On-campus food environment, purchase behaviours, preferences and opinions in a Norwegian university community

Assessing the Healthfulness of University Food Environments: A Systematic Review of Methods and Tools

The availability, promotion, and price of healthy foods within the university food environment may impact students' dietary choices. This systematic review summarizes the tools and methods used to assess the healthfulness of university food environments where many students spend a significant portion of their emerging adulthood. Thirty-six global studies published between 2012 and 2022 were sourced from PubMed (NNLM), Cochrane Library (Wiley), Web of Science (Clarivate), APA PsycInfo (EBSCO), CINHAL Complete (EBSCO), ProQuest Nursing, and Allied Health, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Of the included studies, 58% were institutional-level audits, 17% examined individual-level perceptions, and 25% combined both. Most institutional-level audits focused on one aspect of the food environment (e.g., eateries, vending machines). For studies examining multiple spaces within the campus environment (38%), comprehensive assessments were limited, and most studies had to employ a combination of assessment tools. Surveys were most often used to gather individual perceptions about the food environment. The Nutrition Environment Measures Survey (NEMS) was the most commonly used tool across all studies. This review highlights the need for a standardized tool, method, or a "healthy" benchmark for specific use at universities to improve methodological rigor and comparability of findings across institutions.

Availability and properties of commercially produced food products offered in European public universities: A North-South comparison

To date, there are no studies that have compared university food environments (FEs) with different sociocultural contexts. Therefore, we analyzed differences in the availability and properties of commercially produced foods, in a northern and a southern European university (located in Norway and Spain, respectively). A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at OsloMet-Oslo Metropolitan University and at the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU. The nutritional quality of food products was estimated through the following nutrient profiling models (NPMs): those proposed by the Spanish Agency for Consumer Affairs, Food Safety and Nutrition (AECOSAN), the UK nutrient profiling model (UK NPM), the Norwegian Food and Drink Industry Professional Practices Committee (Matbransjens Fagligle Utvalg [MFU]), and a combination of them. In addition, food items were classified using the NOVA system. A total of 251 and 1051 products were identified at OsloMet and the UPV/EHU, respectively. The percentage categorized as low nutritional quality (LNQ) was higher at the UPV/EHU (almost 54.5% of the total products) compared with at OsloMet (almost 40%) (p < 0.001). Most of the products were categorized as ultra-processed, and there were no differences in the percentage of ultra-processed foods between the two universities (OsloMet 86.1%, UPV/EHU 83.3%, p > 0.05). A higher proportion of LNQ products was found at the UPV/EHU than at OsloMet, probably due to the government policies and actions for creating healthy FEs. Consequently, there is a need to develop interventions to improve the FE at the UPV/EHU, adapted to its sociocultural context. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: This study reveals north-south differences in terms of the availability of low nutritional quality food products. In particular, a higher proportion of this type of product was found at the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU than at OsloMet-Oslo Metropolitan University. Our exploratory hypothesis is that this phenomenon is a consequence of the Nordic government policies that have great potential to create healthy FEs.

A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of the Food Environment at an Australian University Campus

University food environments have a strong influence on the dietary choices of students and staff. The aim of this study was to assess the food environment at a large university in Sydney, Australia. Data were collected between March and July 2022 from 27 fixed food outlets and 24 vending machines. The healthiness of the food environment was evaluated using the Healthy Food and Drink in NSW Health Facilities for Staff and Visitors Framework (‘Framework’), which assesses food environment parameters including the availability, placement, and promotion of ‘Everyday’ (healthy) and ‘Occasional’ (less healthy) products. Each parameter was evaluated overall and across each food outlet type. Across all outlets, Everyday foods and drinks made up 43.9% of all products. Only two outlets met the Framework’s product availability benchmark of ≥75% Everyday foods and drinks. A total of 43 outlets (84.3%) sold sugary drinks as part of their product range. Occasional products made up 68.4%, 53.3%, and 59.9% of all items for sale at checkout areas, countertops, and eye-level shelves, respectively. Finally, 79.7% of meal deals included Occasional products. Our findings highlight the need to improve the availability, placement, and promotion of foods and drinks sold at a major university campus in Sydney, Australia.

On-campus food purchase behaviors, choice determinants, and opinions on food availability in a Spanish university community

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate food purchasing behaviors, choice determinants, and opinions about on-campus food availability by a university community and to analyze differences in these aspects between students, education and/or research staff (ERS), and administrative and services staff (ASS), and between males and females.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study that involved a representative sample of students (n = 1089), ERS (n = 396), and ASS (n = 300) who completed an anonymous online survey. A previously adapted version of the questionnaire was administered. The results were weighted to ensure representativeness of this community population using weighted coefficients.

RESULTS

The results showed that most of the participants purchased food on campus (91.6%), especially for lunch (67.4% of foods and 37.4% of drinks) and snack (65.4% of foods and 45.4% of drinks). Hot drinks (i.e., coffee, tea, hot chocolate etc.; 60.5%), bottled water (49.2%), and hot foods (i.e., small servings [38.2%] and sandwiches/hamburgers [31.7%]) were the most purchased items. Taste (98.6%) was the most important determinant in choice, followed by price for students, nutritional value for ASS, and health value for ERS. The "top 5" opinions suggested for the campus food environment and potential changes were "greater capacity to access free filtered drinking water", "greater capacity to recycle food packaging," "more healthy options in vending machines", "discounts for healthy choices," and "allergen labeling."

CONCLUSION

Interventions that improve sustainability and the affordability of products with high nutritional quality, price-manipulation directives, and allergen information on labeling would be well received among this community.

How Does the University Food Environment Impact Student Dietary Behaviors? A Systematic Review

The food environment has been implicated in creating an obesogenic generation; and while previous research has focused on population-wide initiatives, the university population resides in a research gap. To explore detailed components of the university food environment and what shaped dietary behaviors, we retrieved literature from the following databases: ScienceDirect, Scopus, PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE. Eleven studies were identified for qualitative content analysis and study quality assessment identified most of the studies as of good quality (n 8) and some as of fair quality (n 3). The certainty of evidence remained at a low level for all (n 11) studies due to the cross-sectional, observational nature of studies. Three major themes emerged: (1) food environment, (2) student perceptions (SPs), and (3) dietary outcome (DO). In a university food environment, the taste of food was paramount for the food choices of students, followed by the availability of food and the price of food. When university students perceive and choose foods and beverages, they sometimes regard unhealthy foods and beverages as healthy options. The diet quality of university students is more susceptible to living arrangements and socioeconomic status, but higher salt, fat, and added sugar consumption generally resulted in poorer quality of diet on campus. Future research could use novel methods to explore a wider range and deeper level of students' dietary behavior determinants in university food environments.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021283562.

Development of the University Food Environment Assessment (Uni-Food) Tool and Process to Benchmark the Healthiness, Equity, and Environmental Sustainability of University Food Environments

Globally, there is increasing interest in monitoring actions to create healthy, equitable and environmentally sustainable food environments. Currently, there is a lack of detailed tools for monitoring and benchmarking university food environments. This study aimed to develop the University Food Environment Assessment (Uni-Food) tool and process to benchmark the healthiness, equity, and environmental sustainability of food environments in tertiary education settings, and pilot test its implementation in three Australian universities in 2021. The Uni-Food tool development was informed by a review of the literature and input from an expert advisory panel. It comprises three components: (1) university systems and governance, (2) campus facilities and environments, and (3) food retail outlets. The process for implementing the tool is designed for universities to self-assess the extent to which they have implemented recommended practice in 68 indicators, across 16 domains, weighted based on their relative importance. The pilot implementation of the tool identified moderate diversity in food environments across universities and highlighted several opportunities for improvements at each institution. The assessment process was found to be reliable, with assessors rating the tool as easy to use, requiring minimal resources. Broad application of the tool has the potential to increase accountability and guide best practice in tertiary education and other complex institutional settings.