Qualitative study uncovers structural drivers of unhealthy workday eating among office workers, highlighting workplace constraints over individual choice.
Sub-Saharan Africa faces a rapid nutrition transition, with urban Ghanaians increasingly consuming energy-dense, processed diets. Office workers in Northern Ghana’s Tamale Metropolis represent a neglected demographic, as their eating practices are constrained by sedentary work and workplace environments. This study explored the dietary practices, food choices, eating routines, and workplace food environments of office workers in Tamale Metropolis of Northern Ghana. A reflexive qualitative design within a constructivist paradigm was employed. Purposive sampling recruited 20 office workers from banks, government departments, and educational institutions. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. We organised the findings around six major themes: (1) systematic meal skipping due to “time-poverty” causing, especially breakfast; (2) reliance on informal street vendors due to lack of institutional catering and storage; (3) a perceived shift from traditional flavourings to processed additives (“Maggi” narrative); (4) online food ordering as a response to desk-bound workloads; (5) gendered time trade-offs disproportionately burdening female workers; and (6) frustrated agency, where high nutritional knowledge is overridden by convenience and availability. Workday eating habits among Tamale’s office workers are driven by structural constraints, not individual ignorance. Findings suggest that workday dietary practices are a result of structural conflicts between professional demands and nutritional culture. The findings contribute to the discourse on workplace dietary practices in Northern Ghana and highlight the need for comprehensive research to inform policy interventions that address infrastructure deficits and the 'addiction to taste' in the informal food sector.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdulai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: