Nutr Res Pract.  2024 Dec;18(6):885-896. 10.4162/nrp.2024.18.6.885.

Evaluating the effectiveness of a food literacy pilot program for university students: using a mixed-methods research approach

• Ko E
• Jang E
• Sim J
• Jeong M
• Park S

• KMID: 2562374
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4162/nrp.2024.18.6.885

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES
As awareness of climate change increases, the relevance of environmental education in dietary choices gains prominence. Although diversely defined, food literacy (FL) is increasingly recognized as the ability to make food choices with an awareness of environmental sustainability. This study aims to conduct a pilot implementation and assess the effectiveness of a program developed to improve FL among university students.
SUBJECTS/METHODS
The study spanned from August 2022 to February 2023, involving 92 participants (42 in the intervention group and 50 in the control group). Over 11 weeks, the program included cooking classes, local farm visits, and environmental impact lectures developed through extensive literature reviews and interviews with students and experts. FL was measured using a 33-item survey along with basic sociodemographic factors. After the intervention, both groups participated in qualitative interviews. All statistical analyses were carried out in Stata/SE version 17.0, and interview data were analyzed in Microsoft Excel using the framework analysis method.
RESULTS
The FL scores of the intervention group improved significantly from an average of 65.8 to 69.6 points (P = 0.015), with notable gains in the socio-ecological domain in FL from 65.3 to 71.5 points (P < 0.001). A linear regression analysis comparing FL between the intervention and control groups found that only the knowledge items were marginally significant (P = 0.054), with no statistically significant difference in the practice aspect before and after the intervention (P = 0.657). The interviews revealed that the intervention group experienced broadened perspectives and heightened environmental consciousness, although translating these into practice was challenged by unchanged daily routines.
CONCLUSION
This pilot program effectively enhanced some aspects of FL-related knowledge of participants. High satisfaction among participants and no dropouts indicated its potential for scaling. Future programs will benefit from strategies that facilitate the transition from educational improvement to practical application.

Keyword

Food; literacy; young adult; intervention study; climate change

Reference

1. Misra AK. Climate change and challenges of water and food security. Int J Sustain Built Environ. 2014; 3:153–165.

2. Calzadilla A, Rehdanz K, Betts R, Falloon P, Wiltshire A, Tol RSJ. Climate change impacts on global agriculture. Clim Change. 2013; 120:357–374.

3. Carlsson-Kanyama A, González AD. Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009; 89:1704S–1709S. PMID: 19339402.

4. Hall KD, Guo J, Dore M, Chow CC. The progressive increase of food waste in America and its environmental impact. PLoS One. 2009; 4:e7940. PMID: 19946359.

5. Perignon M, Vieux F, Soler LG, Masset G, Darmon N. Improving diet sustainability through evolution of food choices: review of epidemiological studies on the environmental impact of diets. Nutr Rev. 2017; 75:2–17. PMID: 27974596.

6. Kim JW. Sustainability assessment of Korean dietary patterns. J Korean Pract Arts Educ. 2020; 33:137–155.

7. Mo S. The present status and a future scheme in nutrition education. Korean J Nutr. 1990; 23:208–212.

8. Murimi MW, Kanyi M, Mupfudze T, Amin MR, Mbogori T, Aldubayan K. Factors influencing efficacy of nutrition education interventions: a systematic review. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2017; 49:142–165.e1. PMID: 27814976.

9. Rose D, Heller MC, Roberto CA. Position of the society for nutrition education and behavior: the importance of including environmental sustainability in dietary guidance. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2019; 51:3–15.e1. PMID: 30635107.

10. Sanson A, Bellemo M. Children and youth in the climate crisis. BJPsych Bull. 2021; 45:205–209. PMID: 33879278.

11. Azevedo Perry E, Thomas H, Samra HR, Edmonstone S, Davidson L, Faulkner A, Petermann L, Manafò E, Kirkpatrick SI. Identifying attributes of food literacy: a scoping review. Public Health Nutr. 2017; 20:2406–2415. PMID: 28653598.

12. Vidgen HA, Gallegos D. Defining food literacy and its components. Appetite. 2014; 76:50–59. PMID: 24462490.

13. Truman E, Lane D, Elliott C. Defining food literacy: a scoping review. Appetite. 2017; 116:365–371. PMID: 28487244.

14. Yoo HL, Jo EB, Kim K, Park S. Defining food literacy and its application to nutrition interventions: a scoping review. Korean J Community Nutr. 2021; 26:77–92.

15. Yoo H, Jo E, Lee H, Park S. Development of a food literacy assessment tool for healthy, joyful, and sustainable diet in South Korea. Nutrients. 2022; 14:1507. PMID: 35406120.

16. Yoo H, Jo E, Lee H, Ko E, Jang E, Sim J, Kim K, Park S. The level of food literacy and its association with food intake and obesity status among Seoul citizens: results from Seoul Food Survey 2021. Nutr Res Pract. 2023; 17:945–958. PMID: 37780226.

17. Yoo H, Jo E, Lee H, Ko E, Jang E, Sim J, Park S. Who has a high level of food literacy, and who does not?: a qualitative study of college students in South Korea. Nutr Res Pract. 2023; 17:1155–1169. PMID: 38053819.

18. Ronto R, Ball L, Pendergast D, Harris N. Environmental factors of food literacy in Australian high schools: views of home economics teachers. Int J Con Stud. 2017; 41:19–27.

19. Begley A, Paynter E, Butcher LM, Dhaliwal SS. Effectiveness of an adult food literacy program. Nutrients. 2019; 11:797. PMID: 30959958.

20. West EG, Lindberg R, Ball K, McNaughton SA. The role of a food literacy intervention in promoting food security and food literacy-OzHarvest’s NEST Program. Nutrients. 2020; 12:2197. PMID: 32718054.

21. Monroe JT, Lofgren IE, Sartini BL, Greene GW. The Green Eating Project: web-based intervention to promote environmentally conscious eating behaviours in US university students. Public Health Nutr. 2015; 18:2368–2378. PMID: 26282525.

22. Ko E, Jang E, Sim J, Jeong M, Park S. Development of a campus-based intervention program to strengthen food literacy among university students: a qualitative formative study. Korean J Community Nutr. 2023; 28:495–508.

23. Government Food Policy Team of the Seoul Metropolitan. 2021 Seoul Food Survey (SFS). Seoul: Seoul Metropolitan Government;2022.

24. Malan H, Watson TD, Slusser W, Glik D, Rowat AC, Prelip M. Challenges, opportunities, and motivators for developing and applying food literacy in a university setting: a qualitative study. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2020; 120:33–44. PMID: 31537500.

25. Ng AH, ElGhattis Y, Biesiekierski JR, Moschonis G. Assessing the effectiveness of a 4-week online intervention on food literacy and fruit and vegetable consumption in Australian adults: the online MedDiet challenge. Health Soc Care Community. 2022; 30:e4975–e4981. PMID: 35862470.

26. Pelletier JE, Laska MN, Neumark-Sztainer D, Story M. Positive attitudes toward organic, local, and sustainable foods are associated with higher dietary quality among young adults. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013; 113:127–132. PMID: 23260729.

27. Ronto R, Saberi G, Carins J, Papier K, Fox E. Exploring young Australians’ understanding of sustainable and healthy diets: a qualitative study. Public Health Nutr. 2022; 25:1–13.

28. Vermeir I, Verbeke W. Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecol Econ. 2008; 64:542–553.