🎨 Participatory Co-Design Workshops

Executive Summary

This document presents a complete visual description of the participatory co-design workshops conducted as part of the “Healthy is fresh” study in three rural subregions of Antioquia, Colombia.

📍 Study Context

Locations

Workshops were conducted in three rural municipalities of Antioquia:

  1. Medellín (peri-urban rural zone)
  2. Guarne (rural)
  3. Santa Rosa de Osos (rural)

Participants

  • Total: 41 adults (18-70 years)
  • Distribution: 21 women, 20 men
  • Age groups: 18-30 years, 31-50 years, +50 years
  • Profile: Members of rural cooperatives with diversity in education and occupation

🎯 Workshop Objectives

  1. Elicit local meanings of “healthy eating”
  2. Co-design ideal menus using visual food models
  3. Identify gaps between ideal and habitual diet
  4. Map barriers that limit healthy food choices

📋 Participatory Methodology

Co-Design Approach

Workshops used a participatory approach where participants are not passive subjects, but active co-creators of knowledge about healthy eating in their rural context.

graph LR
    A[Individual Reflection] --> B[Group Discussion]
    B --> C[Meal Co-Design]
    C --> D[Self-Assessment]
    D --> E[Barrier Mapping]

Tools Used

  • 🍽️ Visual food models (adapted from Nelson et al., 1997)
  • 📝 Individual reflection templates
  • 📋 Collaborative recording charts
  • 📸 Photographic documentation of co-designed meals
  • 🎙️ Audio recordings (with consent)

📊 Workshop Structure (2 hours)

  • Team and objectives presentation
  • Confidentiality explanation
  • Informed consent signature
  • Brief sociodemographic questionnaire

Phase 2: Individual Reflection (15 min)

Materials Used

📄 Individual Reflection Template

Reflection template

Participants answered questions like:

  • “What do you consider a healthy breakfast?”
  • “What should a healthy lunch include?”
  • “What should a healthy dinner contain?”

Purpose: Capture initial ideas without group influence, allowing personal concepts of “healthy” to emerge.

Phase 3: Share Group Reflections (10 min)

Each participant shared their ideas with the group, identifying:

  • ✅ Consensus: Foods everyone considers healthy
  • 🤔 Divergences: Foods with mixed opinions
  • 💡 Surprises: Unexpected or innovative ideas

Phase 4: Ideal Menu Co-Design (40 min)

The Co-Design Process

Materials:

  • Visual food models (food replicas)
  • Food cards with photos
  • Portion tokens

Activity: Groups built ideal meals for:

  1. Breakfast
  2. Mid-morning snack
  3. Lunch
  4. Afternoon snack
  5. Dinner

Visual Examples of Co-Designed Meals

🍳 Healthy Breakfast - Medellín, Group 2 (31-50 years)

Breakfast Group 2 Medellín

Selected components:

  • Eggs (protein)
  • Arepa (cereal)
  • Fruits (plantain, papaya)
  • Hot beverage (coffee with milk or light panela water)

Group reflection: “Breakfast should be complete and energetic, but without excess fat. Arepa is cultural, it cannot be eliminated.”

🍲 Healthy Lunch - Medellín, Group 2 (31-50 years)

Lunch Group 2 Medellín

Selected components:

  • Protein (chicken, fish or lean meat)
  • Rice or potato (moderate portion)
  • Salad (lettuce, tomato)
  • Legumes (beans)
  • Natural juice or water

Group reflection: “Lunch should include everything, but in small portions. Protein and beans are essential.”

🥗 Healthy Dinner - Medellín, Group 2 (31-50 years)

Dinner Group 2 Medellín

Selected components:

  • Soup or broth
  • Light protein (egg, cheese)
  • Small arepa or whole wheat bread
  • Infusion (herbal tea)

Group reflection: “Dinner should be light to not go to bed ‘full’. We prefer soups or something warm.”

🍎 Snacks - Medellín, Group 2 (31-50 years)

Mid-morning Group 2 Medellín

Selected components:

  • Fresh fruits (banana, apple, papaya)
  • Nuts (peanuts, almonds) - in small quantities
  • Yogurt (low sugar)

Group reflection: “Snacks should satisfy hunger between meals without ‘filling’. Fruits are best, but sometimes there’s no time.”

🥘 Comparison Between Age Groups
Breakfast - Medellín, Group 3 (+50 years)

Breakfast Group 3 Medellín

Observations:

  • Greater emphasis on traditional preparations
  • Less protein variety (egg as base)
  • Preference for traditional hot beverages (panela water, coffee)
Lunch - Medellín, Group 3 (+50 years)

Lunch Group 3 Medellín

Observations:

  • More “complete” plate in the traditional sense
  • Larger carbohydrate portion (rice, potato, plantain)
  • Consistent presence of protein and legumes
Dinner - Medellín, Group 3 (+50 years)

Dinner Group 3 Medellín

Observations:

  • More substantial meal than younger groups
  • Less distinction between lunch and dinner
  • Preference for “hot food” vs. light options

Phase 5: Registration and Documentation (During Phase 4)

Registration Chart

📋 Meal Registration Format

Registration chart

For each co-designed meal, the following was recorded:

  • ✅ Selected foods
  • ✅ Approximate portions (using visual models)
  • ✅ Corresponding GABAS food group
  • ✅ Group observations and comments

Standardized Photographs

Each meal was photographed following a protocol:

  • 📸 Overhead view (from above)
  • 📸 Good lighting
  • 📸 Visible label with region, age group, and meal time
  • 📸 No participant faces (to protect privacy)

Phase 6: Alignment Assessment (15 min)

Alignment Scale (1-5)

Participants rated how close their habitual diet is to the ideal menu they co-designed:

1.0 = Very far (almost never eat like this)
2.0 = Quite far
3.0 = Moderately close (sometimes)
4.0 = Quite close (frequently)
5.0 = Totally aligned (eat like this every day)

Aggregated Results

Rating distribution:

  • Minimum: 1.5
  • Average: 2.5-3.5
  • Maximum: 4.5

Interpretation: Significant gap between co-designed ideal and actual practice.

“I know how I should eat, but I can’t always do it.” - Participant, Guarne

Phase 7: Barrier Discussion (25 min)

Central Question

“What prevents you from reaching 5.0? What makes it difficult to eat like the ideal we designed?”

Identified Barrier Categories

💰 1. Economic
  • “Eating healthy is very expensive”
  • “Whole grain or sugar-free products cost double”
  • “One has to prioritize: food or medicine”
🛒 2. Access and Availability
  • “In town there’s no variety of vegetables”
  • “When fresh vegetables arrive they’re already spoiled”
  • “You have to go to the city to get variety”
⏰ 3. Time
  • “I come home tired from work and the easiest thing is to fry something”
  • “Cooking healthy requires more time”
  • “Weekends are when you most ‘deviate from the plan’”
🍟 4. Preferences and Habits
  • “Everything tastes better fried”
  • “My kids don’t eat salad”
  • “We’ve been eating like this for years”
😰 5. Emotional
  • “When I’m stressed I eat more sweets”
  • “Anxiety makes me snack between meals”
  • “On Sundays I reward myself with ‘forbidden’ food”
🤷 6. Knowledge/Uncertainty
  • “I don’t really know what the correct portions are”
  • “I don’t understand nutrition labels well”
  • “I don’t know how to cook some vegetables”

Phase 8: Closure and Reflection (5 min)

  • Thank participants
  • Summary of key group learnings
  • Explanation of next steps (analysis and dissemination)
  • Contact for questions or follow-up

📊 Workshop Products

1. Qualitative Data

✅ Complete transcriptions of discussions (restricted for ethical reasons)
✅ Field notes from facilitators
✅ Thematic codes of barriers and meanings

See: Analysis_Qualitative/

2. Quantitative Data

✅ Food portions selected in ideal menus
✅ Classification by GABAS groups (Dietary Guidelines)
✅ Estimated nutritional composition (RIEN)
✅ Alignment scales (1-5)

See: Analysis_Quantitative/

3. Visual Evidence

✅ 200+ photographs of co-designed meals
✅ Organized by region and age group
✅ Visual documentation of the process

See: Pictures/

🔍 Key Workshop Findings

Meanings of “Healthy”

Participants defined “healthy” primarily as:

  1. “Fresh” - Unprocessed, freshly prepared
  2. “Home-made” - Prepared at home, not store-bought
  3. “Natural” - Without chemicals or preservatives
  4. “Balanced” - “A bit of everything” (diffuse concept)
  5. “Prevent diseases” - Association with long-term health

Important note: They rarely mentioned specific nutrients (proteins, vitamins, etc.). Meanings are cultural and experiential, not technical-scientific.

Patterns in Ideal Menus

✅ Consistently Included Foods:

  • Eggs - In almost all breakfasts
  • Legumes - Beans especially
  • Rice - Although portion is debated
  • Plantain - Both as side dish and fruit
  • Chicken/Meat - Preferred animal protein

⚠️ Under-Represented Foods:

  • Vegetables - Limited to simple salad (lettuce, tomato)
  • Dairy - Especially in older groups
  • Fish - Little presence (limited access)
  • Fruit variety - Repeat banana, papaya, orange

❌ Foods Excluded from “Ideal”:

  • Soft drinks
  • Ultra-processed snacks (chips, sweet cookies)
  • Processed meats
  • Fast food (hamburgers, pizza)

Paradox: Although excluded from the ideal, in the barrier discussion participants admit to consuming them frequently in practice.

The Ideal-Practice Gap

Average alignment: 2.8 / 5.0

Factors that Widen the Gap:

graph TD
    A[Co-Designed Ideal] -->|Economic Barrier| B[Actual Practice]
    A -->|Access Barrier| B
    A -->|Lack of Time| B
    A -->|Entrenched Habits| B
    A -->|Emotional Factors| B
    A -->|Context Outside Home| B

Specific Contexts:

  • Better alignment: At home, weekends, with planning
  • Worse alignment: Away from home, during work, weekends (paradox), under stress

🎓 Methodological Lessons Learned

What Worked Well ✅

  1. Visual models: Facilitated communication about portions
  2. Group co-design: Generated rich discussions and negotiations
  3. Separate age groups: Allowed generational differences to emerge
  4. Photographs: Objective documentation complementary to transcriptions
  5. Trained facilitators: Essential to maintain neutrality

Challenges Faced ⚠️

  1. Social desirability: Some participants wanted to “answer correctly”
  2. Limited time: 2 hours were just enough, some groups wanted more time
  3. Literacy: Variability in writing ability (individual phase)
  4. Interruptions: Logistics in rural communities (calls, noise)
  5. Expectations: Some expected “recipes” or direct nutritional advice

Recommendations for Replication 💡

  • ✅ Pilot materials locally
  • ✅ Adapt foods to regional contexts
  • ✅ Train facilitators in participatory techniques
  • ✅ Prepare logistical contingencies
  • ✅ Manage expectations from the start
  • ✅ Include snacks (appropriate to the theme)
  • ✅ Respect local time (not “urban time”)

📥 Downloadable Materials

Workshop Forms

Material Description Link
Reflection Templates Breakfast, lunch, dinner, barriers PDF
Registration Chart To document co-designed meals PDF
Extra Materials Scales, discussion questions PDF

Methodological Guides

Material Description Folder
Workshop Design Methodological notes and protocol View folder
Visual Evidence 200+ photos of co-designed meals View folder

📸 Evidence Gallery

By Region

1. Medellín (Peri-urban Rural)

2. Guarne (Rural)

3. Santa Rosa de Osos (Rural)

🔬 From Workshop to Analysis

Data Flow

graph LR
    A[Workshop] --> B[Photographs]
    A --> C[Transcriptions]
    A --> D[Registration Charts]
    
    B --> E[Food Identification]
    D --> E
    E --> F[Portion Estimation]
    F --> G[GABAS Classification]
    F --> H[RIEN Nutritional Composition]
    
    C --> I[Thematic Coding]
    I --> J[Barriers and Meanings]
    
    G --> K[Quantitative Analysis]
    H --> K
    J --> L[Qualitative Analysis]
    
    K --> M[Benchmarking with Guidelines]
    L --> M
    M --> N[Integrated Joint Display]

Analyses Performed

Quantitative:

  • ✅ Comparison with GABAS (food groups)
  • ✅ Comparison with RIEN (nutritional adequacy)
  • ✅ Heatmaps by age group
  • ✅ Divergence graphs

View results: Analysis_Quantitative/graphs/

Qualitative:

  • ✅ Thematic analysis of meanings
  • ✅ Coding of barriers (6 categories)
  • ✅ Analysis of ideal-practice gap
  • ✅ Patterns by age group

View results: Analysis_Qualitative/

Mixed Integration:

  • ✅ Joint display aligning themes with benchmarking
  • ✅ Interpretation of nutritional divergences through barriers
  • ✅ Identification of intervention targets

See integration in: Main article (Table 1, Joint Display)

🌍 Implications for Interventions

Key Insights for Policy Design

1. Beyond nutrition education

Participants have clear ideas of “healthy,” but structural barriers (cost, access, time) are more determinant than knowledge.

Recommendation: Interventions should address access and affordability, not just “information.”

2. Respect local heuristics

“Fresh” and “home-made” are culturally powerful anchors. Interventions can leverage them.

Recommendation: Frame messages around “fresh” and “home-made,” not just technical nutrients.

3. Context matters

Alignment is situation-dependent (better at home, worse outside).

Recommendation: Context-specific interventions for work settings, community cafeterias, etc.

4. Underestimated emotional factors

“Emotional eating” is an important but underrecognized barrier.

Recommendation: Interventions should include stress/anxiety management components.

5. Age diversity

Different groups prioritize different values (tradition vs. restriction/control).

Recommendation: Age-segmented messages, not “one size fits all.”

📚 Publications and Dissemination

Main Article

Arcila-Agudelo, A.M., Cardona-Trujillo, H., Herazo-Castelblanco, A.S., Mejía-Gil, M.C., Muñoz-Mora, J.C., & Ortiz-Pradilla, T. (2026). “Healthy is fresh”: A participatory study of meal ideals and barriers shaping food choice in rural Colombia. [Journal Name].

📄 View PDF article

Supplementary Materials (This Repository)

🌐 Website: https://jcmunozmora.github.io/food-perception-rural-colombia

📦 GitHub Repository: https://github.com/jcmunozmora/food-perception-rural-colombia

📋 Includes:

  • Reusable forms
  • Reproducible analysis scripts
  • Anonymized data
  • Visual evidence
  • Methodological guides

📧 Contact and Inquiries

About the Workshop and Participatory Methodology:

María Claudia Mejía-Gil
📧 mmejiagi@eafit.edu.co
Workshop coordination and design

Tatiana Ortiz-Pradilla
📧 tortizpr@eafit.edu.co
Facilitation and qualitative analysis

About Data and Evidence:

Ana María Arcila-Agudelo (Corresponding Author)
📧 ana.arcila@uniremington.edu.co
Overall study coordination

Ana Sofia Herazo-Castelblanco
📧 asherazoc@eafit.edu.co
Transcriptions and fieldwork

To Replicate the Workshop in Another Context:

All materials are available under CC BY 4.0 license. You can:

  • ✅ Download and adapt forms
  • ✅ Use the methodology (with appropriate citation)
  • ✅ Request advice for adaptation

Contact for advice: mmejiagi@eafit.edu.co / ana.arcila@uniremington.edu.co

⚖️ Ethical Aspects

Ethical Approval

  • Committee: Research Ethics Committee, Universidad EAFIT
  • Protocol: Comité de Ética-2022-07
  • Approval: September 5, 2022

Participant Protection

✅ Informed consent from all participants
✅ Photographs without identifiable faces
✅ Anonymized transcriptions (names and places removed)
✅ Aggregated data to protect identity in small communities
✅ Restricted audio recordings (not public)

Access to Sensitive Data

Complete transcriptions available upon request and ethical approval for:

  • Researchers with approved protocols
  • Legitimate academic purposes
  • With confidentiality guarantees

Requests: ana.arcila@uniremington.edu.co

🙏 Acknowledgments

This work would not have been possible without:

  • The 41 participants who generously shared their time, experiences, and knowledge
  • Community leaders and cooperative coordinators in Medellín, Guarne, and Santa Rosa de Osos
  • Facilitators and assistants who conducted workshops with sensitivity and professionalism
  • FAO Colombia for technical and methodological support
  • Universidad EAFIT and Corporación Universitaria Remington for institutional support

📖 How to Cite

The Workshop:

@misc{arcila-agudelo2026workshop,
  author = {Arcila-Agudelo, Ana María and Mejía-Gil, María Claudia and 
            Ortiz-Pradilla, Tatiana and Herazo-Castelblanco, Ana Sofia},
  title = {Participatory Co-Design Workshops: Methodology and Materials},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {GitHub repository},
  url = {https://github.com/jcmunozmora/food-perception-rural-colombia/blob/main/WORKSHOP.md}
}

The Complete Study:

@article{arcila-agudelo2026healthy,
  title={"Healthy is fresh": A participatory study of meal ideals and 
         barriers shaping food choice in rural Colombia},
  author={Arcila-Agudelo, Ana María and Cardona-Trujillo, Harold and 
          Herazo-Castelblanco, Ana Sofia and Mejía-Gil, María Claudia and 
          Muñoz-Mora, Juan Carlos and Ortiz-Pradilla, Tatiana},
  journal={[Journal Name]},
  year={2026}
}

🔗 Useful Links

Last updated: February 14, 2026

This document is part of the supplementary materials of the “Healthy is fresh” study and is available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).