OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe factors associated with food shop (known as tuck shop in South Africa) and lunchbox behaviours of primary-school learners in South Africa. DESIGN: Analysis of data collected in 2008 from a cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Sixteen primary schools in the Western Cape, South Africa. SUBJECTS: A total of 717 grade 4 learners aged 10-12 years. RESULTS: A 24 h recall established that 69 % of learners carried a lunchbox to school and 49 % had consumed at least one item purchased from the school food shop/vendor. Most lunchboxes contained white bread with processed meat, whereas the most frequent food shop/vendor purchase comprised chips/crisps. Learners who carried a lunchbox to school had significantly lower BMI percentiles (P = 0·002) and BMI-for-age (P = 0·034), compared with their counterparts. Moreover, they were younger, had higher standard-of-living and dietary diversity scores, consumed more meals per day, had greater self-efficacy and came from predominantly urban schools, compared with those who did not carry a lunchbox to school. Learners who ate food shop/vendor purchases had a lower standard-of-living score and higher dietary diversity and meal scores. Only 2 % of learners were underweight, whereas 19 % were stunted and 21 % were overweight/obese (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2). CONCLUSIONS: Children who carried a lunchbox to school appeared to have greater dietary diversity, consumed more regular meals, had a higher standard of living and greater nutritional self-efficacy compared with those who did not carry a lunchbox to school.
OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe factors associated with food shop (known as tuck shop in South Africa) and lunchbox behaviours of primary-school learners in South Africa. DESIGN: Analysis of data collected in 2008 from a cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Sixteen primary schools in the Western Cape, South Africa. SUBJECTS: A total of 717 grade 4 learners aged 10-12 years. RESULTS: A 24 h recall established that 69 % of learners carried a lunchbox to school and 49 % had consumed at least one item purchased from the school food shop/vendor. Most lunchboxes contained white bread with processed meat, whereas the most frequent food shop/vendor purchase comprised chips/crisps. Learners who carried a lunchbox to school had significantly lower BMI percentiles (P = 0·002) and BMI-for-age (P = 0·034), compared with their counterparts. Moreover, they were younger, had higher standard-of-living and dietary diversity scores, consumed more meals per day, had greater self-efficacy and came from predominantly urban schools, compared with those who did not carry a lunchbox to school. Learners who ate food shop/vendor purchases had a lower standard-of-living score and higher dietary diversity and meal scores. Only 2 % of learners were underweight, whereas 19 % were stunted and 21 % were overweight/obese (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2). CONCLUSIONS:Children who carried a lunchbox to school appeared to have greater dietary diversity, consumed more regular meals, had a higher standard of living and greater nutritional self-efficacy compared with those who did not carry a lunchbox to school.
Authors: Anniza de Villiers; Nelia P Steyn; Catherine E Draper; Jillian Hill; Lucinda Dalais; Jean Fourie; Carl Lombard; Gerhard Barkhuizen; Estelle V Lambert Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-08-22 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Stella K Muthuri; Claire E Francis; Lucy-Joy M Wachira; Allana G Leblanc; Margaret Sampson; Vincent O Onywera; Mark S Tremblay Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nelia P Steyn; Johanna H Nel; Linda Drummond; Sonia Malczyk; Marjanne Senekal Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Nelia P Steyn; Anniza de Villiers; Nomonde Gwebushe; Catherine E Draper; Jillian Hill; Marina de Waal; Lucinda Dalais; Zulfa Abrahams; Carl Lombard; Estelle V Lambert Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-09-23 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Alice P Okeyo; Eunice Seekoe; Anniza de Villiers; Mieke Faber; Johanna H Nel; Nelia P Steyn Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 3.390