Potential for healthy eating in a Brazilian public university food environment

Rodrigues, Camila Batista; Monteiro, Luana Silva; Paula, Nilma Morcerf de; Pereira, Rosangela Alves

doi:10.1590/1678-9865202336e210180

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ORIGINAL | Collective Health • Rev Nutr 36 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-9865202336e210180 copy

Potential for healthy eating in a Brazilian public university food environment

Potencial para alimentação saudável no ambiente alimentar de uma universidade pública brasileira

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Objective

To identify the food environment healthy eating potential in the authorized food services on the campus of a Brazilian university.

Methods

This is an observational study carried out between March and April 2014 on a campus of a public university in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The elements of the food environment were evaluated using an audit instrument, containing 86 questions: availability (amount of food services and types of food offered), convenience (days and hours of operation), incentives and barriers to healthy eating (nutrition information, payment strategies and food advertisements). Preparations based on whole grains and fresh or minimally processed products were considered healthy foods; and, preparations with high caloric density, sugar-sweetened beverages, sweets, desserts, cookies, and savory snacks were considered unhealthy food. The questionnaire allowed us to calculate a score for each service, which could range from 0 to 36 points, and indicates the potential for promoting healthy eating in the establishment, with higher scores indicating a greater presence of elements that contribute to healthy eating. The different types of food service facilities were compared based on the scores (p<0.05 for statistical significance).

Results

Among the establishments evaluated, 24% were snack bars/cafeterias, 26%, restaurants, and 50% offered mixed services. Healthy food items were scarcely available in the establishments (fruits: 24%; vegetables: 20%; brown rice: 15%); while added-sugar beverages (98%), sweets and treats (76%) were widely offered. There was a higher frequency of advertising encouraging consumption of unhealthy items than that aimed at healthy foods (44% vs 30%). In general, the score was 13,2 points (SD=3.3) and the mean score for snack bars/cafeterias (9.3 points) was lower (p<0,05) than that of restaurants and mixed establishments (14,4 points).

Conclusion

On the campus assessed, the food environment had limited potential for healthy eating, since elements that did not favor healthy food choices were more frequent.

Keywords
Collective feeding; Feeding behavior; Food services; Universities

Food services characteristics		n	%
Type of establishment^a a Snack bar/cafeterias (fast foods, snacks, treats, non-alcoholic beverages, coffee, tea); restaurants (items consumed in meals such as lunch and dinner); and mixed (items relating to snacks and meals).
	Snack bar/cafeterias	13	24
	Restaurants	14	26
	Mixed	27	50
Hours of operation
	Lunch time	6	11
	Mornings and afternoons	29	54
	Mornings, afternoons and evenings	19	35
	Opening on Saturdays	16	30
Menu available		45	83
Visible prices		41	76

Availability of food items		Total (n=54)			Type of establishment			p-value^b b Chi-square test. NA: Not Appplicable.
		Total (n=54)			Snack bar/cafeterias^a a Snack bar/cafeterias (fast foods, snacks, treats, non-alcoholic beverages, coffee, tea); restaurants (items consumed in meals such as lunch and dinner); and mixed (items relating to snacks and meals); (n=13)	Restaurants^a a Snack bar/cafeterias (fast foods, snacks, treats, non-alcoholic beverages, coffee, tea); restaurants (items consumed in meals such as lunch and dinner); and mixed (items relating to snacks and meals); (n=14)	Mixed^a a Snack bar/cafeterias (fast foods, snacks, treats, non-alcoholic beverages, coffee, tea); restaurants (items consumed in meals such as lunch and dinner); and mixed (items relating to snacks and meals); (n=27)
		n	%	%
Healthy items
	Salads (raw and/or cooked)	38	70		0	100	89	<0.01
	Salads without sauce (raw and/or cooked)	38	70		0	100	89	<0.01
	Vegetables without sauce	11	20		0	80	22	< 0.06
	Olive oil	37	68		0	100	85	<0.01
	Beef/poultry/fish not fried	40	74		0	100	96	<0.01
	Vegetarian options	5	9		0	14	11	<0.39
	Brown rice	8	15		0	21	18	<0.22
	Water	53	98		100	100	100	<0.23
	Fresh squeezed fruit juice	36	67		85	36	74	<0.01
	Whole milk	27	50		61	14	63	<0.01
	Skimmed/semi-skimmed milk	5	9		0	0	18	<0.07
	Whole wheat bread	26	48		69	7	59	<0.01
	Fruits	11	24		15	21	22	0.79
Unhealthy items
	Rice dishes with sauce	3	5		NA	14	4	<0.23
	Beans with meats	9	17		NA	29	18	<0.13
	Sugar-sweetened beverages	53	98		100	100	96	<0.60
	Alcoholic beverages	11	20		15	29	18	<0.66
	Energy drinks	5	9		15	0	11	<0.24
	Sweets and/or treats	41	76		85	64	78	<0.44
	Fried or baked pastry and cheese rools	33	61		100	0	74	<0.01
	Cookies and crackers	16	30		31	0	44	0.01

Incentives and barriers for healthy eating		Total (n=54)			Type of establishment			p-value^b b Chi-square test.
		Total (n=54)			Snack bar/cafeterias^a a Snack bar/cafeterias (fast foods, snacks, treats, non-alcoholic beverages, coffee, tea), restaurants (items consumed in meals such as lunch and dinner) and mixed (items relating to snacks and meals); (n=13)	Restaurants^a a Snack bar/cafeterias (fast foods, snacks, treats, non-alcoholic beverages, coffee, tea), restaurants (items consumed in meals such as lunch and dinner) and mixed (items relating to snacks and meals); (n=14)	Mixed^a a Snack bar/cafeterias (fast foods, snacks, treats, non-alcoholic beverages, coffee, tea), restaurants (items consumed in meals such as lunch and dinner) and mixed (items relating to snacks and meals); (n=27)
		n	%	%
Incentives for healthy eating
	Advertisements or signs that incentives healthy eating	16	30		54	0	33	<0.01
	Smaller portions cost proportionally less than the whole portion	11	20		23	7	26	0.12
	Healthier items cost the same as traditional versions	22	41		54	21	44	0.18
	Sharing the dish portion does not cost more	12	22		0	21	33	0.06
	Reduced portion size option available	4	7		15	0	7	0.31
	Food served by the diner	7	13		0	43	4	<0.01
Barriers for healthy eating
	Advertisements or signs that incentives unhealthy eating	24	44		69	14	48	0.01
	Financial advantage in larger portions	21	39		69	14	37	0.01
	Incentives to add items	10	18		31	7	18	0.29
	Combination of items costs less than the sum of individual items	21	39		77	7	37	<0.01
	Healthier items cost more than traditional versions	8	15		8	7	22	0.20
	Smaller portions cost proportionately more than the whole portion	3	6		15	0	4	0.12
	Food served by the employee	38	70		100	50	67	<0.01

Type of establishments	Mean of the score^* * Kruskal–Wallis test to compare the distribution, according to the type of establishment;	Standard deviation	Minimum-Maximum
All establishments	13.2	3.3	06-19
Mixed^b b Snack bar/cafeterias (fast snacks, snacks, treats, non-alcoholic beverages, coffee, tea), restaurants (items consumed in meals such as lunch and dinner) and mixed (items relating to snacks and meals).	14.4	3.1	06-19
Snack bars/cafeterias^b b Snack bar/cafeterias (fast snacks, snacks, treats, non-alcoholic beverages, coffee, tea), restaurants (items consumed in meals such as lunch and dinner) and mixed (items relating to snacks and meals).	09.3	1.7	06-12
Restaurants^b b Snack bar/cafeterias (fast snacks, snacks, treats, non-alcoholic beverages, coffee, tea), restaurants (items consumed in meals such as lunch and dinner) and mixed (items relating to snacks and meals).	14.4	1.5	12-17

Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas Núcleo de Editoração SBI - Campus II , Av. John Boyd Dunlop, s/n. - Prédio de Odontologia, 13059-900 Campinas - SP Brasil, Tel./Fax: +55 19 3343-6875 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
E-mail: sbi.submissionrn@puc-campinas.edu.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence to: RA PEREIRA. E-mail: roapereira@gmail.com.