Premium
Compliance with food safety recommendations among university undergraduates: Application of the health belief model
Author(s) -
Forsythe William A,
McArthur Laura,
Holbert Donald
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.20.5.a1010-b
Subject(s) - purchasing , psychological intervention , food safety , compliance (psychology) , environmental health , medicine , health belief model , health education , psychology , nursing , marketing , business , public health , social psychology , pathology
This study determined compliance with food safety recommendations among 357 university students, 112 males (31%) and 245 females (69%), and tested the ability of the Health Belief Model (HBM) to predict safe food‐handling practices. Percent variance explained (R‐square) was used to test the ability of the HBM to predict compliance. Concerning meats, 87% of the students “often/always” complied with recommended purchasing practices, 75% with storage practices, and 42% with preparation practices. Compliance was high with recommended purchasing (96%) and storage (99%) practices for raw eggs, but only 55% of students prepared eggs safely. Compliance was also high with purchasing (82%) and preparation (85%) recommendations for fresh produce/juices, and with purchasing (96%) and storage (99%) recommendations for dairy foods. Females used significantly more safe handling practices than males for meats (p=0.006), raw eggs (p=0.002), and produce/juices (p=0.001). Students who perceived foodborne illness as more severe adopted significantly more safe handling practices for meat (p=0.006) than students who perceived these illnesses as less severe. Students who perceived fewer barriers to compliance adopted significantly more safe handling practices for meat (p=0.001), eggs (p=0.015), and fruit (p=0.041) than students who perceived more barriers. Findings suggest a need for interventions that teach college men safe ways to prepare foods of animal origin, that emphasize the routes of microbial food contamination, and that teach how to overcome perceived barriers to using safe food‐handling practices. Additionally, validated instruments are needed to help health educators identify college students who are unwilling to adopt such practices.