- Email: [email protected]
Self-reported food skills of university students
Accepted Manuscript Self-reported food skills of university students Courtney K. Wilson, June I. Matthews, Jamie A. Seabrook, Paula D.N. Dworatzek PII:
S0195-6663(16)30538-4
DOI:
10.1016/j.appet.2016.10.011
Reference:
APPET 3184
To appear in:
Appetite
Received Date: 17 May 2016 Revised Date:
5 October 2016
Accepted Date: 10 October 2016
Please cite this article as: Wilson C.K., Matthews J.I., Seabrook J.A. & Dworatzek P.D.N., Self-reported food skills of university students, Appetite (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.10.011. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Courtney K. Wilson, MScFN RDa June I. Matthews, PhD RD PHEca Jamie A. Seabrook, PhDa-e
RI PT
Self-Reported Food Skills of University Students
School of Food & Nutritional Sciences, Brescia University College, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
M AN U
a
SC
Paula D. N. Dworatzek, PhD RD PHEca,f
b
Department of Paediatrics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada c
Children’s Health Research Institute, London, Ontario, Canada
e
Human Environments Analysis Laboratory, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
EP
Schulich Interfaculty Program in Public Health, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Paula D. N. Dworatzek, PhD RD PHEc Brescia University College 1285 Western Road, London, ON Canada N6G1H2 Phone: (519) 432-8353 ext. 28020 [email protected]
AC C
f
Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Ontario, Canada
TE D
d
Word Count (abstract): 242 Word Count (text): 3148
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1 ABSTRACT
2
University students experience a life transition that often results in poor dietary behaviors and
3
weight gain. Adequate food skills may improve diet quality and prevent chronic disease.
4
Research is limited, however, on students’ food skills and food-related behaviors. The objective
5
of this study was to assess whether self-perceived food skills and related behaviors of students at
6
a large, Canadian university differed based on sex, having taken a Food and Nutrition (FN)
7
course, and living conditions, using a cross-sectional online survey. The response rate was 21.9%
8
(n=6638). Students (age, M±SD 19.9±2.1 years) self-reported their abilities for seven distinct
9
food skills. Students rated (out of 100) their ability for some skills significantly higher than
M AN U
SC
RI PT
1
others (79.7±20.9 for peeling, chopping, and slicing vs. 56.1±29.1 for weekly meal planning;
11
p<0.001). Females reported higher total food skill scores than males (487.0±141.1 out of a
12
possible 700 vs. 441.9±151.8, respectively; p<0.001). Respondents who had taken a FN course
13
reported higher total food skill scores than those who had not (494.9±137.0 vs. 461.9±149.2;
14
p<0.001). Students who resided away from their parental home for longer than one year reported
15
significantly higher total food skill scores than those living away for one year or less
16
(488.9±134.6 vs. 443.3±153.0, respectively; p<0.001). Results indicate that students’ self-
17
perceived food skills vary by sex, FN education, and living condition. Higher abilities were
18
reported for mechanical food skills; conceptual skills were significantly lower. These results may
19
assist in effectively targeting this population with nutrition education interventions.
20 21
Key words: Food skills, Students, Nutrition education, Survey
22 23 24
AC C
EP
TE D
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2 BACKGROUND
26
Many university students experience rapid weight gain, which is often related to poor dietary
27
behaviors (Vella-Zarb & Elgar, 2009). Although students may intend to make healthy food
28
choices, many lack the knowledge and self-efficacy to do so (Matthews, Doerr, & Dworatzek,
29
2016). Commonly-cited barriers to healthy eating in the student population include personal
30
preferences (e.g., taste), self-discipline, finances, time, and convenience; however, academic
31
demands and social and physical environments may create additional obstacles (Chenhall, 2010;
32
Deliens, Clarys, De Bourdeaudhuij, & Deforche, 2014). Low self-efficacy and the perception of
33
having inadequate food skills also pose barriers to meal preparation (Larson, Perry, Story, &
34
Neumark-Sztainer, 2006; Health Canada, 2015) and healthy food choices, resulting in an
35
increased tendency to choose convenience foods (Chenhall, 2010). Regular consumption of
36
ready-made convenience foods contributes to weight gain (Vella-Zarb & Elgar, 2009; Nelson,
37
Story, Larson, Neumark-Sztainer, & Lytle, 2008), putting students at an increased risk of
38
overweight and obesity in adulthood (Guo, Wu, Chumlea, & Roche, 2002). Since 1985, the
39
prevalence of obesity in Canadian adults increased from 6.1% to 18.3% and is predicted to rise to
40
21% by 2019 (Twells, Gregory, Reddigan, & Midodzi, 2014). Food and nutrition (FN) education,
41
ranging from practical cooking skills to critical assessment of nutrition information, could enable
42
young adults to develop and sustain healthy eating behaviors, potentially addressing both the
43
obesity epidemic and the ‘culinary deskilling’ that is purported to have occurred over the same
44
timeline (Chenhall, 2010; Slater, 2013; Nelson, Corbin, & Nickols-Richardson, 2013). Almost 2
45
million Canadians are enrolled in postsecondary education (Statistics Canada, 2013),
46
representing a significant population for health promotion interventions, particularly since food
47
preparation in this age group is associated with better diet quality (Larson et al., 2006).
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3 48 There is a paucity of data on food skills among youth (Larson et al., 2006; Waterloo Region,
50
2010; Desjardins & Azevedo, 2013), in part due to a lack of standardized definitions and
51
measurement tools (Chenhall, 2010; Desjardins & Azevedo, 2013; SafeFood, 2014). Food skills
52
typically include planning, preparation, and storage, and each of these categories may include
53
technical, mechanical, conceptual, and/or perceptual aspects (Chenhall, 2010; Waterloo Region,
54
2010). For example, doubling a recipe (preparation) would require technical skills to calculate
55
ingredient amounts, mechanical skills to combine ingredients, conceptual skills to decide
56
required yield, and perceptual skills to choose appropriately-sized mixing bowls. Self-assessment
57
of personal food skills likely reflects a combination of a person’s skills and self-efficacy towards
58
meal planning, preparation, and storage (Waterloo Region, 2010). Understanding students’ food
59
skills abilities may help in developing effective nutrition education interventions.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
49
TE D
60
The purpose of this study was to assess self-perceived food skills of undergraduate students at a
62
large, urban, Canadian university. Differences in self-reported food skills were compared by sex,
63
having taken a secondary or postsecondary school FN course, living conditions, and years living
64
away from their parental home.
AC C
65
EP
61
66
METHODS
67
Study Design
68
In 2012, using FluidSurveys Online Survey Software (Fluidware, Inc., Ottawa, ON, 2012), an
69
original survey assessed the self-perceived food skills and weekly meal preparation patterns of
70
students attending Western University in London, Ontario, Canada. Students reported their
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4 abilities for seven individual food skills (peeling, chopping, slicing; cooking dishes at same time;
72
making meals with available ingredients; cooking in batches for future use; making a recipe
73
healthier; choosing a spice/herb; and planning weekly meals) on an 11-point scale from 0 (no
74
skill) to 100 (very good). Additionally, students’ food skill scores were summed for a Total Food
75
Skill Score (TFSS) out of 700. The survey contained 67 items, predominantly closed-ended, with
76
categorical and scaled response categories. Questions related to students’ knowledge of dietary
77
recommendations, intentions, and coping self-efficacy have been reported elsewhere (Matthews
78
et al., 2016). Survey questions were rooted in Social Cognitive Theory, as it aims to address the
79
relationship between environmental, personal, and behavioral factors (including skills and self-
80
efficacy) and how these may influence human behavior (Bandura, 2004). Survey items were
81
informed by a review of the related literature, expert opinion, and evidence- and practice-based
82
indicators. The survey was pilot tested with a group of undergraduate students who were not
83
included in the final sample (Matthews et al., 2016). All 30,310 undergraduate students were
84
invited to complete the survey. Recruitment involved an initial email invitation, followed by
85
weekly reminder emails over the next two weeks (Dillman, 1978). The Non-Medical Research
86
Ethics Board at Western University approved the study. Completion of the survey implied
87
consent.
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
88
RI PT
71
89
Statistical Analyses
90
Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Means and standard
91
deviations (M±SD) were calculated for continuous variables; percentages for categorical
92
outcomes. An independent samples t-test was used to compare mean differences between two
93
groups, and a chi-square test assessed differences in proportions between categorical variables.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 5 Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient assessed the strength of the relationship between
95
students’ current meal preparation and parental meal preparation habits. Correlation values were
96
categorized as follows: 0.75 or greater was very good to excellent; 0.50-0.75 was moderate to
97
good; 0.25-0.49 was fair; and 0.25 or less was indicative of little to no correlation (Colton, 1974).
98
Students living in campus residences or with family were collapsed into one group because
99
students in residence must purchase a meal plan and typically do not prepare their own meals and,
RI PT
94
similarly, students living with family may have most meals prepared for them. Repeated
101
measures analysis of variance (RMANOVA) were conducted for food skills, as each subject
102
reported seven food skills that would be related to each other. Additionally, RMANOVA with
103
post-hoc analyses, were also computed for sex, FN course, living condition, and years away from
104
parental home. Given the large sample size, p≤0.01 was considered statistically significant.
M AN U
SC
100
105 RESULTS
107
The first email invitation garnered 4096 responses, with subsequent emails increasing responses
108
to 7132. After removing respondents who followed the survey link but did not complete any
109
questions, the final sample included 6638 respondents for a response rate of 21.9%. Final sample
110
sizes vary by question as not all respondents answered all questions. Demographic
111
characteristics of the sample are included in Table 1. The sample distribution by faculty/program
112
of study/major (data not displayed) was representative of the Western University population;
113
however, a higher percentage of female students completed the survey than was representative of
114
the overall student population at the time of the survey (i.e., 56% female and 44% male students)
115
(Western Office of Institutional Planning & Budgeting, 2013). The majority (65.2%) of
116
respondents were 19 to 24 years of age, while 27.4% were 18 years of age or younger. The mean
AC C
EP
TE D
106
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 6 117
respondent age was 19.9±2.1 years. This is representative of the typical Canadian postsecondary
118
population (Statistics Canada, 2010).
Table 1: Demographic data of Canadian university students (n=6638) responding to an online survey regarding their selfperceived food skills and food-related behaviors % (n)
SC
Age (n=5838)
27.4 (1598)
19-24 years
65.2 (3809)
M AN U
≤18 years
> 24 years
7.4 (431)
Sex (n=5809) Male
27.1 (1572) 72.9 (4237)
TE D
Female*
Years of Postsecondary Education (n=5618) 1
EP
2
4
AC C
3
RI PT
119
5 or more
30.2 (1695) 23.5 (1321) 21.0 (1182) 15.9 (896) 9.3 (524)
Years Away from Parental Home (n=5194) ≤ 1 year
49.1 (2552)
> 1 year
50.9 (2642)
Living Conditions (n=5816)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
University residence
25.6 (1487)
With parents/family
17.1 (995)
Roommates/on own in a house or apartment
51.4 (2991)
With spouse in a house or apartment
5.9 (343)
Food or Nutrition Course Taken (n=5829) 38.8 (2259)
No
61.2 (3570)
SC
Yes
International Student Status (n=5814)
7.6 (442)
No
M AN U
Yes
92.4 (5372)
Access to Kitchen Facilities (n=5815)
81.6 (4747)†
Yes
18.4 (1068)
TE D
No
*Sample distribution includes a higher percentage of females than is representative of the overall student population at
EP
Western University (Western Office of Institutional Planning and Budgeting, 2012). †40% of students living in residence
AC C
reported that they have access to kitchen facilities; however, it is atypical for them to use these facilities as the majority of student residents are required to purchase a campus meal plan. 120 121
Overall Cooking Ability
RI PT
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 8 Given three categories of overall cooking ability, 62.5% of respondents reported they were
123
comfortable preparing meals from basic ingredients, utilizing a recipe if required. Fewer (31.5%)
124
reported only being able to put together ready-made ingredients to prepare a complete meal. Six
125
percent reported having limited-to-no cooking ability. When analyzed by sex, 4.7% of female
126
respondents claimed to have limited-to-no cooking ability compared to 8.0% of males (Chi-
127
square (2, 5794) = 30.35, p<0.001). Females also rated themselves as being able to prepare meals
128
from basic ingredients more often than males (64.8% and 58.9%; Chi-square (2, 5794) = 30.35,
129
respectively; p<0.001).
SC
RI PT
122
M AN U
130
First-year students made up 53.5% of all students who indicated having limited-to-no cooking
132
ability. Similarly, those living in residence/with family accounted for the majority (74.1%) with
133
limited-to-no cooking abilities. Only 55.5% of students living in residence and 59.7% living with
134
family reported being able to cook and prepare meals from basic ingredients, compared to 67.6%
135
of those living independently (Chi-square (6, 5801)= 218.42, p<0.001; Figure 1).
AC C
EP
136
TE D
131
137
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 9 Figure 1: Students' Self-Reported Cooking Ability based on Living Condition, n=5801 A chi-
139
square test indicated that students' cooking ability differed significantly by living condition;
140
p<0.001. *Students were able to classify their living condition as "Other"; however, based on
141
limited respondent selection (n=20), this category was omitted.
142
RI PT
138
Food Skills
144
Technical or mechanical skills that may be considered less complex, e.g., “peeling, chopping, or
145
slicing”, had the highest scores (79.7±20.9), whereas those that may be considered more
146
conceptual, e.g., “meal planning for the week’s meals”, were significantly lower (56.1±29.1; F
147
(5.3, 32,249) = 1119, p<0.001; Figure 2). For each food skill, females reported higher scores
148
than males (F (5.3, 30,132) = 741, p<0.001; Figure 2). Only 38.8% of respondents reported
149
having taken a FN course (42.0% females and 30.1% males; Table 1), and these respondents
150
reported higher food skills than those who had not (F (5.3, 30,209) = 986, p=0.002; Figure 2).
M AN U
TE D
151
SC
143
First-year students reported significantly lower perceived food skill scores than all other students
153
(p<0.001; Table 2), with the most notable differences for conceptual and perceptual skills (e.g.,
154
batch cooking for later use and healthy recipe adjustments). Furthermore, when taking into
155
account living condition, students who lived in residence or with parents (dependent living) had
156
lower self-reported food skills than those living independently (F (5.3, 30,091) = 1053, p<0.001;
157
Figure 2). Students living away from home for one year or less reported lower food skill scores
158
than students who had lived away from home for more than one year (F (5.3, 26,974) = 951,
159
p<0.001; Figure 2). The majority (81.6%) of students reported access to kitchen facilities;
160
however, when students in residence were eliminated from the analysis, 95.9% of students living
AC C
EP
152
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 10 off-campus reported having access. Students with access to kitchen facilities reported higher
162
food skills compared to those without access (p<0.001), with the greatest differences noted for
163
batch cooking and making healthy recipe adjustments (data not displayed).
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
161
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6
5
4
7 Sk ill
Sk ill
Sk ill
Sk ill
Sk ill
3
RI PT 1
2
Sk ill
SC 7
Sk ill
ill
Sk
M AN U
Sk
ill
6
5 ill
4 Sk
ill Sk
ill
TE D
Sk
ill Sk
3
2
1 ill
EP
164
Sk
Self-Reported Level of Ability
11
Figure 2: Students' Self-Reported Food Skills, where 1=peeling, chopping, slicing; 2=cooking dishes at the same time; 3=making
166
meals with available ingredients; 4=cooking in batches for future use; 5=making a recipe healthier; 6=choosing a spice/herb; and
167
7=planning weekly meals. (A) Overall Level of Ability, n=6077 and by (B) Sex, n=5668; (C) Having taken a Food and Nutrition (FN)
168
course, n=5687; (D) Living condition, n=5674; and (E) Years away from their parental home, n=5065. Students assessed their level of
169
ability with respect to seven food skills on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 (no skill) to 100 (very good). Food skill scores were
AC C
165
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
12 analyzed by RMANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc tests and are reported as M±SD for each individual skill. Within each graph, food
171
skills with different letters indicate significant differences among the food skills; p<0.01. *Significant differences in food skills
172
between categories i.e., sex, taking a FN course, living condition, and years away from parental home; p<0.01.
RI PT
170
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
173
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 13 174 Table 2: Food Skills Reported by First-Year Students vs. Students of All Other Years of Post-
Food Skill*
First Year Students
All Other Years
Mean±SD
Mean±SD
SC
(n)
(n)
77.9±22.0†
81.1±19.7
(1680)
(3892)
M AN U
Peeling, chopping, or slicing vegetables or fruit
RI PT
Secondary Education
65.5±26.6†
72.9±22.9
so that I can serve them together for a meal
(1682)
(3884)
Planning a quick, healthy meal using only
68.5±25.8†
74.7±22.5
(1679)
(3882)
60.7±29.8†
70.8±26.7
(1675)
(3876)
Adjusting a recipe to make it healthier (e.g.
58.3±30.7†
67.0±27.6
decreasing the amount of fat, sugar, or salt)
(1676)
(3878)
57.8±31.7†
65.5±28.6
(1674)
(3880)
52.1±29.7†
58.7±28.3
(1674)
(3880)
Cooking of a few food dishes at the same time
TE D
foods already in my home
Cooking a large batch of a recipe so that it can
AC C
EP
be frozen in small portions for later use
Choosing a spice or herb that goes well with the food I am cooking/eating
Meal planning for the week’s meals
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 14 *
SD, standard deviation; Students reported their food skill ability on an 11-point scale, ranging from 0 (no †
skill) to 100 (very good); Significantly different than all other years of postsecondary education, p<0.001.
RI PT
175 Total Food Skill Score (TFSS)
177
The mean TFSS was 473±146. Females had significantly higher TFSS than males (487±141 vs.
178
442±152, respectively; t (2556) = 10.11, p<0.001). Students who took a FN course reported
179
higher TFSS (495±137) than those who had not (462±149; t (4978) = -8.55, p<0.001).
180
Additionally, students living in residence/with family had TFSS (440±155) that were
181
significantly lower than students living independently off-campus (500±133; t (4714) = -15.42,
182
p<0.001). Students who reported the highest level of cooking ability (i.e., “prepare meals from
183
basic ingredients”) had significantly higher TFSS (531±114) than those who reported being able
184
to use ready-made ingredients to prepare meals (401±129) and those who reported limited-to-no
185
cooking ability (233±138; F (2, 6057) = 1481.97, p<0.001). Students who had lived away from
186
their parental home for one year or less had lower TFSS (443±153) than students who had lived
187
away from home for more than one year (489±135; t (4928) = -11.24, p<0.001). Lastly, students
188
with access to kitchen facilities had higher TFSS (484±141) than those without access (431±157;
189
t (1428) = -10.10, p<0.001).
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
190
SC
176
191
Weekly Meal Preparation
192
Meal preparation patterns differed significantly between students living in a university
193
residence/with family compared to those living independently off-campus (Chi-square (4, 5809)
194
= 1086.61, p<0.001; Figure 3). Fifty-one percent of students living independently reported
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 15 preparing a meal 4-6 times/week or daily, compared to only 19.7% of students living in
196
residence/with family. Of the latter group, 61.8% reported preparing a meal once per week or
197
less. Infrequent meal preparation was also apparent in 24.2% of students living independently.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
195
198
Figure 3: Students' Meal Preparation Patterns (A) By Living Condition, n=5809. Students
200
reported how often they prepared a main meal from basic ingredients. A chi-square test indicated
201
that students' meal preparation habits varied by their living condition; p<0.001. Students living in
202
campus residences or with family were collapsed into one group because students in residence
203
must purchase a meal plan and typically do not prepare their own meals and, similarly, students
204
living with family may have most meals prepared for them. (B) Compared to Parents’ Meal
205
Preparation Patterns, n=3334. Respondents who indicated living in a university residence/with
206
family were excluded. A Spearman's rank correlation coefficient revealed a weak relationship
207
(r=0.22; p<0.001).
EP
AC C
208
TE D
199
209
Of all female respondents, nearly 39% reported preparing a meal either 4-6 times/week or daily,
210
compared to 35.5% of all male respondents (Chi-square (4, 5802) = 28.74, p<0.001).Fewer
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 16 211
females than males reported meal preparation less than once weekly (39.6% of females versus
212
41.9% of males; Chi-square (4, 5802) = 28.74, p<0.001).
213 The majority (83.3%) of respondents indicated that their parents prepared meals either 4-6 times
215
weekly or daily in their childhood home (Figure 3). Half (50.8%) of respondents reported these
216
same meal preparation frequencies, while the remainder prepared meals 2-3 times weekly or less.
217
Students’ current meal preparation habits showed little to no correlation with the patterns they
218
reported for their parents (rs (3327) = 0.22; p<0.001).
M AN U
219
SC
RI PT
214
DISCUSSION
221
The current study identifies subpopulations of university students worthy of nutrition education
222
interventions that focus on food skills. The skill-based deficit of university students is concerning,
223
particularly in light of their susceptibility to weight gain and their tendency to develop poor
224
dietary behaviors (Vella-Zarb & Elgar, 2009; Nelson et al., 2008).
225
TE D
220
First-year students made up more than half (53.5%) of respondents who reported limited-to-no
227
cooking ability. This raises concerns about their readiness to independently make food choices
228
and prepare meals. In addition, of those who reported having limited ability to cook and prepare
229
meals, 50.3% were currently living in a university residence, suggesting this is an ideal
230
environment for nutrition education interventions. This supports previous research indicating that
231
living situations play an integral role in various lifestyle factors, including food choices (Brevard
232
& Ricketts, 1996), and that colleges and universities should offer health promotion programs for
233
students (Plotnikoff et al., 2015).
AC C
EP
226
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 17 234 Distinct trends were observed in the food skills that students found to be easy or more
236
challenging. For example, “peeling, chopping, or slicing vegetables or fruit” consistently
237
received the highest scores, while “meal planning for the week’s meals” received the lowest
238
scores, suggesting that students are more confident in their mechanical abilities, but may need to
239
develop their perceptual and conceptual food skills. These results are consistent with Canadian
240
(Chenhall, 2010) and international reports (SafeFood, 2014). Students’ self-reported food skill
241
scores appear to decrease as the need for planning, conceptualization, and concept integration
242
increases, suggesting specific knowledge gaps that can be targeted by experiential, skills-focused
243
nutrition education interventions (Matthews, Zok, Quenneville, & Dworatzek, 2014).
M AN U
SC
RI PT
235
244
The tendency for females to report higher food skills than males is also consistent with other
246
literature (Chenhall, 2010; Health Canada, 2015; Waterloo Region, 2010; SafeFood, 2014). This
247
may be related to gender biases associated with traditional cooking roles (Daniels, Glorieux,
248
Minnen, & van Tienoven, 2012), where females may spend more time developing food skills and,
249
therefore, have higher self-efficacy in this area (Chenhall, 2010; Larson et al., 2006; SafeFood,
250
2014). If nutrition education interventions are to be successful in targeting skills, knowledge, and
251
dietary behavior change, critical thought must be given to engaging male students in ways that
252
resonate best with them. For example, improvements in dietary behavior and nutritional status
253
have been achieved with male participants when interventions were not time-intensive
254
(Plotnikoff et al., 2015).
255
AC C
EP
TE D
245
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 18 Students who had taken a formal FN course had increased self-efficacy for food skills and, as
257
previously reported, higher intentions and confidence toward healthy eating (Matthews et al.,
258
2016). Other studies have found that a general nutrition course offered at the college level
259
increased students’ fruit and vegetable consumption (Ha & Caine-Bish, 2009), and students
260
themselves have indicated baseline nutrition knowledge is required for healthy food choices
261
(Deliens et al., 2014). As FN courses are not mandatory in most Canadian jurisdictions, these
262
findings support the call for the reinstitution of FN education at all school levels (Chenhall,
263
2010; Slater, 2013; Nelson et al., 2013; Desjardins & Azevedo, 2013; Lichtenstein & Ludwig,
264
2010).
M AN U
SC
RI PT
256
265
The amount of time students had lived away from their parental home had an impact on their
267
perceived food skills, with those who had lived away from home for more than one year
268
reporting higher scores than those who had lived away for less time. This suggests the
269
importance of targeting students during their first year living away from home and/or their first
270
year of university (Vella-Zarb & Elgar, 2009; Nelson et al., 2008; Colatruglio & Slater, 2016).
271
This transitional life stage is a vulnerable period during which students face significant
272
challenges and form complex relationships with food (Colatruglio & Slater, 2016); therefore, this
273
is a unique opportunity to improve students’ food skills and related behaviors. Students may gain
274
self-efficacy and improved food skills as they move towards living independently, particularly if
275
they are engaged in meal preparation. Additionally, students may develop higher motivation
276
towards cooking and higher self-efficacy for food skills as they become responsible for the
277
nutritional wellbeing of others (e.g., spouses and/or children). Interventions must consider ways
278
to evoke student interest and increase their motivation for these activities.
AC C
EP
TE D
266
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 19 279 The majority of respondents indicated that they are comfortable preparing meals from basic
281
ingredients; however, a quarter of those living independently are preparing meals less than once
282
weekly. This trend is concerning because frequent meal preparation by young adults is correlated
283
with better diet quality (Larson et al., 2006). Frequent meal preparation is also associated with
284
less fast food consumption and a higher likelihood of meeting the dietary recommendations for
285
fat, calcium, fruit and vegetables, and whole grains (Larson et al., 2006), as well as increased
286
self-efficacy for cooking and food preparation techniques (Woodruff & Kirby, 2013). Despite
287
witnessing parental meal preparation, many students are not adopting these behaviors, suggesting
288
that parental influence may be insufficient for skill transference. Consideration must therefore be
289
given to the barriers to students’ meal preparation that are independent of parental influence (e.g.,
290
time, cost, convenience, social and academic environments) (Deliens et al., 2014; Garcia, Sykes,
291
Matthews, Martin, & Leipert, 2010). Nutrition education interventions must address these
292
barriers to halt the “deskilling” phenomenon (Slater, 2013; Colatruglio & Slater, 2016) and
293
increase the effort students put towards food planning, preparation, and storage.
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP
294
RI PT
280
For long-term improvements in students’ food skills to occur, interventions must fill educational
296
deficits encompassing the mechanical, conceptual, and perceptual skills required to plan and
297
prepare healthy meals (Larson et al., 2006; SafeFood, 2014). ‘Hands-on’ interventions targeting
298
cooking skills may improve self-efficacy for meal preparation and improve dietary patterns
299
(SafeFood, 2014; Garcia et al., 2014). Peer education has also been shown to enhance the
300
effectiveness of health-related interventions targeted at students transitioning into university
301
settings (Nelson et al., 2013; Matthews et al., 2014) and may be equally effective for nutrition
AC C
295
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 20 and food skills education. Nutrition education curriculum could address misperceptions that food
303
skills are not necessary and that food skills have to be performed to an expert standard to be
304
useful. These and other potential avenues for intervention delivery should be considered
305
collectively during program planning and may offer the ability to target university students
306
through multiple levels of influence.
RI PT
302
307
The challenges that the university setting can present (e.g., food and social environments,
309
academic demands, and the limited duration of the school year) must be anticipated when
310
delivering nutrition interventions, as they may challenge students’ abilities to make commitments
311
to both the intervention and healthy food choices (Deliens et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2008).
312
Minimal surveillance, follow up, and evaluation have been documented, making it difficult to
313
infer long-term behavior change (Nelson et al., 2008). A recent literature review identified that
314
interventions of 12 weeks (one semester) or less have resulted in a greater number of significant
315
health-related short-term outcomes than those spanning more than one semester (Plotnikoff et al.,
316
2015), which is promising for future nutrition interventions targeting food skills in this
317
population. Further research on food skills could also identify predictors of food skills (e.g., age,
318
sex, BMI) as potential considerations for interventions.
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
319
SC
308
320
Strengths and Limitations
321
The primary strength of this study is the large, diverse sample of university students. The
322
response rate of 21.9% is similar to that of national college health surveys in this population
323
(American College Health Association, 2014). Furthermore, 30.2% of respondents were first-
324
year students, strengthening study findings regarding their identification as prime candidates for
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 21 food skill intervention. The cross-sectional study design may be considered a limitation; however,
326
to our knowledge this is the first study reporting on the food skills of a large sample of university
327
students. While this study was conducted in a single university setting, it has a diverse student
328
population. Although, the sample consisted of a higher percentage of females than was
329
representative of the student population, this could be due to self-selection, whereby female
330
students are more likely to participate based on familiarity or interest in the topic. Furthermore,
331
the male subset still had a robust sample of 1572. The self-reported food skills data could be
332
considered a limitation; however, self-assessment of personal food skills has been suggested to
333
reflect an individual’s perception of their own skills and self-efficacy, which could have a
334
positive impact on behaviors (Waterloo Region, 2010).. Lastly, the survey did not assess food
335
safety knowledge, which is a critical aspect of food skills and should be considered in future
336
work.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
325
TE D
337 Conclusions
339
Emerging adulthood is a critical time during which youth become independent and adopt life-
340
long health behaviors (Nelson et al., 2008). The current study adds to a growing body of research
341
suggesting that young people have inadequate cooking skills and low involvement in food
342
preparation (Chenhall, 2010; Larson et al., 2006; Desjardins & Azevedo, 2013). Results
343
identified that students’ reported food skills vary by sex, FN education, living condition, and
344
years away from their parental home. While higher abilities were reported for basic mechanical
345
food skills, conceptual skills were significantly lower. Despite calls for mandatory food and
346
nutrition education, few students have the opportunity to learn food skills in school (Slater, 2013;
347
Lichtenstein & Ludwig, 2010; Colatruglio & Slater, 2016). Furthermore, the transference of food
AC C
EP
338
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 22 skills and meal preparation patterns may not be occurring from parent to child (Colatruglio &
349
Slater, 2016). Results of the current study suggest that nutrition education interventions aimed at
350
improving the food skills of university students, especially in their first year of study and/or
351
during first year living away from home, are particularly important.
352
RI PT
348
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
354
This study was funded by an internal research grant from Brescia University College.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
353
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 23 355 REFERENCES
356 American College Health Association. (2014). American College Health Association - National
RI PT
357 College Health Assessment II: Reference Group Data Report Fall 2013. Retrieved from American 358 College Health Association: http://www.acha-ncha.org/reports_ACHA-NCHAII.html
359 Bandura, A (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education Behaviour, 31,
SC
360 143-164.
M AN U
361 Brevard, P. B., & Ricketts, C. D. (1996). Residence of college students affects dietary intake, 362 physical activity, and serum lipid levels. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 96(1), 35– 363 38.
364 Chenhall, C. (2010). Improving cooking and food preparation skills: A synthesis of the evidence
TE D
365 to inform program and policy development. Retrieved from Health Canada: http://www.hc366 sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/child-enfant/cfps-acc-synthes-eng.php
EP
367 Colatruglio, S., & Slater, J. (2016). Challenges to acquiring and using food literacy: Perspectives 368 of young Canadian adults. Canadian Food Studies, 3(1), 96-118. doi:10.15353/cfs-rcea.v3i1.72
AC C
369 Colton, T. (1974). Statistics in Medicine. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
370 Daniels, S., Glorieux, I., Minnen, J., & van Tienoven, T. P. (2012). More than preparing a meal? 371 Concerning the meanings of home cooking. Appetite, 58(3), 1050–1056. 372 doi:10.1016/j.appet.2012.02.040.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 24 373 Deliens, T., Clarys, P., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Deforche, B. (2014). Determinants of eating 374 behaviour in university students: a qualitative study using focus group discussions. BMC Public
RI PT
375 Health, 14, 53. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-53
376 Desjardins, E. & Azevedo, E. (2013). Making something out of nothing: Food literacy among 377 youth, young pregnant women and young parents who are at risk for poor health. Retrieved from
SC
378 Public Health Ontario:
379 http://foodsecurecanada.org/sites/default/files/food_literacy_study_technical_report_web_final.pd
M AN U
380 f
381 Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York, NY: 382 John Wiley & Sons.
383 Garcia, A. C., Sykes, L., Matthews, J., Martin, N., & Leipert, B. (2010). Perceived facilitators of
TE D
384 and barriers to healthful eating among university students. Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice 385 and Research, 71(2), e28–e33. doi:10.3148/71.2.2010.69.
EP
386 Garcia, A. L., Vargas, E., Lam, P. S., Shennan, D. B., Smith, F., & Parrett, A. (2014). Evaluation 387 of a cooking skills programme in parents of young children - a longitudinal study. Public Health
AC C
388 Nutrition, 17(5), 1013–1021. doi:10.1017/S1368980013000165.
389 Guo, S. S., Wu, W., Chumlea, W. C., & Roche, A. F. (2002). Predicting overweight and obesity in 390 adulthood from body mass index values in childhood and adolescence. American Journal of 391 Clinical Nutrition, 76, 653–658.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 25 392 Ha, E. J., & Caine-Bish, N. (2009). Effect of nutrition intervention using a general nutrition course 393 for promoting fruit and vegetable consumption among college students. Journal of Nutrition
RI PT
394 Education and Behaviour, 41(2), 103–109. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2008.07.001
395 Health Canada. (2015). A look at food skills in Canada. Retrieved from Dietitians of Canada: 396 http://www.dietitians.ca/Downloads/Public/FoodSkills_FactSheet_ENG-FINAL.aspx
SC
397 Larson, N. I., Perry, C. L., Story, M., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2006). Food preparation by young 398 adults is associated with better diet quality. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106,
M AN U
399 2001–2007. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2006.09.008
400 Lichtenstein, A. H., & Ludwig, D. S. (2010). Bring back home economics education. Journal of 401 the American Medical Associaion, 303(18), 1857–1858. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.592.
TE D
402 Matthews, J. I., Doerr, L., & Dworatzek, P. D. N. (2016). University students intend to eat better, 403 but lack coping self-efficacy and knowledge of dietary recommendations. Journal of Nutrition
EP
404 Education and Behaviour, 48(1), 12-9.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2015.08.005.
405 Matthews, J. I., Zok, A. V., Quenneville, E. P. M., & Dworatzek, P. D. N. (2014). Development
AC C
406 and implementation of FRESH – a post-secondary nutrition education program incorporating 407 population strategies, experiential learning and intersectoral partnerships. Canadian Journal of 408 Public Health, 105(4), e306–311. doi:10.17269/cjph.105.4481
409 Nelson, M. C., Story, M., Larson, N. I., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Lytle, L. (2008). Emerging 410 adulthood and college-aged youth: an overlooked age for weight-related behavior change. Obesity, 411 16(10), 2205–2211. doi:10.1038/oby.2008.365.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 26 412 Nelson, S. A., Corbin, M. A., & Nickols-Richardson, S. M. (2013). A call for culinary skills 413 education in childhood obesity-prevention interventions: current status and peer influences. 414 Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 113(8), 1031–1036.
RI PT
415 doi:10.1016/j.jand.2013.05.002.
416 Plotnikoff, R. C., Costigan, S. A., Williams, R. L., Hutchesson, M. J., Kennedy, S. G., Robards, S.
SC
417 L., et al. (2015). Effectiveness of interventions targeting physical activity, nutrition and healthy 418 weight for university and college students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International
M AN U
419 Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1), 45. doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0203420 7.
421 SafeFood. (2014). Food Skills: Definitions, influences and relationship with health. Retrieved 422 from SafeFood (Food Safety Promotion Board): http://www.safefood.eu/Publications/Research-
TE D
423 reports/Food-Skills-Definitions,-influences-and-relations.aspx
424 Slater, J. (2013). Is cooking dead? The state of home economics food and nutrition education in a
EP
425 Canadian province. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(6), 617–624. 426 doi:10.1111/ijcs.12042.
AC C
427 Statistics Canada. (2010). Trends in the age composition of college and university students and 428 graduates. Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2010005/article/11386-eng.htm
429 Statistics Canada. (2013). Canadian postsecondary enrolments and graduates, 2011/2012. 430 Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/131127/dq131127d-eng.htm
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 27 431 Twells, L. K., Gregory, D. M., Reddigan, J., & Midodzi, W. K. (2014). Current and predicted 432 prevalence of obesity in Canada: A trend analysis. Canadian Medical Association Journal Open,
RI PT
433 2(1), E18–26. doi:10.9778/cmajo.20130016.
434 Vella-Zarb, R., & Elgar, F. J. (2009). The “freshman 5”: A meta-analysis of weight gain in the 435 freshman year of college. Journal of American College Health, 58(2), 161–166.
SC
436 doi:10.1080/07448480903221392.
438 Waterloo Public Health:
M AN U
437 Waterloo Region. (2010). Food skills of Waterloo region adults. Retrieved from Region of
439 http://chd.region.waterloo.on.ca/en/researchResourcesPublications/resources/FoodSkills.pdf
440 Western Office of Institutional Planning & Budgeting. (2014). Common university data Ontario – 441 2013 Western University. Retrieved from:
TE D
442 http://cudo.cou.on.ca/page.php?id=7&table=8#univ=42&topic=B&table_hidden=5&y=2012
443 Woodruff, S. J., & Kirby, A. R. (2013). The associations among family meal frequency, food
EP
444 preparation frequency, self-efficacy for cooking, and food preparation techniques in children and 445 adolescents. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour, 45(4), 296–303.
447
448
AC C
446 doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2012.11.006.
S0195-6663(16)30538-4
DOI:
10.1016/j.appet.2016.10.011
Reference:
APPET 3184
To appear in:
Appetite
Received Date: 17 May 2016 Revised Date:
5 October 2016
Accepted Date: 10 October 2016
Please cite this article as: Wilson C.K., Matthews J.I., Seabrook J.A. & Dworatzek P.D.N., Self-reported food skills of university students, Appetite (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.10.011. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Courtney K. Wilson, MScFN RDa June I. Matthews, PhD RD PHEca Jamie A. Seabrook, PhDa-e
RI PT
Self-Reported Food Skills of University Students
School of Food & Nutritional Sciences, Brescia University College, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
M AN U
a
SC
Paula D. N. Dworatzek, PhD RD PHEca,f
b
Department of Paediatrics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada c
Children’s Health Research Institute, London, Ontario, Canada
e
Human Environments Analysis Laboratory, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
EP
Schulich Interfaculty Program in Public Health, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Paula D. N. Dworatzek, PhD RD PHEc Brescia University College 1285 Western Road, London, ON Canada N6G1H2 Phone: (519) 432-8353 ext. 28020 [email protected]
AC C
f
Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Ontario, Canada
TE D
d
Word Count (abstract): 242 Word Count (text): 3148
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1 ABSTRACT
2
University students experience a life transition that often results in poor dietary behaviors and
3
weight gain. Adequate food skills may improve diet quality and prevent chronic disease.
4
Research is limited, however, on students’ food skills and food-related behaviors. The objective
5
of this study was to assess whether self-perceived food skills and related behaviors of students at
6
a large, Canadian university differed based on sex, having taken a Food and Nutrition (FN)
7
course, and living conditions, using a cross-sectional online survey. The response rate was 21.9%
8
(n=6638). Students (age, M±SD 19.9±2.1 years) self-reported their abilities for seven distinct
9
food skills. Students rated (out of 100) their ability for some skills significantly higher than
M AN U
SC
RI PT
1
others (79.7±20.9 for peeling, chopping, and slicing vs. 56.1±29.1 for weekly meal planning;
11
p<0.001). Females reported higher total food skill scores than males (487.0±141.1 out of a
12
possible 700 vs. 441.9±151.8, respectively; p<0.001). Respondents who had taken a FN course
13
reported higher total food skill scores than those who had not (494.9±137.0 vs. 461.9±149.2;
14
p<0.001). Students who resided away from their parental home for longer than one year reported
15
significantly higher total food skill scores than those living away for one year or less
16
(488.9±134.6 vs. 443.3±153.0, respectively; p<0.001). Results indicate that students’ self-
17
perceived food skills vary by sex, FN education, and living condition. Higher abilities were
18
reported for mechanical food skills; conceptual skills were significantly lower. These results may
19
assist in effectively targeting this population with nutrition education interventions.
20 21
Key words: Food skills, Students, Nutrition education, Survey
22 23 24
AC C
EP
TE D
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2 BACKGROUND
26
Many university students experience rapid weight gain, which is often related to poor dietary
27
behaviors (Vella-Zarb & Elgar, 2009). Although students may intend to make healthy food
28
choices, many lack the knowledge and self-efficacy to do so (Matthews, Doerr, & Dworatzek,
29
2016). Commonly-cited barriers to healthy eating in the student population include personal
30
preferences (e.g., taste), self-discipline, finances, time, and convenience; however, academic
31
demands and social and physical environments may create additional obstacles (Chenhall, 2010;
32
Deliens, Clarys, De Bourdeaudhuij, & Deforche, 2014). Low self-efficacy and the perception of
33
having inadequate food skills also pose barriers to meal preparation (Larson, Perry, Story, &
34
Neumark-Sztainer, 2006; Health Canada, 2015) and healthy food choices, resulting in an
35
increased tendency to choose convenience foods (Chenhall, 2010). Regular consumption of
36
ready-made convenience foods contributes to weight gain (Vella-Zarb & Elgar, 2009; Nelson,
37
Story, Larson, Neumark-Sztainer, & Lytle, 2008), putting students at an increased risk of
38
overweight and obesity in adulthood (Guo, Wu, Chumlea, & Roche, 2002). Since 1985, the
39
prevalence of obesity in Canadian adults increased from 6.1% to 18.3% and is predicted to rise to
40
21% by 2019 (Twells, Gregory, Reddigan, & Midodzi, 2014). Food and nutrition (FN) education,
41
ranging from practical cooking skills to critical assessment of nutrition information, could enable
42
young adults to develop and sustain healthy eating behaviors, potentially addressing both the
43
obesity epidemic and the ‘culinary deskilling’ that is purported to have occurred over the same
44
timeline (Chenhall, 2010; Slater, 2013; Nelson, Corbin, & Nickols-Richardson, 2013). Almost 2
45
million Canadians are enrolled in postsecondary education (Statistics Canada, 2013),
46
representing a significant population for health promotion interventions, particularly since food
47
preparation in this age group is associated with better diet quality (Larson et al., 2006).
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3 48 There is a paucity of data on food skills among youth (Larson et al., 2006; Waterloo Region,
50
2010; Desjardins & Azevedo, 2013), in part due to a lack of standardized definitions and
51
measurement tools (Chenhall, 2010; Desjardins & Azevedo, 2013; SafeFood, 2014). Food skills
52
typically include planning, preparation, and storage, and each of these categories may include
53
technical, mechanical, conceptual, and/or perceptual aspects (Chenhall, 2010; Waterloo Region,
54
2010). For example, doubling a recipe (preparation) would require technical skills to calculate
55
ingredient amounts, mechanical skills to combine ingredients, conceptual skills to decide
56
required yield, and perceptual skills to choose appropriately-sized mixing bowls. Self-assessment
57
of personal food skills likely reflects a combination of a person’s skills and self-efficacy towards
58
meal planning, preparation, and storage (Waterloo Region, 2010). Understanding students’ food
59
skills abilities may help in developing effective nutrition education interventions.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
49
TE D
60
The purpose of this study was to assess self-perceived food skills of undergraduate students at a
62
large, urban, Canadian university. Differences in self-reported food skills were compared by sex,
63
having taken a secondary or postsecondary school FN course, living conditions, and years living
64
away from their parental home.
AC C
65
EP
61
66
METHODS
67
Study Design
68
In 2012, using FluidSurveys Online Survey Software (Fluidware, Inc., Ottawa, ON, 2012), an
69
original survey assessed the self-perceived food skills and weekly meal preparation patterns of
70
students attending Western University in London, Ontario, Canada. Students reported their
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 4 abilities for seven individual food skills (peeling, chopping, slicing; cooking dishes at same time;
72
making meals with available ingredients; cooking in batches for future use; making a recipe
73
healthier; choosing a spice/herb; and planning weekly meals) on an 11-point scale from 0 (no
74
skill) to 100 (very good). Additionally, students’ food skill scores were summed for a Total Food
75
Skill Score (TFSS) out of 700. The survey contained 67 items, predominantly closed-ended, with
76
categorical and scaled response categories. Questions related to students’ knowledge of dietary
77
recommendations, intentions, and coping self-efficacy have been reported elsewhere (Matthews
78
et al., 2016). Survey questions were rooted in Social Cognitive Theory, as it aims to address the
79
relationship between environmental, personal, and behavioral factors (including skills and self-
80
efficacy) and how these may influence human behavior (Bandura, 2004). Survey items were
81
informed by a review of the related literature, expert opinion, and evidence- and practice-based
82
indicators. The survey was pilot tested with a group of undergraduate students who were not
83
included in the final sample (Matthews et al., 2016). All 30,310 undergraduate students were
84
invited to complete the survey. Recruitment involved an initial email invitation, followed by
85
weekly reminder emails over the next two weeks (Dillman, 1978). The Non-Medical Research
86
Ethics Board at Western University approved the study. Completion of the survey implied
87
consent.
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
88
RI PT
71
89
Statistical Analyses
90
Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Means and standard
91
deviations (M±SD) were calculated for continuous variables; percentages for categorical
92
outcomes. An independent samples t-test was used to compare mean differences between two
93
groups, and a chi-square test assessed differences in proportions between categorical variables.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 5 Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient assessed the strength of the relationship between
95
students’ current meal preparation and parental meal preparation habits. Correlation values were
96
categorized as follows: 0.75 or greater was very good to excellent; 0.50-0.75 was moderate to
97
good; 0.25-0.49 was fair; and 0.25 or less was indicative of little to no correlation (Colton, 1974).
98
Students living in campus residences or with family were collapsed into one group because
99
students in residence must purchase a meal plan and typically do not prepare their own meals and,
RI PT
94
similarly, students living with family may have most meals prepared for them. Repeated
101
measures analysis of variance (RMANOVA) were conducted for food skills, as each subject
102
reported seven food skills that would be related to each other. Additionally, RMANOVA with
103
post-hoc analyses, were also computed for sex, FN course, living condition, and years away from
104
parental home. Given the large sample size, p≤0.01 was considered statistically significant.
M AN U
SC
100
105 RESULTS
107
The first email invitation garnered 4096 responses, with subsequent emails increasing responses
108
to 7132. After removing respondents who followed the survey link but did not complete any
109
questions, the final sample included 6638 respondents for a response rate of 21.9%. Final sample
110
sizes vary by question as not all respondents answered all questions. Demographic
111
characteristics of the sample are included in Table 1. The sample distribution by faculty/program
112
of study/major (data not displayed) was representative of the Western University population;
113
however, a higher percentage of female students completed the survey than was representative of
114
the overall student population at the time of the survey (i.e., 56% female and 44% male students)
115
(Western Office of Institutional Planning & Budgeting, 2013). The majority (65.2%) of
116
respondents were 19 to 24 years of age, while 27.4% were 18 years of age or younger. The mean
AC C
EP
TE D
106
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 6 117
respondent age was 19.9±2.1 years. This is representative of the typical Canadian postsecondary
118
population (Statistics Canada, 2010).
Table 1: Demographic data of Canadian university students (n=6638) responding to an online survey regarding their selfperceived food skills and food-related behaviors % (n)
SC
Age (n=5838)
27.4 (1598)
19-24 years
65.2 (3809)
M AN U
≤18 years
> 24 years
7.4 (431)
Sex (n=5809) Male
27.1 (1572) 72.9 (4237)
TE D
Female*
Years of Postsecondary Education (n=5618) 1
EP
2
4
AC C
3
RI PT
119
5 or more
30.2 (1695) 23.5 (1321) 21.0 (1182) 15.9 (896) 9.3 (524)
Years Away from Parental Home (n=5194) ≤ 1 year
49.1 (2552)
> 1 year
50.9 (2642)
Living Conditions (n=5816)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
University residence
25.6 (1487)
With parents/family
17.1 (995)
Roommates/on own in a house or apartment
51.4 (2991)
With spouse in a house or apartment
5.9 (343)
Food or Nutrition Course Taken (n=5829) 38.8 (2259)
No
61.2 (3570)
SC
Yes
International Student Status (n=5814)
7.6 (442)
No
M AN U
Yes
92.4 (5372)
Access to Kitchen Facilities (n=5815)
81.6 (4747)†
Yes
18.4 (1068)
TE D
No
*Sample distribution includes a higher percentage of females than is representative of the overall student population at
EP
Western University (Western Office of Institutional Planning and Budgeting, 2012). †40% of students living in residence
AC C
reported that they have access to kitchen facilities; however, it is atypical for them to use these facilities as the majority of student residents are required to purchase a campus meal plan. 120 121
Overall Cooking Ability
RI PT
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 8 Given three categories of overall cooking ability, 62.5% of respondents reported they were
123
comfortable preparing meals from basic ingredients, utilizing a recipe if required. Fewer (31.5%)
124
reported only being able to put together ready-made ingredients to prepare a complete meal. Six
125
percent reported having limited-to-no cooking ability. When analyzed by sex, 4.7% of female
126
respondents claimed to have limited-to-no cooking ability compared to 8.0% of males (Chi-
127
square (2, 5794) = 30.35, p<0.001). Females also rated themselves as being able to prepare meals
128
from basic ingredients more often than males (64.8% and 58.9%; Chi-square (2, 5794) = 30.35,
129
respectively; p<0.001).
SC
RI PT
122
M AN U
130
First-year students made up 53.5% of all students who indicated having limited-to-no cooking
132
ability. Similarly, those living in residence/with family accounted for the majority (74.1%) with
133
limited-to-no cooking abilities. Only 55.5% of students living in residence and 59.7% living with
134
family reported being able to cook and prepare meals from basic ingredients, compared to 67.6%
135
of those living independently (Chi-square (6, 5801)= 218.42, p<0.001; Figure 1).
AC C
EP
136
TE D
131
137
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 9 Figure 1: Students' Self-Reported Cooking Ability based on Living Condition, n=5801 A chi-
139
square test indicated that students' cooking ability differed significantly by living condition;
140
p<0.001. *Students were able to classify their living condition as "Other"; however, based on
141
limited respondent selection (n=20), this category was omitted.
142
RI PT
138
Food Skills
144
Technical or mechanical skills that may be considered less complex, e.g., “peeling, chopping, or
145
slicing”, had the highest scores (79.7±20.9), whereas those that may be considered more
146
conceptual, e.g., “meal planning for the week’s meals”, were significantly lower (56.1±29.1; F
147
(5.3, 32,249) = 1119, p<0.001; Figure 2). For each food skill, females reported higher scores
148
than males (F (5.3, 30,132) = 741, p<0.001; Figure 2). Only 38.8% of respondents reported
149
having taken a FN course (42.0% females and 30.1% males; Table 1), and these respondents
150
reported higher food skills than those who had not (F (5.3, 30,209) = 986, p=0.002; Figure 2).
M AN U
TE D
151
SC
143
First-year students reported significantly lower perceived food skill scores than all other students
153
(p<0.001; Table 2), with the most notable differences for conceptual and perceptual skills (e.g.,
154
batch cooking for later use and healthy recipe adjustments). Furthermore, when taking into
155
account living condition, students who lived in residence or with parents (dependent living) had
156
lower self-reported food skills than those living independently (F (5.3, 30,091) = 1053, p<0.001;
157
Figure 2). Students living away from home for one year or less reported lower food skill scores
158
than students who had lived away from home for more than one year (F (5.3, 26,974) = 951,
159
p<0.001; Figure 2). The majority (81.6%) of students reported access to kitchen facilities;
160
however, when students in residence were eliminated from the analysis, 95.9% of students living
AC C
EP
152
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 10 off-campus reported having access. Students with access to kitchen facilities reported higher
162
food skills compared to those without access (p<0.001), with the greatest differences noted for
163
batch cooking and making healthy recipe adjustments (data not displayed).
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
161
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6
5
4
7 Sk ill
Sk ill
Sk ill
Sk ill
Sk ill
3
RI PT 1
2
Sk ill
SC 7
Sk ill
ill
Sk
M AN U
Sk
ill
6
5 ill
4 Sk
ill Sk
ill
TE D
Sk
ill Sk
3
2
1 ill
EP
164
Sk
Self-Reported Level of Ability
11
Figure 2: Students' Self-Reported Food Skills, where 1=peeling, chopping, slicing; 2=cooking dishes at the same time; 3=making
166
meals with available ingredients; 4=cooking in batches for future use; 5=making a recipe healthier; 6=choosing a spice/herb; and
167
7=planning weekly meals. (A) Overall Level of Ability, n=6077 and by (B) Sex, n=5668; (C) Having taken a Food and Nutrition (FN)
168
course, n=5687; (D) Living condition, n=5674; and (E) Years away from their parental home, n=5065. Students assessed their level of
169
ability with respect to seven food skills on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 (no skill) to 100 (very good). Food skill scores were
AC C
165
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
12 analyzed by RMANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc tests and are reported as M±SD for each individual skill. Within each graph, food
171
skills with different letters indicate significant differences among the food skills; p<0.01. *Significant differences in food skills
172
between categories i.e., sex, taking a FN course, living condition, and years away from parental home; p<0.01.
RI PT
170
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
173
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 13 174 Table 2: Food Skills Reported by First-Year Students vs. Students of All Other Years of Post-
Food Skill*
First Year Students
All Other Years
Mean±SD
Mean±SD
SC
(n)
(n)
77.9±22.0†
81.1±19.7
(1680)
(3892)
M AN U
Peeling, chopping, or slicing vegetables or fruit
RI PT
Secondary Education
65.5±26.6†
72.9±22.9
so that I can serve them together for a meal
(1682)
(3884)
Planning a quick, healthy meal using only
68.5±25.8†
74.7±22.5
(1679)
(3882)
60.7±29.8†
70.8±26.7
(1675)
(3876)
Adjusting a recipe to make it healthier (e.g.
58.3±30.7†
67.0±27.6
decreasing the amount of fat, sugar, or salt)
(1676)
(3878)
57.8±31.7†
65.5±28.6
(1674)
(3880)
52.1±29.7†
58.7±28.3
(1674)
(3880)
Cooking of a few food dishes at the same time
TE D
foods already in my home
Cooking a large batch of a recipe so that it can
AC C
EP
be frozen in small portions for later use
Choosing a spice or herb that goes well with the food I am cooking/eating
Meal planning for the week’s meals
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 14 *
SD, standard deviation; Students reported their food skill ability on an 11-point scale, ranging from 0 (no †
skill) to 100 (very good); Significantly different than all other years of postsecondary education, p<0.001.
RI PT
175 Total Food Skill Score (TFSS)
177
The mean TFSS was 473±146. Females had significantly higher TFSS than males (487±141 vs.
178
442±152, respectively; t (2556) = 10.11, p<0.001). Students who took a FN course reported
179
higher TFSS (495±137) than those who had not (462±149; t (4978) = -8.55, p<0.001).
180
Additionally, students living in residence/with family had TFSS (440±155) that were
181
significantly lower than students living independently off-campus (500±133; t (4714) = -15.42,
182
p<0.001). Students who reported the highest level of cooking ability (i.e., “prepare meals from
183
basic ingredients”) had significantly higher TFSS (531±114) than those who reported being able
184
to use ready-made ingredients to prepare meals (401±129) and those who reported limited-to-no
185
cooking ability (233±138; F (2, 6057) = 1481.97, p<0.001). Students who had lived away from
186
their parental home for one year or less had lower TFSS (443±153) than students who had lived
187
away from home for more than one year (489±135; t (4928) = -11.24, p<0.001). Lastly, students
188
with access to kitchen facilities had higher TFSS (484±141) than those without access (431±157;
189
t (1428) = -10.10, p<0.001).
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
190
SC
176
191
Weekly Meal Preparation
192
Meal preparation patterns differed significantly between students living in a university
193
residence/with family compared to those living independently off-campus (Chi-square (4, 5809)
194
= 1086.61, p<0.001; Figure 3). Fifty-one percent of students living independently reported
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 15 preparing a meal 4-6 times/week or daily, compared to only 19.7% of students living in
196
residence/with family. Of the latter group, 61.8% reported preparing a meal once per week or
197
less. Infrequent meal preparation was also apparent in 24.2% of students living independently.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
195
198
Figure 3: Students' Meal Preparation Patterns (A) By Living Condition, n=5809. Students
200
reported how often they prepared a main meal from basic ingredients. A chi-square test indicated
201
that students' meal preparation habits varied by their living condition; p<0.001. Students living in
202
campus residences or with family were collapsed into one group because students in residence
203
must purchase a meal plan and typically do not prepare their own meals and, similarly, students
204
living with family may have most meals prepared for them. (B) Compared to Parents’ Meal
205
Preparation Patterns, n=3334. Respondents who indicated living in a university residence/with
206
family were excluded. A Spearman's rank correlation coefficient revealed a weak relationship
207
(r=0.22; p<0.001).
EP
AC C
208
TE D
199
209
Of all female respondents, nearly 39% reported preparing a meal either 4-6 times/week or daily,
210
compared to 35.5% of all male respondents (Chi-square (4, 5802) = 28.74, p<0.001).Fewer
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 16 211
females than males reported meal preparation less than once weekly (39.6% of females versus
212
41.9% of males; Chi-square (4, 5802) = 28.74, p<0.001).
213 The majority (83.3%) of respondents indicated that their parents prepared meals either 4-6 times
215
weekly or daily in their childhood home (Figure 3). Half (50.8%) of respondents reported these
216
same meal preparation frequencies, while the remainder prepared meals 2-3 times weekly or less.
217
Students’ current meal preparation habits showed little to no correlation with the patterns they
218
reported for their parents (rs (3327) = 0.22; p<0.001).
M AN U
219
SC
RI PT
214
DISCUSSION
221
The current study identifies subpopulations of university students worthy of nutrition education
222
interventions that focus on food skills. The skill-based deficit of university students is concerning,
223
particularly in light of their susceptibility to weight gain and their tendency to develop poor
224
dietary behaviors (Vella-Zarb & Elgar, 2009; Nelson et al., 2008).
225
TE D
220
First-year students made up more than half (53.5%) of respondents who reported limited-to-no
227
cooking ability. This raises concerns about their readiness to independently make food choices
228
and prepare meals. In addition, of those who reported having limited ability to cook and prepare
229
meals, 50.3% were currently living in a university residence, suggesting this is an ideal
230
environment for nutrition education interventions. This supports previous research indicating that
231
living situations play an integral role in various lifestyle factors, including food choices (Brevard
232
& Ricketts, 1996), and that colleges and universities should offer health promotion programs for
233
students (Plotnikoff et al., 2015).
AC C
EP
226
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 17 234 Distinct trends were observed in the food skills that students found to be easy or more
236
challenging. For example, “peeling, chopping, or slicing vegetables or fruit” consistently
237
received the highest scores, while “meal planning for the week’s meals” received the lowest
238
scores, suggesting that students are more confident in their mechanical abilities, but may need to
239
develop their perceptual and conceptual food skills. These results are consistent with Canadian
240
(Chenhall, 2010) and international reports (SafeFood, 2014). Students’ self-reported food skill
241
scores appear to decrease as the need for planning, conceptualization, and concept integration
242
increases, suggesting specific knowledge gaps that can be targeted by experiential, skills-focused
243
nutrition education interventions (Matthews, Zok, Quenneville, & Dworatzek, 2014).
M AN U
SC
RI PT
235
244
The tendency for females to report higher food skills than males is also consistent with other
246
literature (Chenhall, 2010; Health Canada, 2015; Waterloo Region, 2010; SafeFood, 2014). This
247
may be related to gender biases associated with traditional cooking roles (Daniels, Glorieux,
248
Minnen, & van Tienoven, 2012), where females may spend more time developing food skills and,
249
therefore, have higher self-efficacy in this area (Chenhall, 2010; Larson et al., 2006; SafeFood,
250
2014). If nutrition education interventions are to be successful in targeting skills, knowledge, and
251
dietary behavior change, critical thought must be given to engaging male students in ways that
252
resonate best with them. For example, improvements in dietary behavior and nutritional status
253
have been achieved with male participants when interventions were not time-intensive
254
(Plotnikoff et al., 2015).
255
AC C
EP
TE D
245
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 18 Students who had taken a formal FN course had increased self-efficacy for food skills and, as
257
previously reported, higher intentions and confidence toward healthy eating (Matthews et al.,
258
2016). Other studies have found that a general nutrition course offered at the college level
259
increased students’ fruit and vegetable consumption (Ha & Caine-Bish, 2009), and students
260
themselves have indicated baseline nutrition knowledge is required for healthy food choices
261
(Deliens et al., 2014). As FN courses are not mandatory in most Canadian jurisdictions, these
262
findings support the call for the reinstitution of FN education at all school levels (Chenhall,
263
2010; Slater, 2013; Nelson et al., 2013; Desjardins & Azevedo, 2013; Lichtenstein & Ludwig,
264
2010).
M AN U
SC
RI PT
256
265
The amount of time students had lived away from their parental home had an impact on their
267
perceived food skills, with those who had lived away from home for more than one year
268
reporting higher scores than those who had lived away for less time. This suggests the
269
importance of targeting students during their first year living away from home and/or their first
270
year of university (Vella-Zarb & Elgar, 2009; Nelson et al., 2008; Colatruglio & Slater, 2016).
271
This transitional life stage is a vulnerable period during which students face significant
272
challenges and form complex relationships with food (Colatruglio & Slater, 2016); therefore, this
273
is a unique opportunity to improve students’ food skills and related behaviors. Students may gain
274
self-efficacy and improved food skills as they move towards living independently, particularly if
275
they are engaged in meal preparation. Additionally, students may develop higher motivation
276
towards cooking and higher self-efficacy for food skills as they become responsible for the
277
nutritional wellbeing of others (e.g., spouses and/or children). Interventions must consider ways
278
to evoke student interest and increase their motivation for these activities.
AC C
EP
TE D
266
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 19 279 The majority of respondents indicated that they are comfortable preparing meals from basic
281
ingredients; however, a quarter of those living independently are preparing meals less than once
282
weekly. This trend is concerning because frequent meal preparation by young adults is correlated
283
with better diet quality (Larson et al., 2006). Frequent meal preparation is also associated with
284
less fast food consumption and a higher likelihood of meeting the dietary recommendations for
285
fat, calcium, fruit and vegetables, and whole grains (Larson et al., 2006), as well as increased
286
self-efficacy for cooking and food preparation techniques (Woodruff & Kirby, 2013). Despite
287
witnessing parental meal preparation, many students are not adopting these behaviors, suggesting
288
that parental influence may be insufficient for skill transference. Consideration must therefore be
289
given to the barriers to students’ meal preparation that are independent of parental influence (e.g.,
290
time, cost, convenience, social and academic environments) (Deliens et al., 2014; Garcia, Sykes,
291
Matthews, Martin, & Leipert, 2010). Nutrition education interventions must address these
292
barriers to halt the “deskilling” phenomenon (Slater, 2013; Colatruglio & Slater, 2016) and
293
increase the effort students put towards food planning, preparation, and storage.
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP
294
RI PT
280
For long-term improvements in students’ food skills to occur, interventions must fill educational
296
deficits encompassing the mechanical, conceptual, and perceptual skills required to plan and
297
prepare healthy meals (Larson et al., 2006; SafeFood, 2014). ‘Hands-on’ interventions targeting
298
cooking skills may improve self-efficacy for meal preparation and improve dietary patterns
299
(SafeFood, 2014; Garcia et al., 2014). Peer education has also been shown to enhance the
300
effectiveness of health-related interventions targeted at students transitioning into university
301
settings (Nelson et al., 2013; Matthews et al., 2014) and may be equally effective for nutrition
AC C
295
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 20 and food skills education. Nutrition education curriculum could address misperceptions that food
303
skills are not necessary and that food skills have to be performed to an expert standard to be
304
useful. These and other potential avenues for intervention delivery should be considered
305
collectively during program planning and may offer the ability to target university students
306
through multiple levels of influence.
RI PT
302
307
The challenges that the university setting can present (e.g., food and social environments,
309
academic demands, and the limited duration of the school year) must be anticipated when
310
delivering nutrition interventions, as they may challenge students’ abilities to make commitments
311
to both the intervention and healthy food choices (Deliens et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2008).
312
Minimal surveillance, follow up, and evaluation have been documented, making it difficult to
313
infer long-term behavior change (Nelson et al., 2008). A recent literature review identified that
314
interventions of 12 weeks (one semester) or less have resulted in a greater number of significant
315
health-related short-term outcomes than those spanning more than one semester (Plotnikoff et al.,
316
2015), which is promising for future nutrition interventions targeting food skills in this
317
population. Further research on food skills could also identify predictors of food skills (e.g., age,
318
sex, BMI) as potential considerations for interventions.
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
319
SC
308
320
Strengths and Limitations
321
The primary strength of this study is the large, diverse sample of university students. The
322
response rate of 21.9% is similar to that of national college health surveys in this population
323
(American College Health Association, 2014). Furthermore, 30.2% of respondents were first-
324
year students, strengthening study findings regarding their identification as prime candidates for
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 21 food skill intervention. The cross-sectional study design may be considered a limitation; however,
326
to our knowledge this is the first study reporting on the food skills of a large sample of university
327
students. While this study was conducted in a single university setting, it has a diverse student
328
population. Although, the sample consisted of a higher percentage of females than was
329
representative of the student population, this could be due to self-selection, whereby female
330
students are more likely to participate based on familiarity or interest in the topic. Furthermore,
331
the male subset still had a robust sample of 1572. The self-reported food skills data could be
332
considered a limitation; however, self-assessment of personal food skills has been suggested to
333
reflect an individual’s perception of their own skills and self-efficacy, which could have a
334
positive impact on behaviors (Waterloo Region, 2010).. Lastly, the survey did not assess food
335
safety knowledge, which is a critical aspect of food skills and should be considered in future
336
work.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
325
TE D
337 Conclusions
339
Emerging adulthood is a critical time during which youth become independent and adopt life-
340
long health behaviors (Nelson et al., 2008). The current study adds to a growing body of research
341
suggesting that young people have inadequate cooking skills and low involvement in food
342
preparation (Chenhall, 2010; Larson et al., 2006; Desjardins & Azevedo, 2013). Results
343
identified that students’ reported food skills vary by sex, FN education, living condition, and
344
years away from their parental home. While higher abilities were reported for basic mechanical
345
food skills, conceptual skills were significantly lower. Despite calls for mandatory food and
346
nutrition education, few students have the opportunity to learn food skills in school (Slater, 2013;
347
Lichtenstein & Ludwig, 2010; Colatruglio & Slater, 2016). Furthermore, the transference of food
AC C
EP
338
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 22 skills and meal preparation patterns may not be occurring from parent to child (Colatruglio &
349
Slater, 2016). Results of the current study suggest that nutrition education interventions aimed at
350
improving the food skills of university students, especially in their first year of study and/or
351
during first year living away from home, are particularly important.
352
RI PT
348
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
354
This study was funded by an internal research grant from Brescia University College.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
353
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 23 355 REFERENCES
356 American College Health Association. (2014). American College Health Association - National
RI PT
357 College Health Assessment II: Reference Group Data Report Fall 2013. Retrieved from American 358 College Health Association: http://www.acha-ncha.org/reports_ACHA-NCHAII.html
359 Bandura, A (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education Behaviour, 31,
SC
360 143-164.
M AN U
361 Brevard, P. B., & Ricketts, C. D. (1996). Residence of college students affects dietary intake, 362 physical activity, and serum lipid levels. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 96(1), 35– 363 38.
364 Chenhall, C. (2010). Improving cooking and food preparation skills: A synthesis of the evidence
TE D
365 to inform program and policy development. Retrieved from Health Canada: http://www.hc366 sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/child-enfant/cfps-acc-synthes-eng.php
EP
367 Colatruglio, S., & Slater, J. (2016). Challenges to acquiring and using food literacy: Perspectives 368 of young Canadian adults. Canadian Food Studies, 3(1), 96-118. doi:10.15353/cfs-rcea.v3i1.72
AC C
369 Colton, T. (1974). Statistics in Medicine. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
370 Daniels, S., Glorieux, I., Minnen, J., & van Tienoven, T. P. (2012). More than preparing a meal? 371 Concerning the meanings of home cooking. Appetite, 58(3), 1050–1056. 372 doi:10.1016/j.appet.2012.02.040.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 24 373 Deliens, T., Clarys, P., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Deforche, B. (2014). Determinants of eating 374 behaviour in university students: a qualitative study using focus group discussions. BMC Public
RI PT
375 Health, 14, 53. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-53
376 Desjardins, E. & Azevedo, E. (2013). Making something out of nothing: Food literacy among 377 youth, young pregnant women and young parents who are at risk for poor health. Retrieved from
SC
378 Public Health Ontario:
379 http://foodsecurecanada.org/sites/default/files/food_literacy_study_technical_report_web_final.pd
M AN U
380 f
381 Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York, NY: 382 John Wiley & Sons.
383 Garcia, A. C., Sykes, L., Matthews, J., Martin, N., & Leipert, B. (2010). Perceived facilitators of
TE D
384 and barriers to healthful eating among university students. Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice 385 and Research, 71(2), e28–e33. doi:10.3148/71.2.2010.69.
EP
386 Garcia, A. L., Vargas, E., Lam, P. S., Shennan, D. B., Smith, F., & Parrett, A. (2014). Evaluation 387 of a cooking skills programme in parents of young children - a longitudinal study. Public Health
AC C
388 Nutrition, 17(5), 1013–1021. doi:10.1017/S1368980013000165.
389 Guo, S. S., Wu, W., Chumlea, W. C., & Roche, A. F. (2002). Predicting overweight and obesity in 390 adulthood from body mass index values in childhood and adolescence. American Journal of 391 Clinical Nutrition, 76, 653–658.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 25 392 Ha, E. J., & Caine-Bish, N. (2009). Effect of nutrition intervention using a general nutrition course 393 for promoting fruit and vegetable consumption among college students. Journal of Nutrition
RI PT
394 Education and Behaviour, 41(2), 103–109. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2008.07.001
395 Health Canada. (2015). A look at food skills in Canada. Retrieved from Dietitians of Canada: 396 http://www.dietitians.ca/Downloads/Public/FoodSkills_FactSheet_ENG-FINAL.aspx
SC
397 Larson, N. I., Perry, C. L., Story, M., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2006). Food preparation by young 398 adults is associated with better diet quality. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106,
M AN U
399 2001–2007. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2006.09.008
400 Lichtenstein, A. H., & Ludwig, D. S. (2010). Bring back home economics education. Journal of 401 the American Medical Associaion, 303(18), 1857–1858. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.592.
TE D
402 Matthews, J. I., Doerr, L., & Dworatzek, P. D. N. (2016). University students intend to eat better, 403 but lack coping self-efficacy and knowledge of dietary recommendations. Journal of Nutrition
EP
404 Education and Behaviour, 48(1), 12-9.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2015.08.005.
405 Matthews, J. I., Zok, A. V., Quenneville, E. P. M., & Dworatzek, P. D. N. (2014). Development
AC C
406 and implementation of FRESH – a post-secondary nutrition education program incorporating 407 population strategies, experiential learning and intersectoral partnerships. Canadian Journal of 408 Public Health, 105(4), e306–311. doi:10.17269/cjph.105.4481
409 Nelson, M. C., Story, M., Larson, N. I., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Lytle, L. (2008). Emerging 410 adulthood and college-aged youth: an overlooked age for weight-related behavior change. Obesity, 411 16(10), 2205–2211. doi:10.1038/oby.2008.365.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 26 412 Nelson, S. A., Corbin, M. A., & Nickols-Richardson, S. M. (2013). A call for culinary skills 413 education in childhood obesity-prevention interventions: current status and peer influences. 414 Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 113(8), 1031–1036.
RI PT
415 doi:10.1016/j.jand.2013.05.002.
416 Plotnikoff, R. C., Costigan, S. A., Williams, R. L., Hutchesson, M. J., Kennedy, S. G., Robards, S.
SC
417 L., et al. (2015). Effectiveness of interventions targeting physical activity, nutrition and healthy 418 weight for university and college students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International
M AN U
419 Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1), 45. doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0203420 7.
421 SafeFood. (2014). Food Skills: Definitions, influences and relationship with health. Retrieved 422 from SafeFood (Food Safety Promotion Board): http://www.safefood.eu/Publications/Research-
TE D
423 reports/Food-Skills-Definitions,-influences-and-relations.aspx
424 Slater, J. (2013). Is cooking dead? The state of home economics food and nutrition education in a
EP
425 Canadian province. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(6), 617–624. 426 doi:10.1111/ijcs.12042.
AC C
427 Statistics Canada. (2010). Trends in the age composition of college and university students and 428 graduates. Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2010005/article/11386-eng.htm
429 Statistics Canada. (2013). Canadian postsecondary enrolments and graduates, 2011/2012. 430 Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/131127/dq131127d-eng.htm
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 27 431 Twells, L. K., Gregory, D. M., Reddigan, J., & Midodzi, W. K. (2014). Current and predicted 432 prevalence of obesity in Canada: A trend analysis. Canadian Medical Association Journal Open,
RI PT
433 2(1), E18–26. doi:10.9778/cmajo.20130016.
434 Vella-Zarb, R., & Elgar, F. J. (2009). The “freshman 5”: A meta-analysis of weight gain in the 435 freshman year of college. Journal of American College Health, 58(2), 161–166.
SC
436 doi:10.1080/07448480903221392.
438 Waterloo Public Health:
M AN U
437 Waterloo Region. (2010). Food skills of Waterloo region adults. Retrieved from Region of
439 http://chd.region.waterloo.on.ca/en/researchResourcesPublications/resources/FoodSkills.pdf
440 Western Office of Institutional Planning & Budgeting. (2014). Common university data Ontario – 441 2013 Western University. Retrieved from:
TE D
442 http://cudo.cou.on.ca/page.php?id=7&table=8#univ=42&topic=B&table_hidden=5&y=2012
443 Woodruff, S. J., & Kirby, A. R. (2013). The associations among family meal frequency, food
EP
444 preparation frequency, self-efficacy for cooking, and food preparation techniques in children and 445 adolescents. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour, 45(4), 296–303.
447
448
AC C
446 doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2012.11.006.