4.2 Article

Positive Changes in Perceptions and Selections of Healthful Foods by College Students After a Short-Term Point-of-Selection Intervention at a Dining Hall

期刊

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH
卷 58, 期 5, 页码 425-431

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/07448480903540457

关键词

food choices; college students; point-of-selection; marketing; eating behaviors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Determine the effects of a short-term, multifaceted, point-of-selection intervention on college students' perceptions and selection of 10 targeted healthful foods in a university dining hall and changes in their self-reported overall eating behaviors. Participants: 104 college students, (age 18-23) completed pre-I and post-I surveys. Methods: Pre-survey collected at dining hall in April 2007, followed by 3-week intervention then post-survey collected via email. Healthy choice indicators, large signs, table tents, flyers and colorful photographs with benefit-based messages promoted targeted foods. Response rate to both surveys was 38%. Results: Significantly more participants reported that healthful choices were clearly identified in the dining hall after the intervention. Over 20% of participants reported becoming more aware of healthful food choices in the dining hall after the intervention. Significant increases in self-reported intake were reported for cottage cheese and low-fat salad dressing, with a trend toward increased consumption of fresh fruit. Seven of the 14 assessed eating behaviors had significant changes in the desired direction. Increased awareness of healthful foods was the top reason for self-reported changes in overall eating behaviors. Conclusion: Short-term, multi-faceted, point-of-selection marketing of healthful foods in university dining halls may be beneficial for improving college students' perceptions and selections of targeted healthful foods in the dining hall and may improve overall eating behaviors of college students.

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

4.2
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