PURPOSE: This study evaluated the food stores on and near postsecondary campuses varying in institutional size. DESIGN: The design of the study is an environmental audit survey. SETTING: Fifteen U.S. postsecondary education institutions participated in this study between 2009-2011. SUBJECTS: Eighty-one stores (44% grocery, 17% campus, and 39% convenience/drug) were evaluated. MEASURES: The Nutrition Environment Measures Survey for Stores was modified to evaluate food stores. Analysis. Analysis of variance with post hoc Tukey B and t-tests assessed differences between store types and by institutional size. RESULTS: Grocery stores had significantly higher scores than campus/convenience stores for healthy foods (19.5 ± 3.8 vs. 2.4 ± 1.7), and for the availability (19.5 ± 3.8 vs. 2.4 ± 1.7) and quality (5.9 ± 0.5 vs. 1.8 ± 2.2) of fruits/vegetables (p < .001). Healthy foods and beverages were significantly more expensive (-0.6 ± 3.4 vs. 0.9 ± 2.0; p < .031) than their less healthful alternatives in grocery stores, but not in convenience stores. There were no differences by institutional size for grocery stores; however, smaller institutions' convenience stores had significantly lower availability and quality of fruits/vegetables and total food store environment scores. CONCLUSION: A college campus provides a food environment with an array of shopping venues, most of which are not consistent with dietary recommendations for obesity prevention. The limited quality of healthy food in on-campus and convenience stores and the exacerbated deficiencies for small postsecondary institutions provide evidence to support environmental and policy initiatives to improve the quality of campus food store environments.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the food stores on and near postsecondary campuses varying in institutional size. DESIGN: The design of the study is an environmental audit survey. SETTING: Fifteen U.S. postsecondary education institutions participated in this study between 2009-2011. SUBJECTS: Eighty-one stores (44% grocery, 17% campus, and 39% convenience/drug) were evaluated. MEASURES: The Nutrition Environment Measures Survey for Stores was modified to evaluate food stores. Analysis. Analysis of variance with post hoc Tukey B and t-tests assessed differences between store types and by institutional size. RESULTS: Grocery stores had significantly higher scores than campus/convenience stores for healthy foods (19.5 ± 3.8 vs. 2.4 ± 1.7), and for the availability (19.5 ± 3.8 vs. 2.4 ± 1.7) and quality (5.9 ± 0.5 vs. 1.8 ± 2.2) of fruits/vegetables (p < .001). Healthy foods and beverages were significantly more expensive (-0.6 ± 3.4 vs. 0.9 ± 2.0; p < .031) than their less healthful alternatives in grocery stores, but not in convenience stores. There were no differences by institutional size for grocery stores; however, smaller institutions' convenience stores had significantly lower availability and quality of fruits/vegetables and total food store environment scores. CONCLUSION: A college campus provides a food environment with an array of shopping venues, most of which are not consistent with dietary recommendations for obesity prevention. The limited quality of healthy food in on-campus and convenience stores and the exacerbated deficiencies for small postsecondary institutions provide evidence to support environmental and policy initiatives to improve the quality of campus food store environments.
Authors: Melissa D Olfert; Makenzie L Barr; Anne E Mathews; Tanya M Horacek; Kristin Riggsbee; Wenjun Zhou; Sarah E Colby Journal: J Am Coll Health Date: 2020-04-28
Authors: Marilyn Tseng; Kelsey DeGreef; Madison Fishler; Rachel Gipson; Kelly Koyano; Dawn B Neill Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Melissa D Olfert; Makenzie L Barr; Rebecca L Hagedorn; Rachel A Wattick; Wenjun Zhou; Tanya M Horacek; Anne E Mathews; Kendra K Kattelmann; Tandalayo Kidd; Adrienne A White; Onikia N Brown; Jesse Stabile Morrell; Lisa Franzen-Castle; Karla P Shelnutt; Carol Byrd-Bredbenner; Terezie Tolar-Peterson; Geoffrey W Greene; Sarah E Colby Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2020-05-07
Authors: Davina Mann; Janelle Kwon; Shaan Naughton; Sinead Boylan; Jasmine Chan; Karen Charlton; Jane Dancey; Carolyn Dent; Amanda Grech; Victoria Hobbs; Sophie Lamond; Sandra Murray; Melissa Yong; Gary Sacks Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Melissa D Olfert; Rebecca L Hagedorn; Makenzie L Barr; Oluremi A Famodu; Jessica M Rubino; Jade A White Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-09-29 Impact factor: 3.390