Graubard, B. I. (2018). A prospective study of frequency of eating restaurant prepared meals and subsequent 9-year risk of all-cause and cardiometabolic mortality in US adults. PLOS ONE, 13 (1), e0191584. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191584

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Scourboutakos, M. J., Semnani-Azad, Z., & L’Abbe, M. R. (2013). Restaurant Meals: Almost a full day’s worth of calories, Fats, and Sodium. JAMA Internal Medicine, 173 (14), 1373–1374. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6159

School Meal Trends & Stats. (2019). Retrieved October 10, 2021, from https://schoolnutrition.org/aboutschoolmeals/schoolmealtrendsstats/

The Dish: Our End Of Year Trend Report. (2019, November 14). DoorDash Newsroom . Retrieved October 10, 2021, from https://doordash.news/2019/11/14/the-dish-our-end-of-year-trend-report/

McCrory, M. A., Harbaugh, A. G., Appeadu, S., & Roberts, S. B. (2019). Fast-food offerings in the United States in 1986, 1991, and 2016 show large increases in Food Variety, portion size, Dietary Energy, and selected micronutrients. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 119 (6), 923–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2018.12.004

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55 (5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Fan, L., Chatterjee, S., & Kim, J. (2022). An Integrated Framework of young adults’ subjective Well-Being: The roles of personality traits, financial responsibility, Perceived Financial Capability, and race. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 43 (1), 66–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-021-09764-6

Larson, N., Laska, M. N., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2020). Food Insecurity, Diet Quality, Home Food availability, and Health Risk Behaviors among emerging adults: Findings from the EAT 2010–2018 study. American Journal of Public Health, 110 (9), 1422–1428. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305783

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Pryor, L., Lioret, S., van der Waerden, J., Fombonne, É., Falissard, B., & Melchior, M. (2016). Food insecurity and mental health problems among a community sample of young adults. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 51 (8), 1073–1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-016-1249-9

Raskind, I. G., Haardörfer, R., & Berg, C. J. (2019). Food insecurity, psychosocial health and academic performance among college and university students in Georgia, USA. Public Health Nutrition, 22 (3), 476–485. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018003439

Knol, L. L., Robb, C. A., McKinley, E. M., & Wood, M. (2019). Very low Food Security Status is related to Lower Cooking Self-Efficacy and less frequent Food Preparation Behaviors among College Students. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 51 (3), 357–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2018.10.009

Naska, A., Katsoulis, M., Orfanos, P., Lachat, C., Gedrich, K., Rodrigues, S. S. P., … Consortium, on behalf of the H. (2015). Eating out is different from eating at home among individuals who occasionally eat out. A cross-sectional study among middle-aged adults from eleven European countries. British Journal of Nutrition , 113 (12), 1951–1964. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114515000963

CDC. (2021, November 12). Obesity is a Common, Serious, and Costly Disease. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Retrieved January 2, 2022, from https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

Block, J. P., Scribner, R. A., & DeSalvo, K. B. (2004). Fast food, race/ethnicity, and income: A geographic analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27 (3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.06.007

Raja, S., Ma, C., & Yadav, P. (2008). Beyond Food deserts: Measuring and mapping racial disparities in Neighborhood Food environments. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27 (4), 469–482.

Schmidt, M., Affenito, S. G., Striegel-Moore, R., Khoury, P. R., Barton, B., Crawford, P., … Daniels, S. (2005). Fast-Food Intake and Diet Quality in Black and White Girls: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Growth and Health Study. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine , 159 (7), 626–631. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.159.7.626

Keeble, M., Adams, J., Bishop, T. R. P., & Burgoine, T. (2021). Socioeconomic inequalities in food outlet access through an online food delivery service in England: A cross-sectional descriptive analysis. Applied Geography (Sevenoaks, England) , 133 , None. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2021.102498

Qualtrics. (2005, Release). Provo, UT: Qualtrics. Retrieved from https://www.qualtrics.com

Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, white women. Health Psychology, 19 (6), 586–592.

Pediatrics , 126 (1), e26-32. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-3146

Hagedorn, R. L., & Olfert, M. D. (2018). Food insecurity and behavioral characteristics for academic success in young adults attending an Appalachian University. Nutrients, 10 (3), 361. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10030361

Nagata, J. M., Palar, K., Gooding, H. C., Garber, A. K., Bibbins-Domingo, K., & Weiser, S. D. (2019). Food Insecurity and Chronic Disease in US young adults: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of adolescent to Adult Health. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 34 (12), 2756–2762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05317-8

Dasgupta, S., & Robinson, E. J. Z. (2022). Impact of COVID-19 on food insecurity using multiple waves of high frequency household surveys. Scientific Reports, 12 (1), 1865. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05664-3

Odoms-Young, A. M. (2018). Examining the impact of Structural Racism on Food Insecurity: Implications for addressing Racial/Ethnic disparities. Family & community health, 41 (Suppl 2 FOOD INSECURITY AND OBESITY), S3–S6. https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0000000000000183

Dhillon, J., Diaz Rios, L. K., Aldaz, K. J., De La Cruz, N., Vu, E., Asad Asghar, S., … Ortiz, R. M. (2019). We Don’t Have a Lot of Healthy Options: Food Environment Perceptions of First-Year, Minority College Students Attending a Food Desert Campus. Nutrients , 11 (4), 816. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11040816

Xiao, J. J. (2014). Factors associated with financial independence of young adults. Wiley Online Library . Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/doi/full/10.1111/ijcs.12106?casa_token=p2Tx_vqGuqMAAAAA%3AbEeOgyph1DqVsuw 5PhFOggBp-E5oQmfn69sT6yFUJP3Hvp1D-IAL1uzc_rdT4EDglNHiIBzKZrsJCA

Pelletier, J. E., & Laska, M. N. (2012). Balancing healthy meals and busy lives: Associations between Work, School, and Family Responsibilities and Perceived Time Constraints among young adults. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 44 (6), 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2012.04.001

Andrade, J. (2020). P37 cook it fresh – Peer-Led, Plant-Based cooking demos for a College Campus Community. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 52 (7), S32–S33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2020.04.082

CDC. (2022, March 29). Omicron Variant: What You Need to Know. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Retrieved April 17, 2022, from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/omicron-variant.html

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 17 (20), 7397. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207397

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, The University of Texas at Austin, 2109 San Jacinto Blvd D3700, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

Sarah A. Buettner & Keryn E. Pasch

Department of Community and Rural Health, University of Texas Health Science Center Tyler, Tyler, TX, USA

Natalie S. Poulos

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Sarah Buettner and Keryn Pasch contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Sarah Buettner and Keryn Pasch. Natalie Poulos contributed to the interpretation of the findings and revision of the manuscript. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Sarah Buettner and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keryn E. Pasch .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Buettner, S.A., Pasch, K.E. & Poulos, N.S. Factors Associated with Food Delivery App use Among Young Adults. J Community Health 48 , 840–846 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-023-01229-1

Download citation

Accepted : 20 April 2023

Published : 06 May 2023

Issue Date : October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-023-01229-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• food delivery apps
• food insecurity
• young adults
• food access
• food purchasing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Researchers see promising results using food delivery apps to change consumer behavior: '[It] incentivized a large portion of individuals'

R esearchers in China have found that consumers can be effectively steered in a more environmentally friendly direction with only a slight nudge.

The research , which focused on the consumption of single-use cutlery via food delivery apps, found that the share of no-cutlery orders increased by 648% after "no cutlery" was set as the default option and consumers were awarded "green points" for eschewing plastic forks and knives. 

If this practice was applied to all food delivery services in China, the researchers extrapolated that it would save "more than 21.75 billion sets of single-use cutlery … preventing the generation of 3.26 million metric tons [about 3.59 million tons] of plastic waste and saving 5.44 million trees."

The data was published in the journal Science in a study titled "Reducing single-use cutlery with green nudges: Evidence from China's food-delivery industry."

Single-use plastic is a huge problem for our planet and is only growing. There are an estimated 170 trillion pieces of plastic in the ocean, around 21,000 pieces for every human on Earth, The Washington Post reported .

While that amount of waste and pollution may seem insurmountable, the study highlights just how unnecessary and easily preventable so much single-use plastic waste is. 

Watch now: The most sustainable thing about the new Rivian? Its price tag

The majority of people ordering food to their homes (where they presumably already have washable cutlery) do not need to be given plastic utensils. By simply making "no cutlery" the default option, a significant number of people modified their behavior to become more environmentally friendly with essentially no effort whatsoever.

"The green nudges incentivized a large portion of individuals to somewhat change their behaviors rather than encouraging only a small portion to change their behaviors substantially," the study's authors wrote .

It certainly behooves all of us to search out plastic-free alternatives and make a concerted effort to avoid consuming products that harm the planet. However, the study shows that decisions made by companies can also make a sizable difference without placing the entire burden of ethical behavior on their customers.

Join our free newsletter for cool news and actionable info that makes it easy to help yourself while helping the planet.

Researchers see promising results using food delivery apps to change consumer behavior: '[It] incentivized a large portion of individuals' first appeared on The Cool Down .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

A Thematic Review on Using Food Delivery Services during the Pandemic: Insights for the Post-COVID-19 Era

1 Business School, Guilin University of Technology, Guilin 541004, China

2 Faculty of Human Ecology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia

Syuhaily Osman

Norzalina zainudin, mohamad fazli sabri, associated data.

Not applicable.

The food delivery service is the most typical and visible example of online-to-offline (O2O) commerce. More consumers are using food delivery services for various reasons during the COVID-19 pandemic, making this business model viral worldwide. In the post-pandemic era, offering food delivery services will become the new normal for restaurants. Although a growing number of publications have focused on consumer behavior in this issue, no review paper has addressed current research and industry trends. Thus, this paper aims to review the literature published from 2020 to the present (October 2022) on consumers’ use of food delivery services during the pandemic. A thematic review was conducted, with 40 articles searched from Scopus and Web of Science being included. Quantitative findings showed current research trends, and thematic analyses formed eight themes of factors influencing consumer behavior: (1) technical and utilitarian factors, (2) system-related attributes, (3) emotional and hedonic factors, (4) individual characteristics, (5) service quality, (6) risk-related factors, (7) social factors, and (8) food-related attributes. The paper also emphasizes COVID-19-related influences and suggests promising future research directions. The results offer insights into industry practices and starting points for future research.

1. Introduction

The rapid expansion of electronic commerce (e-commerce) or mobile commerce (m-commerce) is changing people’s food consumption patterns, with more and more consumers considering purchasing food online. They generally purchase food online in business-to-consumer (B2C) and online-to-offline (O2O) models. B2C is a traditional e-commerce model where consumers purchase food from B2C platforms (e.g., China’s JD.com and USA’s Amazon.com) and receive the parcel in approximately 3–10 days, while O2O is a new e-commerce model focused on local business where consumers order online and then consume offline [ 1 ]. In the O2O model, consumers can visit the offline store or use the home delivery service. The former is called to-shop O2O, while the latter is known as to-home O2O [ 2 ]. Food delivery is the most obvious and widely discussed O2O market segment, in which restaurants work with third-party O2O platforms, i.e., online food delivery platforms, to offer delivery of ready-to-eat food [ 3 ]. Consumers can easily find nearby restaurants through the food delivery app, accessing the convenience and diversity of food delivery services. Although the food delivery market has continued to expand since the emergence of the O2O concept, its growth was uneventful [ 3 ] until the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [ 4 ]. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared its outbreak in January 2020 and subsequently called it a pandemic in March 2020. During the pandemic, the WHO strongly advises that people wear masks in public places, maintain social distancing, self-isolate, and take other self-protective actions to avoid contracting COVID-19 [ 5 , 6 ]. In the early stages of the pandemic, many countries worldwide adopted strict measures such as lockdowns, quarantine, and movement control to reduce the risk of COVID-19 spread. Industries around the world, especially the food and restaurant industries, have been severely impacted as a result because consumers use fewer public services or dine less in public places [ 7 , 8 ].

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly changed consumer behavior, with more and more people purchasing food online due to social distancing policies or fear of infection. Since food is a daily necessity for individuals, buying food through to-home O2O (i.e., instant food delivery) seems to meet consumer needs better than B2C and is more popular. To sustain the business, many restaurants started to access online platforms offering food delivery services to meet consumers’ demands [ 7 , 9 ]. According to statistics, the COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented growth in food delivery services, with restaurant food delivery growing 47% worldwide in 2020; more than 1.6 billion people globally used some form of online food delivery service in 2021 [ 10 , 11 ]. In a way, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the digitalization of numerous industries, including the restaurant industry [ 6 , 12 , 13 ]. On the other hand, the pandemic disrupted the pre-existing food delivery market, with users more cautious in their decision to continue using the food delivery service due to concerns about the safety of the delivered food [ 14 , 15 ].

Previous studies have investigated the factors influencing consumer behavior in the context of online food delivery service from different perspectives, such as technology adoption [ 16 , 17 , 18 ], service quality [ 19 , 20 ], food choice motives [ 1 , 21 ], etc. However, research has shown that many aspects of consumer expectations during the pandemic differ from normal times [ 9 ] and that consumer purchasing behavior during the crisis is unusual [ 22 ]. Consumers’ thinking and behavior are being reshaped by COVID-19 [ 9 , 23 , 24 ]. This means that new factors may influence consumer behavior, while the identified factors may work in different ways. In fact, many studies have focused on using food delivery services during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, no review paper has attempted to explore the research and industry trends of food delivery in the (post-) pandemic era. Accordingly, this paper aims to identify these trends by reviewing the current literature.

In the post-pandemic era, continued research on consumer behavior regarding food delivery services is necessary for the following reasons: First, consumers will adapt to the new normal situation, and some behavioral changes resulting from the pandemic might continue. Consumer behavior is generally highly predictable; nonetheless, many aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic increase prediction uncertainty [ 25 ]. Second, food deliveries will be the new normal for restaurants and diners in the foreseeable future [ 26 , 27 ], and a comprehensive understanding of consumer behavior can help businesses remain resilient in their business. Lastly, food delivery as a segment of O2O commerce is not restricted to delivering ready-to-eat food [ 2 , 28 ]. The combined effect of innovation and COVID-19 has given rise to many new business models. This is an effort by restaurants and food delivery platforms to sustain their business, which may become the new fashion after the pandemic fades. New insights and marketing strategies are hence needed in the post-pandemic era. Therefore, another objective of this paper is to identify literature gaps to offer a starting point for future research.

2. Materials and Methods

This paper collected literature from dominant online databases and used a non-systematic approach to review. Most systematic reviews aim to measure the effectiveness of prior studies rigorously and scientifically to reveal whether their findings are consistent across studies [ 29 ]. In contrast, non-systematic reviews seek to identify what the literature says about a particular issue and where effective research should be conducted [ 29 ]. In this paper, the non-systematic approach was adopted based on the research objectives: identifying research and industry trends regarding food delivery services use in the COVID-19 pandemic and offering future research directions. Furthermore, a systematic review would not be particularly useful or effective if only a limited number of published studies were published in a given field [ 29 ]. Since the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020, it can be expected that there are not many relevant studies. For example, studies involving the relationship between perceived risk from COVID-19 and consumers’ use of food delivery apps might be limited. Hence, the non-systematic review approach was more appropriate for this paper. Specifically, a thematic analysis procedure was used, which is a typical design for non-systematic reviews [ 30 ].

However, the non-systematic review does not mean it is not rigorous and scientific. In fact, any non-systematic review must be systematic to some extent to ensure its credibility [ 29 ]. Thus, this paper adopted Zairul’s [ 31 , 32 , 33 ] thematic review method and conducted a thematic review following the steps suggested by Greetham [ 29 ].

2.1. Formulating the Research Question

The research questions can help a researcher judge what is relevant to their topic, providing clarity, cohesion, and direction to their work. In this paper, we follow the research questions to gather, structure, and analyze the literature in the following steps. Therefore, we proposed the following research questions:

• RQ1: What are the current trends of the food delivery service discussed in the literature related to consumer behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic?
• RQ2: What factors influence consumer behavior in using food delivery services during the COVID-19 pandemic?
• RQ3: What are the characteristics or changes in consumer behavior using food delivery services during the COVID-19 pandemic?

2.2. Literature Screening

In order to determine which article should be reviewed, we developed explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria. First, we determined “food delivery” and “COVID-19” as the core keywords after a preliminary study of industry reports and previous literature. The title of the article to be reviewed must simultaneously include these two core keywords or their synonyms. Second, we only selected peer-reviewed journal articles to ensure the quality of the research to be reviewed. However, review articles were excluded because of the contradiction with the objective of our paper. Third, we only considered articles written in English. Fourth, the articles to be included must focus on consumers’ use of food delivery services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Last, studies must involve the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on consumer behavior rather than simply using it as a writing background.

2.3. Searching the Literature

We chose two prevailing citation databases, namely the Scopus and the Web of Science (WOS) core collection, from which to search articles. We searched and selected the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria as mentioned previously, with the procedure shown in Figure 1 . All authors searched and assessed articles from the two databases separately, following the same procedure. We discussed the respective search results and repeated the above procedure until the results were consistent. Given that “food delivery” may have many synonyms in different contexts, we changed the keywords to search again to avoid missing valuable articles. In addition, those articles with repeated content using the same data were excluded. Ultimately, 40 articles that met the criteria published from 2020 to the present (updated on 15 October 2022) were included in this review, as shown in Table A1 of Appendix A .

Literature searching process.

2.4. Data Extraction and Synthesis

Following Zairul’s [ 31 , 32 , 33 ] method, we used the ATLAS.ti 9 software (ATLAS.ti GmbH, Berlin, Germany) to extract and synthesize data, importing documents into the software for further thematic review. Specifically, we read the articles thoroughly and performed a thematic analysis procedure to construct the themes, which were identified by an iterative process of comparing similarities and differences between the reviewed subjects to achieve consistency. The bibliometric information and other directly identifiable metadata from the reviewed articles were extracted for descriptive quantitative analysis. Subsequently, we used a coding method similar to the qualitative study to conduct the thematic analysis. We coded the influencing factors of consumer behavior in using food delivery services during the COVID-19 pandemic and categorized them into several themes after several rounds of recoding and merging codes.

3. Results and Discussion

The results were classified into quantitative findings and qualitative findings. The former was mainly used to answer RQ1, while the latter addressed RQ2 and RQ3. The discussion in each subsection may involve literature outside of the reviewed articles for illustrative purposes.

3.1. Quantitative Results

Research trends were examined by general bibliometric information and directly identifiable metadata, including the year of publication and data collection, source of publication, study site, and key dependent variables or research focuses. First, as shown in Figure 2 , the earliest studies appeared in 2020 because that is when the COVID-19 pandemic began. We checked the time of data collection for each study and marked it as Not Applicable (N/A) when it could not be identified or inferred. Figure 2 shows that most of the studies collected data in 2020, of which six (i.e., [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]) collected data before and after 2020 for comparative analysis. In addition, Meena and Kumar [ 9 ] analyzed what consumers posted online in 2020 and 2021 and showed that consumers’ net sentiment (positive-negative) during the second wave of COVID-19 was significantly higher than that during the first wave, which may be due to consumers psychologically adapting to the new normal. Therefore, consumers’ behavioral characteristics or changes regarding the use of using food delivery services in the post-pandemic era are worth investigating. However, even in the articles published in 2022, few studies used data from 2021 and beyond. One possible reason is that the articles in question have not yet been officially published.

The year of publication and data collection.

Second, 40 articles were published in 25 different journals, as shown in Table A1 in Appendix A , indicating that consumers using food delivery services during the COVID-19 overhaul is an interdisciplinary and widely discussed issue. Regarding the study site, we were interested in where the study was conducted and where the researcher focused. This is because economic and cultural contexts are important aspects of understanding consumer behavior. As can be seen from Table 1 , studies involved 17 countries or regions with different cultures and continents, suggesting that the issue is a globally widespread phenomenon.

Countries or regions of research by the year of publication.

* Some studies were cross-country

We also examined key dependent variables or research focuses of articles reviewed to identify the scope of consumer behavior and present the research trends. As presented in Figure 3 , consumer behavior mainly involved use intention, continuance intention, satisfaction, actual use, loyalty, etc. Some articles involved several keywords and vice versa. In addition, some studies have analyzed online comments [ 9 , 24 , 27 , 47 ] or conducted general behavioral surveys [ 41 , 45 ] to understand consumer behavior towards using food delivery services during the pandemic. Previous studies argued that the use of food delivery services may be associated with some outcome phenomena, such as sedentary lifestyles [ 62 ] or environmental pollution issues [ 63 ]. However, in the articles reviewed, no studies focused on outcome phenomena related to the use of food delivery services, except for Sharma et al. [ 50 ] investigating consumers’ over-ordering phenomenon.

Key dependent variables.

In summary, this section answers research question 1, in which research trends reflected the industry trends to some degree.

3.2. Qualitative Results

We thoroughly read all the articles and coded consumer behavior and its influencing factors. Several rounds of recoding, merging, and categorization was conducted on the initial codes. Since we are concerned with factors that are broadly considered and validated by researchers, the codes that were not used frequently and could not be categorized as any theme were excluded, as well as non-significant results. Specifically, we first coded the factors that directly or indirectly influence consumer behavior in terms of using food delivery services, generating eight main themes (see Figure 4 and Section 3.2.1 ). Subsequently, COVID-19-related influences were highlighted (see Section 3.2.2 ).

Main factors influencing consumer behavior.

3.2.1. General Themes

The first theme is the technical and utilitarian factors, as shown in Figure 5 . The popularity of food delivery services cannot be separated from the development of e-commerce and mobile internet. As a result, the discussion always centers on the technological aspect, whether before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consistent with the e-commerce literature, social psychology-based technology adoption theories were often used to explain consumer behavior in the context of food delivery services, such as the technology acceptance model (TAM) [ 64 , 65 ] and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) [ 66 , 67 ]. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and their synonyms constituted the main aspects of the theme. This means that consumers are more likely to use a food delivery app if they find it useful and easy to use. Such technical attributes highlight the extrinsic (utilitarian) motivation of consumers’ technology usage. Extrinsic motivation is also expressed in terms of perceived benefits, convenience, functional aspects, etc. In addition, UTAUT suggested that facilitating conditions or compatibility is also a key factor in determining consumer use of a particular technology.

Theme 1: technical and utilitarian factors [ 6 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 26 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 48 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 58 ].

The second theme is the system-related attributes, as shown in Figure 6 . Consumers use food delivery services typically through mobile apps, so many studies have focused on the influence of the quality of information systems on consumer behavior. System-related attributes focused on the specific functional aspect of the food delivery app. According to the information systems success model (ISSM) [ 68 , 69 ], a successful information system involves three main exogenous factors: system quality, information quality, and service quality. This theme was mainly concerned with the first two factors, while service quality was discussed separately in Theme 5 because it includes not only the online part (i.e., the system aspect) but also the offline part in the context of food delivery. System-related attributes often indirectly influence consumer behavior and decision-making processes. For example, information quality and system quality may contribute to perceived usefulness [ 12 ] (see Theme 1); visual design (facility aesthetics) may evoke consumers’ emotions such as dominance and pleasure [ 7 ] (see Theme 3).

Theme 2: system-related attributes [ 7 , 12 , 27 , 35 , 44 , 46 , 49 , 50 , 51 ].

The third theme is the emotional and hedonic factors, as shown in Figure 7 . Apart from cognitive-based extrinsic (utilitarian) factors (see Theme 1), emotional-based hedonic motivations are also key factors influencing consumers’ technology use [ 67 ]. However, with increasing experience, the novelty contributing to hedonic motivation become less attractive [ 67 ]. Furthermore, researchers should be cautious in using hedonic motivation as a predictor in the context of focusing on utilitarian aspects (e.g., food delivery service). Previous research has shown a non-significant result of hedonic motivation [ 17 ]. Surprisingly, this review found a number of studies that reported significant effects of hedonic motivation. One possible explanation is that food delivery services may be novel to specific communities, such as new users, or that the study is on a new food delivery business model, such as drone food delivery [ 37 ]. On the other hand, the fun may not come from the use of technology but from other aspects. For example, people had limited outdoor recreation during the COVID-19 pandemic, making online ordering a meal potentially fun. The other emotional aspects have also been the focus of many studies. During the pandemic, food delivery services helped restaurants maintain their businesses, provided jobs to the unemployed, and delivered food and medicine to consumers, which enhanced the emotional connection between people and food delivery platforms [ 7 ]. In addition, consumers who used food delivery services during the COVID-19 pandemic were more likely to have positive emotions because they were more easily able to access food than non-users [ 70 ].

Theme 3: emotional and hedonic factors [ 7 , 28 , 37 , 42 , 44 , 51 , 52 , 55 , 58 ].

The fourth theme is the individual characteristics, as shown in Figure 8 . In line with e-commerce literature, individual characteristics were also found to be a popular aspect influencing consumer behavior, with the most discussed being attitude and trust. Attitude is one of the core constructs of behavioral theories, such as the theory of reasoned action (TRA) [ 71 ] and the theory of planned behavior (TPB) [ 72 ]. Attitude as an individual characteristic has been broadly used in the e-commerce literature [ 73 ]. In general, consumers with positive attitudes toward information technology are more likely to use food delivery services. The role of trust has also been discussed in depth due to the uncertainty implicit in e-commerce [ 74 , 75 , 76 ]. In the context of food delivery, the trust may influence consumer perceptions of food quality or restaurant reputation (see Theme 8), which in turn affects the consumer decision-making process. TPB’s perceived behavioral control is similar to self-efficacy from social cognitive theory (SCT) [ 77 ], which were both viewed as individual characteristics in this theme, they are the extent to which individuals believe they can master a skill. During the pandemic, self-efficacy may refer to individuals’ belief that they can overcome COVID-19-related difficulties. Other individual characteristics discussed were culture (i.e., collectivism and individualism), risk propensity, personal traits (e.g., optimism), and sense of self, which may influence consumers’ use of food delivery services in different ways (directly or indirectly).

Theme 4: individual characteristics [ 6 , 12 , 23 , 26 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 46 , 50 , 52 , 56 , 58 , 59 ].

The fifth theme is the service quality, as shown in Figure 9 . In the traditional marketing literature, service quality was usually used as an antecedent of satisfaction to influence consumers’ purchase intention [ 78 , 79 , 80 ]. Similar to most O2O services, food delivery services involve both online and offline service quality [ 2 ]. Online service quality is achieved through e-service quality and platform interactivity, which are part of system service quality (see Theme 2). Offline service quality in the context of food delivery is mainly involved in delivery quality, including delivery time, order correctness, personal aspects of delivery workers, etc. Safety measures and hygiene issues of restaurants and delivery workers are new concerns of consumers caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, Cheong and Law [ 24 ] and Yang et al. [ 47 ] found that the interaction quality between restaurants and customers plays an influential role, especially during the pandemic. Such interaction can be online or offline, and the interaction with delivery workers is the most direct and most influential to the consumer’s perceived service quality. Macías-Rendón et al. [ 48 ] observed that consumers provide positive comments to delivery workers during the pandemic due to empathy (see Theme 7). Nevertheless, the literature showed that consumers may complain about delivery workers for a variety of reasons [ 81 , 82 ].

Theme 5: service quality [ 9 , 12 , 14 , 24 , 27 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 61 ].

The sixth theme is the risk-related factors, as shown in Figure 10 . As with trust discussed in Theme 5, perceived risk is widely studied in the e-commerce literature due to the uncertainty implied of the online environment. Risk-related factors formed the theme because of the increase in its discussion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous research has shown that perceived risk in the online environment involves many dimensions, such as performance risk, financial risk, time risk, privacy risk, and psychological risk [ 83 ]. In the reviewed studies, researchers focused on COVID-19-related risks in addition to discussing the traditional risk dimensions. Perceived risk usually negatively influences consumers’ behavioral intention or attitude; however, fear of COVID-19 [ 13 ] and perceived severity [ 44 ] were found to positively influence consumers’ intention to use food delivery services. This is because researchers viewed the perceived COVID-19-related risks from different perspectives (see Section 3.2.2 ). In addition, researchers focused more on COVID-19-related moderating effects, such as fear of COVID-19 [ 28 ], before and during the pandemic [ 35 ], severe and mild regions [ 26 ], and two COVID-19 waves [ 9 ]. COVID-19-related situations were observed to influence the consumer decision-making process in various ways.

Theme 6: risk-related factors [ 9 , 13 , 15 , 23 , 26 , 28 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 44 , 48 , 52 , 54 , 56 , 59 , 60 ].

The seventh theme is the social factors, as shown in Figure 11 . Social factors are an essential aspect in both traditional behavioral theories (e.g., TRA and TPB) and technology use theories (e.g., UTAUUT). The subjective norm and social influence were found to be the most widely used constructs in the theme, which refer to the extent to which consumer behavior is influenced by others [ 66 , 67 ]. Consumer behavior in using food delivery services may be influenced by subjective norms or social pressures, as non-users (e.g., the elderly) may be socially excluded during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 84 ]. Social value is the perceived enhancement of the consumer’s self-concept or social prestige by using a certain food delivery service, such as using contactless food delivery during the pandemic. Consumer social responsibility is another aspect of social factors, which has been found to influence consumer behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic, mainly in the form of support or empathy for restaurants and delivery personnel affected by the crisis. Consumers’ complaints or other behaviors may make delivery workers’ livelihoods precarious [ 81 , 82 ]. However, during the pandemic, some consumers may increase their use of food delivery services or tip delivery workers due to social responsibility or empathy. In addition, social isolation was included in the theme as it relates to compliance with social norms or social responsibility regarding public policies during the pandemic.

Theme 7: social factors [ 6 , 9 , 13 , 23 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 48 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 61 ].

The eighth theme is the food-related attributes, as shown in Figure 12 . The previous themes discussed why consumers use food delivery services. However, using the service is just a means for consumers to achieve their fundamental goals, namely, to purchase food. Previous studies have shown that food choice motives involve many aspects, such as health, taste, food quality, food safety, price, convenience, familiarity, etc. [ 21 , 85 ]. In this theme, price-related factors were the most discussed. No studies reported non-significant results for the price-related factors, except for Chotigo and Kadono [ 35 ], finding that the COVID-19 pandemic moderated the effect of price on satisfaction. Food quality, safety, and hygiene are also of concern to consumers and researchers during the pandemic. In addition, the restaurant reputation and taste aspects remain prominent in the customer experience [ 24 , 47 ]. However, health factors as an important aspect of food choice motives were not discussed in the reviewed articles. One possible explanation is that dietary health was not a major concern during the pandemic compared with fundamental food needs.

Theme 8: food-related attributes [ 12 , 14 , 24 , 27 , 35 , 36 , 40 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 59 , 61 ].

In addition to the eight themes identified, several codes that could not contribute to any themes nevertheless deserve attention, such as habit [ 35 , 42 ], use frequency [ 15 , 42 , 48 ], product involvement [ 15 ], consumer engagement [ 43 ], etc. Previous studies have demonstrated that habit is a key predictor of technology use [ 16 , 67 ]. Consumer involvement and online engagement mean more frequent use [ 86 , 87 ], which is related to habit formation. In fact, we are more interested in the antecedents of the habit. In other words, researchers should focus on what fosters or breaks consumers’ habits in the post-pandemic era.

In summary, this section addresses research question 2, generating eight themes pertinent to the factors influencing consumers’ use of food delivery services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results are basically similar to the previous e-commerce literature [ 2 , 73 ], suggesting that these factors have been extensively discussed and examined in different literature. However, the elements and mechanisms of these themes may differ from those of normal times. The COVID-19-related elements are presented separately in Section 3.2.2 .

3.2.2. COVID-19-Related Themes

Although conventional factors and theories can explain consumer behavior in using food delivery services during the pandemic, several new factors caused by COVID-19 have caused concern among researchers. Figure 13 presents an overview of the COVID-19-related factors. Among these, the mechanisms by which COVID-19-related risks influence consumer behavior were observed to be different. When the perceived COVID-19 risk is from online channels (i.e., delivery workers, food packaging, etc.), it negatively affects consumer behavior or behavioral intention to use food delivery services. Conversely, consumers are more likely to use online channels to purchase food if their fear is from offline channels (i.e., in-person offline purchases). Similarly, the roles of the perceived threat and perceived severity are different. Social responsibility is another topic of interest. A study found that corporate social responsibility is an important expectation of consumers during the pandemic [ 9 ]. Correspondingly, consumer social responsibility is one of the factors influencing their use of food delivery services, mainly expressed in terms of support and empathy for restaurants and delivery workers. In addition, social isolation was found to positively influence consumers’ use behavior or intention, possibly due to fear of COVID-19 or social responsibility to comply with public policies. Regarding safety measures, many restaurants or platforms implemented sanitization, contactless delivery, and other measures during the pandemic to respond to consumer concerns.

COVID-19-related factors.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly changed people’s lifestyles and behaviors [ 23 , 24 , 39 ]. Several studies observed changes in consumer behavior in terms of using food delivery services during the pandemic, as shown in Figure 14 . In line with most industry reports on food delivery services, Chotigo and Kadono [ 35 ] and Hong et al. [ 36 ] observed an increase in the frequency of use or number of new users. However, some studies observed a decrease in use [ 15 , 41 , 45 ]. One of the possible reasons for the inconsistency is the different mechanisms of consumers’ perceived COVID-19-related risks, as mentioned previously. Other reasons may come from differences in sample, culture, policy, etc. For example, students use fewer food delivery services when they study at home and live with their parents during the pandemic [ 45 ]; some users clean food packaging or reheat delivered food before consumption for various reasons [ 41 ]. Additionally, previous studies have shown that people aware of health risks may change their behavior in a preventive way [ 88 , 89 , 90 ]. This means that more new users may use the food delivery service, while existing ones may be more cautious.

Observed behavioral characteristics or changes [ 9 , 15 , 28 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 45 , 48 , 60 ].

During the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers were more concerned about safety measures and social responsibility than the usual expectations (e.g., prompt service and good taste). The pandemic may also influence consumers’ food choice preferences. Consumers may prefer food from their own culture because people counteract the psychological threat of death by supporting positive evaluations of their own cultural products [ 60 ]. On the other hand, the COVID-19 pandemic has had positive consequences in terms of technological advances and business model innovation. Consumers began to experiment with new technologies, such as drone delivery [ 39 ]; restaurants began to offer new services, such as Home Chef and DIY meal kits [ 28 ].

A study found that younger consumers are more likely to use food delivery services than older generations [ 36 ]. In fact, the respondents mentioned in most of the studies reviewed the young generations were predominant (i.e., Generation Y and Z). Nonetheless, the average age of users was observed to be significantly higher compared with that before the COVID-19 pandemic [ 48 ]. In addition, although an increase in the consumption of unhealthy foods was observed [ 45 ], the relationship between the use of food delivery services and unhealthy lifestyles during the pandemic has not been discussed.

To summarize, this section answers research question 3, partially presenting the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on consumers in terms of using food delivery services.

3.3. Future Research Directions

As discussed in Section 1 , it is necessary to continue studying consumer behavior in food delivery services in the post-pandemic era. Several future research directions are suggested based on our results.

3.3.1. Dependent Variables or Outcome Phenomena

Firstly, since relatively few studies have focused on consumer behavior in the post- COVID-19 era, it is unclear whether consumers will continue to use food delivery services as frequently as they did during the pandemic. Consequently, consumers’ continued use intention or behavior can be one of the future research directions.

Secondly, overusing food delivery services may be associated with unhealthy lifestyles or negative outcomes. The use of food delivery services may contribute to a sedentary lifestyle, increasing the risk of adverse health outcomes [ 62 ]. Food safety and health issues have raised people’s concerns [ 91 , 92 ]; however, online food delivery platforms always seem to promote unhealthy food [ 93 ]. During the pandemic, people’s diets changed, especially as unhealthy diets increased [ 45 , 93 , 94 ]. Although Sharma et al. [ 50 ] investigated the over-ordering of food delivery service users, the discussion of the negative outcomes is not enough. Therefore, exploring the relationship between the use of food delivery services and unhealthy lifestyles or negative outcomes is suggested as a future research direction.

Thirdly, consumers’ green consumption behavior is another outcome phenomenon that needs to be concerned. Although green consumer behavior has long been discussed [ 95 , 96 ], it seems to be ignored in the food delivery industry, especially during the pandemic when people suffer from COVID-19. A large number of food delivery orders means massive amounts of packaging materials, typically non-biodegradable and challenging to recycle, leading to serious environmental problems [ 63 ]. Thus, future research should pay attention to green consumption issues in the food delivery industry.

3.3.2. Independent Variables or Factors

The development of new habits or the disappearance of old ones depends on many aspects, such as individual social context changes, technological advances, public policies, natural disasters, etc. [ 25 ]. Future research can examine potential interventions to foster or break habits of using food delivery services. Furthermore, despite the efforts of restaurants and food delivery platforms to adopt various measures to encourage consumer purchases during the pandemic, the continued effectiveness of such marketing strategies is unclear. Maintaining these marketing efforts can challenge small and medium-sized restaurants or companies [ 14 ]. Therefore, it makes sense to continue studying the factors influencing consumer behavior (i.e., existing marketing strategies) in the post-pandemic era to develop new marketing strategies.

New factors are also worth being investigated. First, although consumer involvement and online engagement do not form any themes, they should continue to be studied. They mean more frequent use and may be related to habit formation. Second, consumer social responsibility is another future research direction. While existing studies have discussed the influences of consumer responsibility on the use of food delivery services during a pandemic, many other dimensions of consumer responsibility have received little attention, such as environmental responsibility.

3.3.3. Research Contexts

The food delivery service is a broad category not only limited to ready-to-eat food delivery, which we can call O2O delivery service or to-home O2O business model. The COVID-19 pandemic has spawned many new business models, and more new ones will emerge as technology develops. For example, the concept of “food delivery” in China is constantly being broadened, with the rapid development of instant delivery services represented by fresh food and medicine [ 97 ]; drone delivery service in Korea is favored for its novelty and contactless delivery [ 39 ]; restaurants in Spain offer standard delivery services as well as experiential services such as Home Chef and DIY meal kits [ 28 ]. Future research can therefore focus on new research contexts, i.e., new business models.

In addition, the elderly suffered from increased social exclusion during the COVID-19 pandemic due to their inability to access food and necessities through food delivery platforms [ 84 ]. Technology acceptance and use among the elderly should be of concern to researchers. However, existing studies mainly investigated the younger generations of O2O delivery service users rather than the older ones. Therefore, future research can focus on the acceptance of technology or business models in the context of the elderly.

4. Conclusions

The popularity of e-commerce and mobile internet allows consumers to purchase food online through B2C or O2O models. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the development of these business models, especially the to-home O2O, namely the food delivery service business. The provision or use of food delivery services is expected to become a new normal in the post-pandemic era. However, the discussion on consumer behavior toward food delivery services will continue. Therefore, the purpose of this paper was to review the literature on consumers’ use of food delivery services during the COVID-19 pandemic to offer a foundation and insights for future research.

A thematic review was conducted in this paper, with 40 articles published from 2020 to the present being reviewed. The quantitative results showed the current research trends and, to some extent, reflect the industry trends. The qualitative results mainly generated eight themes regarding the factors that influence consumer behavior in using food delivery services: (1) technical and utilitarian factors, (2) system-related attributes, (3) emotional and hedonic factors, (4) individual characteristics, (5) service quality, (6) risk-related factors, (7) social factors, and (8) food-related attributes. The influence of COVID-19 was subsequently highlighted. Based on the results, future research directions were suggested in three aspects: (1) dependent variables or outcome phenomena, (2) independent variables or factors, and (3) research contexts.

4.1. Contributions

This paper brings contributions in several aspects. First of all, this paper presents an overview to policymakers regarding consumer behavior in certain aspects in times of crisis. Meanwhile, this paper offers starting points for future research. It is comprehensive enough to help scholars understand how themes are formed and detailed enough to allow many different sub-themes to be focused on.

This paper also provides beneficial insights for marketers and managers in food-related industries. First, despite the similarity of the eight themes identified to previous marketing literature, their composition and the way they work may be different. Marketers and managers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of consumer behavior from this paper to reconsider their marketing strategies. Second, consumers may have different expectations in times of crisis than in normal times, for example, they may place more value on corporate social responsibility. Lastly, restaurants and food delivery platforms should manage human resources well in terms of delivery workers. Delivery is an essential part of the industry, and the delivery worker’s performance can directly influence the customer experience. Consumer behavior may, in turn, lead to precariousness among food delivery workers.

4.2. Limitations

A number of limitations need to be noted regarding this review paper. First, although we developed a detailed and comprehensive literature search strategy, it is possible to miss some valuable articles. Second, while the most difficult period of the COVID-19 pandemic has passed, relevant studies may be in the process of being published, resulting in not being included in this review. Lastly, the thematic review approach cannot examine the effectiveness of previous studies. Notwithstanding these limitations, this review benefits the industry practice and future research of O2O food delivery services.

A list of articles included in the review.

* Article in press (early access).

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.L. and P.Y.; methodology, P.Y. and S.O.; investigation, Y.L., P.Y., S.O. and N.Z.; formal analysis, Y.L., P.Y., S.O., N.Z. and M.F.S.; writing—original draft preparation, P.Y.; writing—review and editing, S.O., N.Z. and M.F.S.; visualization, P.Y.; supervision, P.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Best Fast Food in Podolsk, Moscow Oblast

Fast food restaurants in podolsk, establishment type, traveler rating, restaurant features, neighborhood.