4.1 Article

Campus Food Pantry Use Addresses a Gap Among California Public University Students

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR
卷 53, 期 11, 页码 921-930

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneb.2021.06.005

关键词

food insecurity; food pantry; food assistance; college students; higher education

资金

  1. UC Basic Needs Initiative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that certain groups of students are more likely to visit campus food pantries frequently, and that the food security status of some students is related to their reasons for visiting.
Objective: To identify factors associated with campus food pantry (CFP) visits and evaluate outreach strategies. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: Ten University of California campuses. Participants: University of California CFP student users (n = 1,513) completed a survey in 2019. Variables measured: Students reported reasons for CFP visits, how they heard about the CFP, monthly CFP visits, and food security status. Sociodemographic information was obtained through institutional records. Analysis: Poisson regression for associations of monthly CFP visits (dependent) with sociodemographic variables (Model 1), reasons for CFP visits (Model 2), and outreach strategies (Model 3). Logistic regression for associations between reasons for CFP visits and food security status (dependent; Model 4). Results: On average, students made 3.66 (SD, 4.75) CFP visits in the past month. Factors associated with more CFP visits included being first-generation to attend college, Filipino/Pacific Islanders, homeless, older, and male (Model 1). Not wanting to run out of food and hearing about the CFP through basic needs staff were associated with more CFP visits (Models 2 and 3). Students who visited the CFP because of financial insecurity had higher odds of food insecurity (Model 4). Conclusions and Implications: Findings suggest that CFPs provide critical emergency food assistance for students at risk of food insecurity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据