Zeynep Begum KALYONCU, Özlem ÇETİNER, Tuğçe N. BALCI, Zeynep B. EROĞLU, Türkan KUTLUAY MERDOL

Perspectives of Healthy Eating Environment on Campus: A Qualitative Study in a Private University in Ankara, Turkey

Aim: Universities provide food service to not only students, but also to their employees from all levels. However, the limited literature persists in terms of evaluating the campus food environment by different kinds of stakeholders. Therefore, this study aims to understand and conceptualize the experiences and perceptions of students and university staff towards campus food environment. Subjects and Methods: We conducted six focus groups among sixty-four people that belong to a private university in Ankara with the following roles; (i) Turkish and international students, (ii) Academic staff, (iii) Administrative staff, and (iv) Support staff. Thematic analyses were conducted by NVivo software and triangulation is done by evaluating a monthly lunch menu of the cafeteria with Nutrient Rich Food Index 9.3 (NRF 9.3) nutrient profiling model. Results: Qualitative analyses revealed that participants were aware of the nutritional importance of food services and consequences of consuming meals, foods, and beverages with low nutritional value. Nutritional value of the food was among the most important drivers of food selection and participants demanded menus to be planned by a dietitian. The seven overarching themes that were determined within the qualitative analysis were; (i) administrative process, (ii) nutritional value, (iii) variety, (iv) taste-flavor, (v) hygiene and food safety, (vi) intercultural inclusiveness, and (vii) price. NRF 9.3 scores of the campus lunch menu alternatives were low (ranged from 0.09 to 3.19) in a way that triangulated the qualitative findings. Conclusion: This study shows that nutritional value and variety of the food and beverage services is a main driving factor for food selection and participants’ experiences even more than price and taste of the food. The results highlight the importance of serving healthy menus to all the stakeholders of a university, which could best be achieved by employing dietitians.

Kampüste Sağlıklı Beslenme Ortamına Yönelik Algılar: Ankara/Türkiye’de Özel Bir Üniversitede Yapılan Nitel Araştırma

Amaç: Üniversiteler sadece öğrencilere değil, aynı zamanda her kademeden çalışana da yemek hizmeti sunan kurumlardır. Ancak mevcut literatürde üniversite kampüsündeki beslenme ortamının bu hizmetten faydalanan farklı paydaşlar tarafından değerlendirildiği çalışma sayısı kısıtlıdır. Bu nedenle bu çalışma, öğrencilerin ve üniversite personelinin kampüs beslenme ortamına yönelik deneyimlerini ve algılarını anlamayı ve kavramsallaştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bireyler ve Yöntem: Ankara’da özel bir üniversiteye bağlı altmış dört kişi ile gerçekleştirilen odak grup görüşmelerindeki katılımcılar; (i). Ulusal ve uluslararası öğrenciler, (ii) Akademik personel, (iii) İdari personel ve (iv) Destek personelidir. Tematik analizler NVivo yazılımı ile yapılmış ve Nutrient Rich Food Index 9.3 (NRF 9.3) besin örüntüsü profili algoritması ile kafeteryanın bir aylık öğle yemeği menüsü değerlendirilerek üçgenleme yapılmıştır. Bulgular: Niteliksel analizler katılımcıların yemek hizmetlerinin beslenmedeki önemine ve besin değeri düşük yiyecek ve içecek tüketiminin sonuçlarına dair farkındalıkları olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Menülerin besin değeri, yemek seçimindeki en önemli belirleyicilerden biri olmakla birlikte katılımcılar, menülerin bir diyetisyen tarafından planlanmasına ilişkin taleplerini dile getirmişlerdir. Nitel analiz sonuçlarına göre belirlenen yedi kapsayıcı tema; (i) idari süreç, (ii) besin değeri, (iii) çeşitlilik, (iv) tat-lezzet, (v) hijyen ve besin güvenliği, (vi) kültürler arası kapsayıcılık ve (vii) fiyat olmuştur. Kampüs öğle yemeği menü seçeneklerinin NRF 9.3 skorları da nitel bulguları destekleyecek şekilde düşük (en az 0.09 ile en çok 3.19 arasında) bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Bu çalışma, yiyecek ve içecek hizmetlerinde besin değeri ve çeşitliliğinin katılımcıların yiyecek seçimi ve deneyimleri için fiyat ve tattan daha baskın belirleyici faktörler olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuçlar, bir üniversitenin tüm paydaşlarına sağlıklı menüler sunmanın önemine dikkat çekmekte ve bu sebeple bu kurumlarda diyetisyen istihdamının gerekliliğini vurgulamaktadır.

PDF

___

1. Merdol TK. Toplu Beslenme Servisi (TBS) Sağlıklı Yönetim Rehberi. Ankara: Hatiboğlu Yayınevi; 2015.

2. Osimani A, Garofalo C, Milanović V, Taccari M, Aquilanti L, Polverigiani S, et al. Indoor air quality in mass catering plants: Occurrence of airborne eumycetes in a university canteen. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2016;59:1-10.

3. Zainol NA, Seladorai J. What matters most? Factors influencing international students’ satisfaction towards cafeteria foods. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2016;7(4):295-302.

4. T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi - Vakıf Yükseköğretim Kurumları Yönetmeliği. 2005. Available at: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/ mevzuat?MevzuatNo= 9768&MevzuatTur= 7&MevzuatTertip=5 Accessed Oct 30, 2020.

5. Amore L, Buchthal OV, Banna JC. Identifying perceived barriers and enablers of healthy eating in college students in Hawai’i: A qualitative study using focus groups. BMC Nutr. 2019;5:16.

6. Smith RA, White-McNeil A, Ali F. Students’ perceptions and behavior toward on-campus foodservice operations. International Hospitality Review. 2020;34(1):13-28.

7. Saglik E, Gulluce A, Kaya U, Ozhan C. Service quality and customer satisfaction relationship: A research in Erzurum Ataturk university refectory. American International Journal of Contemporary Research. 2014;4(1):100-17.

8. Merdol TK. Toplu Beslenme Yapılan Kurumlar için Standart Yemek Tarifeleri. Ankara: Hatiboğlu Yayınevi; 2019.

9. Garg A, Kumar J. Exploring customer satisfaction with university cafeteria food services. An empirical study of Temptation Restaurant at Taylor’s University, Malaysia. EJTHR. 2017;8(2):96-106.

10. Tam R, Yassa B, Parker H, O’Connor H, Allman-Farinelli M. University students’ on-campus food purchasing behaviors, preferences, and opinions on food availability. Nutrition. 2017;37:7-13.

11. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Uluslararası İlişkiler Daire Başkanlığı - YÖK’ten Üniversitelere “Uluslararası Öğrenci Kontenjanı” Müjdesi. 2019. Available at: https:// uluslararasi.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/1905/190506- Uluslar%20Ogr%20Kont/Uluslar-Ogr-Kont.aspx Accessed Oct 30, 2020.

12. Kusku F. Dimensions of employee satisfaction: A state university example. METU Studies in Development. 2001;28(3/4):399-430.

13. Chen SH, Yang CC, Shiau JY, Wang HH. The development of an employee satisfaction model for higher education. The TQM Magazine. 2006;18(5):484-500.

14. Wanjek C. Food at work: Workplace solutions for malnutrition, obesity and chronic diseases. International Labour Organization; 2005.

15. Dikmen D, Pekcan G. Besin ögesi örüntü profili: Toplu beslenme hizmeti veren kuruluşlarda uygulanan menülerin değerlendirilmesi. Bes Diy Der. 2013;41(3):234-41.

16. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. 3rd. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2014.

17. Baysal A, Merdol TK. Toplu Beslenme Yapılan Kurumlar için Yemek Planlama Kuralları ve Yıllık Yemek Listeleri. 4. Baskı. Ankara: Hatiboğlu Yayınevi; 2012.

18. QSR International Pty Ltd. (2018) NVivo (Version 12).

19. Ebispro for Windows, Stuttgart, Germany; Turkish Version (BeBiS 8.2), Pasifik Elektirik Elektronik Ltd. Şti. (www.bebis.com.tr); Istanbul, 2019.

20. IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

21. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı. Türkiye Beslenme Rehberi (TÜBER). Sağlık Bakanlığı Yayınları, Ankara, 2015.

22. Meyers LD, Hellwig JP, Otten JJ. Dietary reference intakes: the essential guide to nutrient requirements. National Academies Press; 2006.

23. Drewnowski A. The Nutrient Rich Foods Index helps to identify healthy, affordable foods. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91(4):1095-101.

24. Halıcı N. Türk Mutfağı’nın Temel Eğitim ve Uygulama Kitabı. İstanbul: Oğlak Yayıncılık ve Reklamcılık Ltd. Şti; 2009.

25. Yona O, Goldsmith R, Endevelt R. Improved meals service and reduced food waste and costs in medical institutions resulting from employment of a food service dietitian - a case study. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2020;9(1):5.

26. Gregoire MB, Lafferty LJ, Dowling RA. Teaching food service management: A critical component in dietetics education. Topics in Clinical Nutrition. 2006;21(3):182-9.

27. Hussain Z. Role of dietitian in a food service industry. Nutri Food Sci Int J. 2017;3(1): 555604.

28. Dhillon J, Diaz Rios LK, Aldaz KJ, De La Cruz N, Vu E, Asad Asghar S, et al. We don’t have a lot of healthy options: Food environment perceptions of first-year, minority college students attending a food desert campus. Nutrients. 2019;11(4):816.

29. Ng KW, Sangster J, Priestly J. Assessing the availability, price, nutritional value and consumer views about foods and beverages from vending machines across university campuses in regional New South Wales, Australia. Health Promot J Austr. 2019;30(1):76-82.

30. Gok I, Ulu EK. Functional foods in Turkey: marketing, consumer awareness and regulatory aspects. Nutrition & Food Science. 2019;49(4):668-86.

31. Gracia A, Barreiro-Hurlé J. Making sense of information overload: Consumer ranking of nutritional claims in cereal based products. Nutrients. 2019;11(12):2858.

32. Grech A, Allman-Farinelli M. A systematic literature review of nutrition interventions in vending machines that encourage consumers to make healthier choices. Obes Rev. 2015;16(12):1030-41.

33. Cadario R, Chandon P. Which healthy eating nudges work best? A meta-analysis of field experiments. Marketing Science. 2020;39(3):465-86.

34. Deliens T, Deforche B, Annemans L, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Clarys P. Effectiveness of pricing strategies on french fries and fruit purchases among university students: results from an on-campus restaurant experiment. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0165298.

35. Kwun DJ-W. Effects of campus foodservice attributes on perceived value, satisfaction, and consumer attitude: A gender-difference approach. Int J Hosp Manag. 2011;30(2):252-61.

36. Lachat CK, Huybregts LF, Roberfroid DA, Van Camp J, Remaut-De Winter A-ME, Debruyne P, et al. Nutritional profile of foods offered and consumed in a Belgian university canteen. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12(1):122- 8.

37. Nelson MC, Kocos R, Lytle LA, Perry CL. Understanding the perceived determinants of weight-related behaviors in late adolescence: A qualitative analysis among college youth. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2009;41(4):287-92.

38. Marquis M. Exploring convenience orientation as a food motivation for college students living in residence halls. Int J Consum Stud. 2005;29(1):55-63.

39. Hilger-Kolb J, Diehl K. ‘Oh god, I have to eat something, but where can i get something quickly?’-A qualitative interview study on barriers to healthy eating among university students in Germany. Nutrients. 2019;11(10):2440.

40. Bolek S. Consumer knowledge, attitudes, and judgments about food safety: A consumer analysis. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2020;102:242-8.

41. Sanlier N, Baser F. The relationship among food safety knowledge, attitude, and behavior of young Turkish women. J Am Coll Nutr. 2020;39(3):224-34.

42. Garza-Guerrero AC. Culture shock: Its mourning and the vicissitudes of identity. J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 1974;22(2):408-29.

43. Kalyoncu ZB. Development of A New Scale to Measure Culinary Acculturation of Immigrants Who Are Living in Turkey: Validity and Reliability Assessment. [Ph. D. Thesis]. Hacettepe University Institute of Health Sciences. Ankara; 2018.

44. Unger JB, Reynolds K, Shakib S, Spruijt-Metz D, Sun P, Johnson CA. Acculturation, physical activity, and fast food consumption among Asian-American and Hispanic adolescents. J Community Health. 2004;29(6):467-81.

45. Amos S, Lordly D. Picture this: a photovoice study of international students’ food experience in Canada. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2014;75(2):59-63.