Food hubs, limited both in terms of physical and social access to adequate, safe, and healthy foods that satisfy food preferences and nutritional needs, are a growing health issue among young people in postsecondary schools, and the higher education that follows high school instruction, such as universities, colleges, and institutes. The estimates suggest that up to 20% or more than 50% of students in postsecondary institutions suffer from food insecurity, which is between three and four times greater than the average person. The greater numbers of people suffering from food insecurity result from the combination of several different factors. Students are enrolled in an increasing number of students with lower socioeconomic status, higher levels of diverse ethnic and racial groups, and an unprecedented number of international students who are more susceptible to experiencing the effects of food insecurity. A rising cost of living, the high price of higher education post-secondary, the insufficient funding for financial aid and bursaries, the greater the financial burden of low and middle-income families, as well as in certain countries, such as the United States, the exclusion of certain postsecondary students from programs like those offered by the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program further increase the likelihood of hunger. Students suffering from the effects of food insecurity tend to be more likely to suffer from less healthy health conditions, such as obesity, diabetes, and depression, as well as general self-rated health. Students with insecurity about food are also more likely to suffer from worse academic performance, lower scores, academic delays, and a greater chance of being dropped out. Growing awareness of the problem of food insecurity among postsecondary institutions and its wider implications is generating the need for strategies to create efficient, sustainable, and robust strategies to increase support for students’ hunger on postsecondary campuses.
Food Hub Methods
The establishment of food banks or food pantries for the local community or at postsecondary institutions is one of the most frequent responses to address the issue of food insecurity. These are places that offer donated or purchased food items that are accessible for free for individuals and families. While food banks can play a significant role in providing immediate accessibility to food, research shows that they are not able to improve general food security within communities at postsecondary institutions and on postsecondary campuses. Food banks concentrate on providing food rather than addressing the primary reason for food insecurity, which is income. This suggests that using food banks can be one of the less commonly used strategies for households that are severely insecure and faced with financial difficulties. Food bank services have been criticised because of their inability to cater to people’s nutritional needs, and for not allowing people to access food with dignity and in an acceptable way. Policies on housing and income can be crucial to promoting the security of food, however, when there are no system adjustments, alternative food initiatives (AFIs), including community gardens, cooking improvement programs, kitchens for communities, farmers’ markets food waste “rescue” programs, low-cost markets for food, and food budgeting, among others, can be effective ways to empower individuals to lessen the burden of hunger. The main criticism of AFIs is the lack of involvement by those who are most vulnerable to food vulnerability, such as those with low incomes, and marginalized, racialized, and vulnerable groups, in the design of programs. The food hub is increasingly used as a term to refer to a place of gathering (physical or virtual) that serves as the basis for resilient food systems. While food hubs can be different based on communities’ requirements, they typically comprise multiple AFIs, which provide accessibility to food and food education and wellness programs as well as the wraparound program (e.g. the employment service or enrolment for the public health benefits). Food hubs could look at food banks as an individual part rather than the whole of the solution that they provide and therefore can be an effective, sustainable, and sustainable approach to the problem of food security. Food hubs may provide a platform to build connections among community residents and facilitate participation in the community. While they are promising, food hubs are very new in developing sustainable and dignified systems for food security. The best way to achieve this is uncertain and can differ based on the location and population of each intervention. This scoping review was done alongside a group (staff, students, and faculty) participatory action study at the University of British Columbia Vancouver (UBC-V) campus. All participants aimed to determine the best techniques and efficient strategies that could guide the design and establishment the establishment of a food hub that will aid in reducing the impact of hunger on campus. The purpose of this scoping study was to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of existing strategies or interventions to support food hubs at post-secondary institutions across North America. The research issue was found in the literature on the best practices and effectiveness of food hubs, or other similar structures that help promote food security. The results might be relevant to the work we do at UBC-V as well as having broader significance to institutions of higher education that are considering ways to deal with hunger on campus.
Prisma Extension For the Scoping Reviews
The checklist was used to inform the conduct and reporting of the scoping review, including defining the population of interest, searching, and data extraction strategies. A reference librarian at UBC developed the scoping review search strategy, which used four databases, Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CAB Direct, and Web of Science. MeSH terms and keywords included variations of the terms “food security,” “food supply,” “food or cooking,” “universities,” and “students” in the title, subject headings, and abstract. See Supplementary Materials Table S1 for details. The research team (SS, YJG, and HSMPC) carried out the search plan. For selection and screening, every search result was exported from the corresponding database and imported into Covidence (Melbourne, Australia). Articles that fulfilled the following inclusion criteria—being published within the last ten years (2011–2021), taking place in a higher education setting, and describing an intervention, a summary of AFIs, or a food hub to address food security—were included in the scoping review. Exclusion criteria were food hubs that focused on the distribution of local foods and farmers’ revenue, community food hubs (i.e., those not in a post-secondary institution setting), settings outside of North America, focus on dietary/nutrition assessment or food safety, food security initiatives related to children/pediatrics/elementary/middle/high school, manuscripts with a sole focus on emergency food hub supply models (e.g., food banks or food pantries), or manuscripts not published in English. To choose the manuscripts that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, two reviewers (SS and RAM) independently went through each of the identified titles and abstracts. The agreement for the initial screen was 80%. Those with differing opinions were reviewed and discussed, and consensus was reached. Both reviewers also conducted the full screening of articles that were included in the title and abstract screenings. The agreement for the full-text review was 95%. Following a discussion, the lone conflicting article was later removed. After the manuscripts were chosen, SS summarized the study’s setting, duration, design, target population, and distinctive features. It also extracted the main conclusions, advantages, and disadvantages from each manuscript as needed.
Brief Overview of the Study’s Screen and Identification for Food Hubs
The studies all took place in postsecondary schools in the United States. The studies included a variety of designs, including only one case study, a pre-post research study for 7 months, an overall overview, and cross-sectional research. The duration of the research varied between a single point in time. The studies did not have an AFI with a food hub. One study (Frank and al.) concentrated on the assessment of one AFI—a food rescue programme, whereas Ullevig et al, and Morgan et al. [21] focused on several AFIs, a food pantry and community garden in Ullevig et al., and an education in food literacy that spans the effectiveness of cooking and food skills within Morgan et al. One study (Hagedorn et al described the creation of a toolkit to help in the development of multi-AFIs, but not necessarily for a food hub. Three studies that included students differed based on their demographics with a majority of Caucasian participants (92 percent) for Morgan et al, predominantly Hispanic (37 percent) as well as African American (22%) participants in Ullevig et al. Food vulnerability was a common theme in all three research studies on students, ranging from a low number of 28% to a peak of 59 percent. More details on the research studies that were included are located in Table 1. The studies all reported the success of their respective research outcomes, but the study outcomes were too different to determine the common factors that contributed to achievement ( Table 2). In terms of individual studies, major takeaways include that staff must be involved to reduce the effect on student retention within AFIs and a greater awareness of the issue of food hub insecurity as well as the importance of sustainability (Ullevig et al., The program for Food Rescue, as well as the food literacy program. Both reported favourable experiences for participants in these studies. In particular, there were positive outcomes noted from the pilot study conducted by Frank and Co. The study by Frank et al. included reduced food use of food as well as the normalization of food rescue. Some notable successes are the cost-effective and simple approach to the food rescue program online that they noted will help scale it up. In addition to an improvement in self-efficacy based on food literacy and confidence with cooking as well as culinary skills in just 11 weeks, Based on research by Hagedorn and colleagues,. Based on the findings of Hagedorn et al.,. The attention paid to content, layout, and initiatives/programs included as part of a toolkit for facilitating the implementation of AFIs is crucial for adoption by the stakeholders that will oversee the implementation. The studies all found barriers and weaknesses that hinder the effectiveness of AFIs and their broader objectives of attaining the goal of ensuring food security. For instance, Ullevig et al. stated that there was insufficient awareness of the program (community gardens and food pantry) as well as limited access to refrigeration, limiting the types of food donations. The program for food rescue observed that some of the participants complained that their experiences in the program were uncomfortable and that food was hard to locate or was running out. It was not possible to establish whether the number of food hubs wasted decreased (not an objectively measured goal) and the effect of the program on students’ hunger, food insecurity, and various other factors related to health, well-being, and academic performance. Morgan et al. Morgan et al. found that, despite the improvement in the area of food literacy, but no improvements in terms of food security. While the toolkit created by Hagedorn and Co. It was well received by all stakeholders, but they discovered obstacles to its implementation, including the need to build the research base for strategies to improve food security on postsecondary campuses. There is a lack of research that is available that provides an approach that is replicable for the implementation and evaluation of programs to combat food insecurity. In general, the research studies that are included in this review’s scoping report show positive results of various initiatives that address food hub insecurity for students attending post-secondary schools. Strategies like campus pantries and gardens, food rescue programs tools for food education in the classroom, and the planning and implementation of programs can help to address the community’s needs and broaden aid options that are not negative to ease the effects of hunger. However, the insufficient evidence to determine the extent to which AFI strategies are most efficient, appropriate, and viable in postsecondary institutions is a significant problem that prevents the recognition of the most effective practices and can be an obstacle to their application. The limited number of research studies that were identified during this review was especially striking considering the vast amount of research on AFIs and food hubs within communities. Research that outlines the processes involved in creating, implementing, and reviewing the food security programs on campus is essential for supporting larger institution-wide initiatives that improve the security of students’ food.
