Unhealthy diet is a primary risk factor for noncommunicable diseases. University student populations are known to engage in health risking lifestyle behaviours including risky eating behaviours. The purpose of this study was to examine eating behaviour patterns in a population of British university students using a two-step cluster analysis. Consumption prevalence of snack, convenience, and fast foods in addition to fruit and vegetables was measured using a self-report “Student Eating Behaviours” questionnaire on 345 undergraduate university students. Four clusters were identified: “risky eating behaviours,” “mixed eating behaviours,” “moderate eating behaviours,” and “favourable eating behaviours.” Nineteen percent of students were categorised as having “favourable eating behaviours” whilst just under a third of students were categorised within the two most risky clusters. Riskier eating behaviour patterns were associated with living on campus and Christian faith. The findings of this study highlight the importance of university microenvironments on eating behaviours in university student populations. Religion as a mediator of eating behaviours is a novel finding.
Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) continue to be the leading cause of chronic illness, disability, and mortality globally [
Comparison of studies examining the prevalence of eating behaviours in student populations is difficult due to the different ways in which eating behaviours have been measured and reported and differences in the demographic characteristics of the students sampled. That said, trends are beginning to emerge that suggest cause for concern. Published figures suggest more than a third of students consume snack foods “at least several times a week” [
The reported prevalence of fast food consumption, three or more times per week [
World Health Organisation (WHO) and United Kingdom (UK) guidelines recommend a minimum consumption of five portions of fruit and vegetables each day. Average daily consumption by university students has been found to range from 2.2 to 3.8 portions per day [
Only one study [
Eating behaviours have been reported to differ by sex [
Despite evidence demonstrating that health and lifestyle behaviours coexist [
Presently, resources to address the growing prevalence of NCDs are stretched [
The limited research on students’ unhealthy eating behaviours is not conclusive. Clarity of eating behaviour patterns is essential in this population to ensure that appropriate interventions are introduced which will encourage health promoting eating behaviour practices [
Data collection took place in a single English university with an undergraduate population of 1,707 undergraduate students. Three hundred and forty-five undergraduate students (20.2% of the population) volunteered to complete a “Student Eating Behaviour Questionnaire.” Questionnaires were administered during lecture time. Data was collected across the academic year of 2014-2015. Ethical approval was received from the institutional research ethics committee prior to data collection. Students were provided with an information sheet and consent form to complete before completing the self-report questionnaire. Sample characteristics are presented in Table
Sample characteristics.
Age (years) (mean (SD)) | 21.4 (4.7) |
Sex ( |
|
Male | 117 (33.9) |
Female | 228 (66.1) |
BMI (kg⋅m−2) (mean ± SD) | 23.5 (4.0) |
BMI classification (%) | |
Underweight | 5.0 |
Normal weight | 69.1 |
Overweight | 19.6 |
Obese | 6.3 |
Ethnicity (%) | |
White | 70.9 |
Mixed | 5.2 |
Asian or Asian British | 17.2 |
Black British | 4.1 |
Chinese | 0.3 |
Other | 2.3 |
Religion (%) | |
Christian | 48.8 |
Hindu | 1.5 |
Muslim | 15.2 |
Sikh | 2.1 |
Atheist | 26.2 |
Other | 6.3 |
Living arrangement (%) | |
On campus | 18.1 |
Off campus | 81.9 |
Year of study (%) | |
1 | 43.8 |
2 | 28.1 |
3 | 26.4 |
4 | 1.4 |
5 | 0.3 |
A self-administered survey titled “Student Eating Behaviours” was developed based on previously validated questions that had been used within the literature. The questionnaire included questions on the following.
Three hundred and forty-five British undergraduate students (66% female; 71% white; 49% Christian; 82% living off campus; 44% first year of study) volunteered to complete a questionnaire. BMI was defined by the American College of Sports Medicine (2010) criteria. Mean BMI was 23.5 ± 4.0. Sixty-nine percent of students were classified as normal weight by BMI; 25.9% were classified as overweight or obese. Demographic characteristics are shown in Table
The cluster analysis technique revealed four distinct clusters (Table
Mean scores and percentages for the four clusters of British students at a UK university in 2014-2015.
Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
( |
( |
( |
( |
|
Risky eating behaviours | Mixed eating behaviours | Moderate eating behaviours | Favourable eating behaviours | |
Mean (%) | ||||
|
||||
Snacking (per day) |
2.03 |
4.69 |
1.29 | 1.59 |
Convenience food consumption (per week) | 7.07 |
2.53 |
1.47 | 0.96 |
Fast food consumption (per week) | 4.2 |
1.89 |
1.19 | 0.85 |
Fruit and vegetable consumption (per day) | 2.88 | 3.44 | 2.69 | 7.10 |
|
||||
Religion |
|
|||
Christian | 26.2 | 12.2 | 45.7 | 15.9 |
Hindu | 0.0 | 0.0 | 80.0 | 20.0 |
Muslim | 19.6 | 23.5 | 39.2 | 17.6 |
Sikh | 0 | 42.9 | 28.6 | 28.6 |
Atheist | 8.0 | 10.2 | 61.4 | 20.5 |
Other | 19.0 | 0.0 | 57.1 | 23.8 |
Living arrangement |
|
|||
On campus | 27.1 | 4.8 | 59.7 | 8.1 |
Off campus | 16.4 | 15.0 | 47.9 | 20.7 |
Age |
|
|||
Sex |
|
|||
BMI |
|
|||
Ethnicity |
|
Significant differences were found between the clusters, across religion (
Between cluster differences.
Cluster 1 versus 2 | Cluster 1 versus 3 | Cluster 1 versus 4 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
Religion | ( |
( |
( |
|||
Christian (%) | 68.3 | 31.7 | 36.4 | 63.6 | 62.3 | 37.7 |
Hindu (%) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
Muslim (%) | 45.5 | 54.5 | 33.3 | 66.7 | 52.6 | 47.4 |
Sikh (%) | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
Atheist (%) | 43.8 | 56.3 | 11.5 | 88.5 | 28.0 | 72.0 |
Other (%) | 100.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 75.0 | 44.4 | 55.6 |
|
||||||
Living arrangement | ( |
( |
( |
|||
On campus (%) | 85.0 | 15.0 | 31.5 | 68.5 | 77.3 | 22.7 |
Off campus (%) | 52.3 | 47.7 | 25.6 | 74.4 | 44.2 | 55.8 |
|
||||||
Cluster 2 versus 3 | Cluster 2 versus 4 | Cluster 3 versus 4 | ||||
2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | |
|
||||||
Religion | ( |
( |
( |
|||
Christian (%) | 21.1 | 78.9 | 43.5 | 56.5 | 74.3 | 25.7 |
Hindu (%) | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 80.0 | 20.0 |
Muslim (%) | 37.5 | 62.5 | 57.1 | 42.9 | 69.0 | 31.0 |
Sikh (%) | 60.0 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 40.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 |
Atheist (%) | 14.3 | 85.7 | 33.3 | 66.7 | 75.0 | 25.0 |
Other (%) | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 70.6 | 29.4 |
|
||||||
Living arrangement | ( |
( |
( |
|||
On campus (%) | 7.5 | 92.5 | 37.5 | 62.5 | 88.1 | 11.9 |
Off campus (%) | 23.9 | 76.1 | 42.0 | 58.0 | 69.8 | 30.2 |
Significant differences between clusters 1 and 2 and clusters 1 and 4 and living arrangement were observed with a higher percentage of students living on campus found in cluster 1. Significant associations between clusters 2 and 3 and living arrangement were observed with cluster 3 being characterised by both a higher percentage of students living on campus and a higher percentage of students living off campus. Significant associations between clusters 3 and 4 and living arrangement were observed with a higher percentage of students living on campus found in cluster 3. No significant associations were found between clusters 1 and 3 or clusters 2 and 4 and living arrangement. Data are presented in Table
MANOVA revealed significant differences between the clusters and eating behaviours (
Unhealthy diet is one of the four primary preventable risk factors for NCDs [
Snack and convenience and fast food consumption were clearly shown to cluster together with a high prevalence of these behaviours characterising cluster 1 and a low prevalence of these behaviours characterising cluster 4, with significant differences observed for fruit and vegetable and convenience and fast food consumption. Furthermore, clear distinctions between cluster 2 (mixed eating behaviours) and cluster 3 (moderate eating behaviours) can be observed with significant differences for snack and convenience food consumption.
In contrast to previous research on diet and eating behaviours, clusters were found not to differ by sex although differences were observed by living arrangement and religion. A higher proportion of students living on campus were found in cluster 1 (risky eating behaviours) and cluster 3 (moderate eating behaviours). Research has reported students living outside of the family home to consume fewer fruit and vegetables [
Religion has been reported to have a protective effect against health and lifestyle risk behaviours including risky alcohol consumption [
The findings of this study reaffirm the role of the university microenvironment, particularly on campus living, in eating behaviours in university student populations. Suggested explanations for this include financial restrictions [
The findings of this study should be considered with acknowledgement of the limitations. In comparison to other studies examining health behaviours in university student populations, the findings of this study are based on a relatively small sample size. Sample size was influenced by the total number of undergraduates at the chosen university and is sufficient for the analyses chosen. Thus the relatively small sample should be taken into consideration when reviewing the findings, especially within the analyses that assessed differences between the clusters and the separate factors, for example, gender and BMI. Data was collected by means of a self-report questionnaire and therefore recall error is possible. Furthermore, behaviours during the last seven days may not be representative of typical behaviour. Data reported is cross-sectional and therefore causation cannot be inferred. Finally clusters identified are population specific and thus the findings cannot be generalised [
Unhealthy and healthy eating behaviours have been shown to cluster together in an English university student population. Moreover riskier patterns of eating behaviour were observed in students living on campus and of Christian faith. Universities have a duty of care to their students and therefore the finding that students who spend greater amounts of time on campus are engaging in riskier eating behaviours should be cause for concern for university leaders. Further understanding of the factors shaping the eating behaviours of students living on English university campuses including analysis of university microenvironments is needed. Research to affirm the relationship and to clarify the mechanisms (e.g., social support and cultural expectation) underpinning the relationship between religion and lifestyle behaviours may enable lessons to be learnt that can foster health promoting behaviours.
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.