Filling a Need: Sociodemographic and Educational Characteristics Among Student Clients of a University-Based Campus Food Bank

Food insecure student clients of a university‐based food bank have compromised health, dietary intake and academic quality

“…The Campus Food Bank is a registered charity that provides emergency food hampers to UAlberta students, staff and alumni. On average, 284 students receive food hampers in each school year . Students do not need to provide evidence of financial need to receive a hamper.…”

“…A secondary objective was to ascertain whether the study sample was representative of the general Campus Food Bank clientele. This research builds on previous studies designed to better understand student food insecurity at the food bank at UAlberta …”

Food insecurity among postsecondary students in developed countries

“…Of the 43 included studies, 37 (86 percent) were quantitative studies (Abbott et al , 2015; Farahbakhsh et al , 2015; Hanbazaza et al , 2016; Farahbakhsh et al , 2017; Hanbazaza et al , 2017; Bexely et al , 2013; Bianco et al , 2016; Biediger-Friedman et al , 2016; Bruening et al , 2016; Calvez et al , 2016; Chaparro et al , 2009; Danek, 2017; Entz et al , 2017; Espinoza, 2013; Eubanks, 2017; Freudenberg et al , 2011; Gaines et al , 2014; Gallegos et al , 2014; Goldrick-Rab et al , 2015, 2017; Gorman, 2014; Hanna, 2014; Hughes et al , 2011; Kaczerska et al , 2014; Kashuba, 2017; King, 2017; Knol et al , 2017; Koller, 2014; Lin et al , 2013; Maguire et al , 2016; Maroto et al , 2015; Martinez et al , 2016; Micevski et al , 2014; Miles et al , 2017; Mirabitur et al , 2016; Morris et al , 2016; Patton-Lopez et al , 2014; Payne-Sturges et al , 2017; Silva et al , 2017; Silverthorn, 2016). The overall quality assessment score was “weak” for all quantitative studies based on the six individual quality domains of the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, mostly due to selection bias, study design and confounders.…”

“…A total of 38 studies (88 percent) reported the prevalence of food insecurity among students (Farahbakhsh et al , 2015; Hanbazaza et al , 2016; Farahbakhsh et al , 2017; Hanbazaza et al , 2017; Bexely et al , 2013; Bianco et al , 2016; Biediger-Friedman et al , 2016; Booth and Anderson, 2016; Bruening et al , 2016; Calvez et al , 2016; Chaparro et al , 2009; Danek, 2017; Entz et al , 2017; Espinoza, 2013; Eubanks, 2017; Freudenberg et al , 2011; Gaines et al , 2014; Gallegos et al , 2014; Goldrick-Rab et al , 2015, 2017; Gorman, 2014; Hanna, 2014; Hughes et al , 2011; Kaczerska et al , 2014; Kashuba, 2017; King, 2017; Knol et al , 2017; Koller, 2014; Maguire et al , 2016; Maroto et al , 2015; Martinez et al , 2016; Maynard, 2016; Micevski et al , 2014; Miles et al , 2017; Mirabitur et al , 2016; Morris et al , 2016; Patton-Lopez et al , 2014; Payne-Sturges et al , 2017; Silva et al , 2017; Silverthorn, 2016; Watson et al , 2017). The prevalence of food insecurity prevalence varied from 9 percent (Booth and Anderson, 2016) to 89.6 percent (Farahbakhsh et al , 2015; Hanbazaza et al , 2016, 2017) (Table I). Only 66 percent ( n =25) (Farahbakhsh et al , 2015; Hanbazaza et al , 2016; Farahbakhsh et al , 2017; Hanbazaza et al , 2017; Bianco et al , 2016; Biediger-Friedman et al , 2016; Bruening et al , 2016; Calvez et al , 2016; Chaparro et al , 2009; Danek, 2017; Espinoza, 2013; Eubanks, 2017; Gaines et al , 2014; Gallegos et al , 2014; Goldrick-Rab et al , 2015, 2017; Gorman, 2014; Kashuba, 2017; King, 2017; Knol et al , 2017; …”

“…The prevalence of food insecurity prevalence varied from 9 percent (Booth and Anderson, 2016) to 89.6 percent (Farahbakhsh et al , 2015; Hanbazaza et al , 2016, 2017) (Table I). Only 66 percent ( n =25) (Farahbakhsh et al , 2015; Hanbazaza et al , 2016; Farahbakhsh et al , 2017; Hanbazaza et al , 2017; Bianco et al , 2016; Biediger-Friedman et al , 2016; Bruening et al , 2016; Calvez et al , 2016; Chaparro et al , 2009; Danek, 2017; Espinoza, 2013; Eubanks, 2017; Gaines et al , 2014; Gallegos et al , 2014; Goldrick-Rab et al , 2015, 2017; Gorman, 2014; Kashuba, 2017; King, 2017; Knol et al , 2017; Maguire et al , 2016; Maroto et al , 2015; Martinez et al , 2016; Mirabitur et al , 2016; Morris et al , 2016; Patton-Lopez et al , 2014; Payne-Sturges et al , 2017; Watson et al , 2017) of the 38 studies reporting prevalence data used the 18-item, 10-item or 6-item US Department of Agriculture Food Security Survey Module (USDA FSSM), which is a validated and reliable measure of food insecurity in the USA and Canada (Bickel et al , 2000). The other 34 percent ( n =13) of studies (Bexely et al , 2013; Booth and Anderson, 2016; Entz et al , 2017; Freudenberg et al , 2011; Hanna, 2014; Hughes et al , 2011; Kaczerska et al , 2014; Koller, 2014; Maynard, 2016; Micevski et al , 2014; Miles et al , 2017; Silva et al , 2017; Silverthorn, 2016) used non-validated instruments, including individual questions from the USDA FSSM in conjunction with other questions ( n =7), study-specific questions ( n =4) or the US Department of Agriculture Community Food Security Assessment Toolkit (Cohen, 2002) ( n =2) which is meant to evaluate indicators of community food security.…”