FOOD HABITS AND FOOD AWARENESS AMONG UNIVERSITY FEMALE STUDENTS: COMPARATIVE STUDY

Introduction

 The transition from adolescence to adulthood is a critical stage in young people’s life. Moreover, the interplay of social, psychological, and biological changes characteristic of this transitional period make them vulnerable to health problems and several risky behaviors, particularly unhealthy eating habits (Ganasegeran et al., 2012 and Aucott et al., 2014).

 Changes are taking place in the food habits of the present-day Egyptians. Recent decades have witnessed the progressive erosion of the traditionalEgyptian diet and insert new foods and eating habits (Abdel-Hady, and Ragaa; 2011).

 (Mota et al., 2008) reported that main meals are often defined as eating breakfast, lunch and dinner. Researchers have regarded skipping breakfast as a behavior associated with the risk of becoming overweight during adolescence (Croezen et al., 2009 and Berkey et al., 2003).

 (Najat et al., 2008)noted that Female students showed healthier eating habits compared to male students in terms of breakfast intake and meal frequency. 53.3% female students reported eating breakfast daily or three to four times per week compared to 52.1% male students.

 (Abdallah et al., 2010) found that eating snacks was a common habit among students and its daily consumption was reported in 31.7% of them. With the exception of dates which are taken at least three times weekly by 60.5% of students, vegetables and fruits were not frequently consumed.

 Relatively dietary behavior, they found that an association between the consumption of sugar-sweetened beveragesand obesity (Keller; 2015).

 (Vermeulen et al., 2017) found that no consistent evidence was found that consumption of a dietary pattern, high in nutrients that are hypothesized to protect against depression, was associated with lower depressive symptoms across different ethnic groups.

 A recent study conducted among college students reported that increased knowledge of dietary guidance, Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005, appeared to be positively related to healthier eating patterns thus the better eaters had a higher level of knowledge about nutrition (Kolodinsky et al., 2007).

 This work aimed to: compare the food habits and food awareness among Damietta university female students in the years 2007 and 2016.

Subjects and Methods

 A random sample of 211and 174 university female students in the years 2007 and 2016 respectively, aged 18-23 years, were selected from Damietta University.

The study contains three questionnaires; as follows:

1)Indicate general data: name and age

2): Indicate educational family level and family occupation level

3): Recognize food habits.

4): Recognize food awareness. (Abd El-Salam, 1998 and Mehelba, 1999).

Statistical analysis

Data analysis was performed using spss.

T test was conducted to determine the existence of differences.

For all statistically significant at the p < 0.05 levels in bivariate analyses were included in the multivariable models. (Hebaet al., 2016).

Results and Discussion

 The data in table (1) and Figure (1) showed the comparison of female students by their family education level in 2007 and 2016. It is noted that 53 (25.1%) in 2007 in compare with 44 (25.3%) in 2016 of female students´ father were high education level (university education), while 52 (24.6%) in 2007 in compare with 45 (25.8%) in 2016 of female students´ father were middle education level (secondary education), also 23 (10.9%) in 2007 in compare with 9 (5.2%) in 2016 of female students´ father were low education level (illiteracy education). This proved that the most of female students´ father in 2007 were in high education level in compare with the same in 2016 the most of female students´ father were middle education level.

 Relationship between father education level in 2007 and 2016 indicated that the difference is considered to be not statistically significant in Significant level 0.05(t = 1.362, P value= 0.1785).

 In this regard for female students´ mother it is noted that 43 (20.4%) in 2007 in compare with 39(22.4%) in 2016 were high education level (university education), while 60 (28.4%) in 2007 in compare with 59 (33.9%) in 2016 were middle education level (secondary education). This proved that the most of female students´ mother in 2007 and 2016 were in middle education level.

 Relationship between mother education level in 2007 and 2016 indicated that the difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant in Significant level 0.05 (t = 3.339, P value= 0.0008).

 In this respect, Abd El-Salam (1998) reported that maximal prevalence of Low Education level, Middle Education level, and High Education level in normal weight (%40), (%49.5) and (%49.4) respectively.

Table (1): Frequency and distribution compare to students by their family education level in 2007 and 2016.

fig (1): Frequency and distribution compare to students by their family education level in 2007 and 2016.

t = 1.362                      P value = 0.1785 (fathers)

t = 3.3391                    P value = 0.0008 (mothers)

 The results in table (2) and Figure (2) showed the comparison of female students by their family occupation level in 2007 and 2016. It is noted that 94 (44.5%) in 2007 in compare with 86 (49.4%) in 2016 of female students´ father were workers, while 99 (46.9%) in 2007 in comparing with76 (43.7%) in 2016 of female students´ father worked in (traditional- industrial- governmental). This proved that the most of female students´ father in 2007 works in (traditional- industrial- governmental), while in 2016 the most of female students´ father was a worker.

Relationship between father job level in 2007 and 2016 indicated that the difference is considered to be not statistically significant in Significant level 0.05(t = 1.544, P value= 0.1234).

 Regarding female students´ mother, It is noted that 142(67.3%) in 2007 in compare with 134(77%) in 2016 didn't work, while 64 (30.3%) in 2007 in compare with 32 (18.4%) in 2016 worked in (traditional- industrial- governmental). This proved that the most of female students´ mother in 2007 and 2016 didn't work.

Relationship between mother job level in 2007 and 2016 indicated that the difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant in Significant level 0.05 (t = 2.135, P value= 0.0334).

Table (2): Frequency and distribution compare to students by their family occupation level in 2007 and 2016.

Figure (2): Frequency and distribution compare to students by their family occupation level in 2007 and 2016.

t = 1.544                      P value= 0.1234 (fathers)

t = 2.135                      P value= 0.0334 (mothers)

 Data in table (3) and Figure (3) showed the comparison of female students by their daily main meals they took in 2007 and 2016. It is noted that most of female student 78 (37%), 85 (48.9%) eats breakfast, lunch, and dinner daily in the years 2007and 2016 respectively.

Relationship between daily main meals in 2007 and 2016 indicated that the difference is considered to be not statistically significant in Significant level 0.05 (t = .455, P value= 0.6494).

 These findings aren’t in agreement with Najat et al (2008) found that the majority of students (52.7%) reported eating two meals per day.

Table (3): Distribution of students according to main meals taken per day in 2007 and 2016.

Figure (3): Distribution of students according to main meals taken per day in 2007 and 2016.

t = 0.455                      P value= 0.6494

 The results in table (4) and Figure (4) showed the comparison of female students by their daily main meal they taken in 2007 and 2016. It is noted that most of female student 190 (90%), 134 (77%) eats lunch as a main meal daily in the years 2007and 2016 respectively.

Relationship between daily main meal in 2007 and 2016 indicated that the difference is considered to be not statistically significant in Significant level 0.05 (t = 1.104, P value= 0.2703).

 On the other hand Abdallah et al (2010) concluded that although irregular meals consumption was reported in 63.3% of students, the vast majority of them 88.6% have breakfast at least three times per week.

Table (4): Distribution of students according to main meal taken per day in 2007 and 2016.

Figure (4): Distribution of students according to main meal taken per day in 2007 and 2016.

t = 1.104                      P value= 0.2703         

 The data in table (5) and Figure (5) showed the comparison of female students according to eating between meals in 2007 and 2016. It is noted that most of female student 129(61%) ,81 (46.6%) sometimes eats between meals in the years 2007and 2016 respectively. while 40(19%) 49 (28.2%) not always eats between meals in the years 2007and 2016 respectively.

Relationship between eating between meals in 2007 and 2016 indicated that the difference is considered to be not statistically significant in Significant level 0.05 (t = 0.393, P value= 0.6945).

Table (5): Distribution of students by their eating between meals in 2007 and 2016.

Figure (5): Distribution of students by their eating between meals

in 2007 and 2016.

t = 0.393                      P value= 0.6945

The results in table (6) and Figure (6) showed the comparison of female students according to time of eat between meals in 2007 and 2016. It is noted that 77(36.5%) in 2007and 48 (27.6%) in 2016 of female student eating between breakfast and lunch. while 59(28%) in 2007and 64 (36.8%) in 2016 of female student eating between lunch and dinner.

Relationship between time of eat between meals in 2007 and 2016 indicated that the difference is considered to be not statistically significant in Significant level 0.05 (t = 1.385, P value= 0.1669).

Table (6): Distribution of students according to time of eats between meals in 2007 and 2016.

Figure (6): Distribution of students according to time of eats between meals

in 2007 and 2016.

t = 1.385                      P value= 0.1669

The results in table (7) and Figure (7) showed the comparison of female students according to eating out of home in 2007 and 2016. It is noted that 163(77.3%) 115 (66.1%), of female student eating sometimes out of home in the years 2007and 2016 respectively. But 29(13.7%), 39 (22.4%) eating all the time out of home in the years 2007 and 2016 respectively.

Relationship between time of eating out of home in 2007 and 2016 indicated that the difference is considered to be not statistically significant in Significant level 0.05 (t = 1.156, P value= 0.2484).

 In this respect Najat et al (2008) reported that the unhealthy eating practice was indicated by the fact that the majority (57.3%) of the students reported eating fried food more than three times per week. Among females, 54% reported eating fried food daily or three to four times per week compared to 61.4% males. Daily intake of snacks apart from regular meals was more common among females than males (55.6% vs. 50% respectively).

Table (7): Distribution of students according to eating out of home in 2007 and 2016.

Figure (7): Distribution of students according to eating out of home in 2007 and 2016.

t = 1.156                      P value= 0.2484

 The data in table (8) and Figure (8) showed the comparison of female students according to making other things during eating in years 2007 and 2016. It is noted that 133(63%), 76 (43.7%) of female student making other things sometimes during eating in the years 2007and 2016 respectively. while 57(27%), 83 (47.7%) don’t make other any things during eating in the years 2007and 2016 respectively.

Relationship between making other things during eating in 2007 and 2016 indicated that the difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant in Significant level 0.05 (t = 3.484, P value= 0.0006).

Table (8): Distribution of students according to making other things during eating in years 2007 and 2016.

Figure (8): Distribution of students according to making other works during eating in 2007 and 2016.

t = 3.484                      P value= 0.0006

The data in table (9) and Figure (9) showed the comparison of female students according to eating when they are tension or boring in years 2007 and 2016. It is noted that the most of female student 110(52.1%), 71 (40.8%) don’t eat anything when they are tension or boring in the years 2007and 2016 respectively. While 82(38.9%), 60 (34.5%) eat sometimes when they are tension or boring in the years 2007and 2016 respectively.

Relationship between eating when they are tension or boring in 2007 and 2016 indicated that the difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant in Significant level 0.05 (t = 2.758, P value= 0.0006).

Table (9): Distribution of students according to eating because of tension or boring in 2007 and 2016.

Figure (9): Distribution of students according to eating because of tension or boring in 2007 and 2016.

t = 2.758                      P value= 0.0006

The results table (10) and Figure (10) showed the comparison of female students according to king of food eats between meals in years 2007 and 2016. It is noted that the most of female student 102(48.3%), 86 (49.4%) eats snacks in the years 2007and 2016 respectively, While 80(38%), 83 (47.7%) eats fruits, vegetables, and fresh juice in the years 2007and 2016 respectively.

Relationship between king of food eats between meals in 2007 and 2016 indicated that the difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant in Significant level 0.05 (t = 3.199, P value= 0.0015).

 On the other hand Abdallah et al (2010) reported that the percentage of students who rarely eat vegetables and fruits were respectively 32.2% and 36.1%, and those who eat them once or twice per week were 32.2% and 40.3%.

Table (10): Distribution of students by their foods eats between meals in 2007 and 2016.

Figure (10): Distribution of students by their foods eats between meals in 2007 and 2016.

t = 3.199                      P value= 0.0015

 The results in table (11) and Figure (11) showed the comparison of female students according to their preferred place for eating in years 2007 and 2016. It is noted that the most of female student 160(75.8%), 108 (62.1%) preferred Watching TV when they eating in the years 2007and 2016 respectively, While 51(24.2%), 66 (37.9%) preferred eating in another place like kitchen or living room table or in bed room in the years 2007and 2016 respectively.

Relationship between preferr place to eat in 2007 and 2016 indicated that the difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant in Significant level 0.05 (t = 3.199, P value= 0.0015).

Table (11): Frequency and distribution of students by their preferred place to eat in 2007 and 2016.

Figure (11): Frequency and distribution of students by their preferred place to eat in 2007 and 2016.

t = 2.947                      P value= 0.0034

 The results in table (12) and Figure (12) showed the comparison of female students according to people they eat with in years 2007 and 2016. It is noted that the most of female student 150(71.1%), 110 (63.2%) eating with their family in the years 2007and 2016 respectively, While 44(20.9%), 46 (26.4%) eating alone in the years 2007and 2016 respectively.

Relationship between people they eating with in 2007 and 2016 indicated that the difference is considered to be not statistically significant in Significant level 0.05 (t = 1.512, P value= 0.1314).

 This finding are in agreement with Abdallah et al (2010) noted that sharing meals with family was a common habit among the students; 66.4% of them eat daily with their families.

Table (12): Frequency and distribution of student according to people they eating with in 2007 and 2016.

Figure (12): Frequency and distribution of student according to people they eating with in 2007 and 2016.

t = 1.512                      P value= 0.1314

The data in table (13) and Figure (13) showed the comparison of female students according to food awareness in years 2007 and 2016. It is noted that 87(41.2%), 58 (33.3%) of female student were good food awareness in the years 2007and 2016 respectively, While 104(49.3%), 43 (24.7%) were medium food awareness in the years 2007and 2016 respectively, and 20(9.5%), 73 (41.9%) were poor food awareness in the years 2007and 2016 respectively.

Relationship between feeding awareness in 2007 and 2016 indicated that the difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant in Significant level 0.05 (t = 5.257, P value= 0.0001).

Table (13): Frequency and distribution of students by their feeding awareness in 2007 and 2016.

Figure (13): Frequency and distribution of students by their feeding awareness in 2007 and 2016.

t = 5.257                      P value= 0.0001

Conclusion

 In conclusion, the results showed that female university students in 2007 have food awareness more than in 2016. However, most female students prefer eating when they watching TV. Recommendation

1.   Other studies are needed for all age groups to study food awareness and food habits.

2.   Media should Highlights for food habits.