Evaluation of the food store environment on and near the campus of 15 postsecondary institutions.

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.

Assessment of the dining environment on and near the campuses of fifteen post-secondary institutions.

OBJECTIVE: The present study evaluated the restaurant and dining venues on and near post-secondary campuses varying in institution size. DESIGN: The Nutrition Environment Measures Survey for Restaurants (NEMS-R) was modified to evaluate restaurants as fast food, sit down and fast casual; and campus dining venues as dining halls, student unions and snack bar/cafe´s. ANOVA with post hoc Tukey's B and T tests were used to distinguish differences between dining venues and associated institutions by size. SETTING: The study was conducted at fifteen US post-secondary institutions, 2009­2011. SUBJECTS: Data presented are from a sample of 175 restaurants and sixty-eight on-campus dining venues. RESULTS: There were minimal differences in dining halls by institution size, although medium-sized institutions as compared with small-sized institutions offered significantly more healthful side dish/salad bar items. Dining halls scored significantly higher than student unions or snack bar/cafe´s on healthful entre´es, side dish/salad bar and beverages offerings, but they also had the most barriers to healthful dietary habits (i.e. all-you-can-eat). No differences were found by restaurant type for NEMS-R scores for total restaurant dining environment or healthful entre´es and barriers. Snack bars had more healthful side dishes (P50?002) and fast-food restaurants had the highest level of facilitators (i.e. nutrition information; P50?002). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this evaluation in fifteen institutions, the full campus dining environment provides limited support for healthy eating and obesity prevention. The quality of campus dining environments can be improved via healthful offerings, providing nutrition information and other supports to facilitate healthy eating and prevent unwanted weight gain.