Background: University students who visit off - campus university cafeterias during their academic life may lack some basic food safety knowledge. Study Aim: To evaluate university students’ basic knowledge of food safety in off - campus cafeterias. To explore whether the knowledge reported was influenced by the students’ educational background s . Objects and Methods: Students from three different universities in Saudi Arabia were included. University A represented medical majors, University B represented a mix of both majors medical and non-medical, and University C represented only non- medical majors. Data Collection: An electronic questionnaire was circulated among 500 university students to evaluate their knowledge of food safety. The questionnaire had three main sections covering the cafeteria’s location as a food serving area, staff hygiene skills, and food preparation standards. The 5-point Likert scale consists of the following points: yes, maybe, no, it does not matter, I do not know. Only a “ yes ” answer indicated a positive response and proper awareness of the subject. Results : A total of 408 students participated, and the results showed significant differences in student knowledge between the three universities. In fact, University A’s students had better overall knowledge than University C’s students (0.001 < P). However, there was no significant difference between University A’s and University B’s students. The positive responses for the first part of the questionnaire which focused on off-campus cafeteria location, for 18 statements were from 26% to 90.4%. The positive responses for the second part of the questionnaire that focused on staff skills, for 8 statements were from 54.4% to 87.3%. Finally, the positive responses for the third part of the questionnaire which focused on food preparation, for 9 statements were 54.4% to 87.3%. Conclusion: Based on the overall comparison among universities, University A’s students have more knowledge in food safety in comparison to University C’s. University B’s students showed no significant difference with the latter two universities. The overall results suggest that students’ educational backgrounds can contribute effectively to the general knowledge of food safety.
Insufficient education, practice, and knowledge regarding food safety pose significant risks for the transmission of food borne illnesses. Annually, an estimated 76 million individuals fall ill due to food-related diseases, with 325,000 hospitalizations and 5000 deaths occurring in the United States alone [
The aim of this research was to evaluate the overall knowledge of food safety preparation among university students from three different universities in Saudi Arabia. This study will cover the overall level of hygiene involved in the locations they visit, cooking, preparing, storing, preserving, and serving food that they consume outside their homes and on university compasses specifically in cafeterias located outside university premises. Additionally, the study aims to investigate whether students’ educational background influenced the way they perceived food safety.
Out of 500 electronic questionnaires distributed, 408 students responded and joined the study. The students who joined during the spring 2018 were from three different universities: University A represented medical major, University B represented a mix of types of majors including medical and University C represented non-medical majors only. The study sample size was selected using Slovin’s Formula: n = N/(1 + Ne2) where n = sample size, N = population size, e = acceptable margin of error with a precision level of ±5% and a confidence level of 95%. The sum of the enrolled students in the three universities was 155,000 during the study period. Using Slovin’s Formula, 399 was the accepted minimum number of students that represented the three universities. The selection criteria of the study population were any undergraduate students between the 2nd to the 4th year from the three universities can voluntarily join. Postgraduate and students from other universities were not invited to join. The approval of the project was obtained through the official routes of university standards. It must be stated that none of the participated students provided any personal information or student ID numbers and they all participated anonymously using the electronic questionnaire that was circulated through a link on their mobile devices.
A questionnaire was developed for the study purpose to assess the food safety knowledge of students who frequently visit different off-campus cafeterias. The questionnaire covered basic information such as university name, major, date of birth and gender, but did not request students’ identification number or name. This self-administered questionnaire was inspired by the information in the book titled Modern Nutrition and Food Hygiene (2016) by Veronica Tuffrey, Published by Scientific Research Publishing. The validity of the study questionnaire was initially tested through a pilot study on a small group of students from University A. The students selected were both medical and non-medical majors. Two versions of the questionnaire were distributed among them, electronic and paper-based. The students who participated in this pilot were then interviewed to ensure that they understood the statements as intended and to provide feedback on them. A comparison was made between the results obtained from the electronic questionnaire and those obtained from the paper-based one to assess concurrent validity. Finally, an epidemiology expert was consulted to assess the concurrent validity of the questionnaire based on the pilot study results. The reliability testing of the questionnaire was also conducted by circulating both versions of the questionnaire at different time intervals (two weeks apart) to assess test-retest reliability. High correlation between responses was detected. Overall, this process ensured that the study questionnaire was valid and reliable for use in the subsequent research.
The questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first part had eighteen statements aimed at measuring students’ knowledge about cafeteria hygiene regulations, cleanliness, availability and functionality of ventilation fans, use of utensils, proper rubbish collection bags, and cleanliness of preparation benches. The second part had eight statements that assessed cafeteria employees’ basic hygiene and food safety skills as food workers. The third part included nine statements designed to evaluate food as preparation, storage, and preservation practices in cafeterias. In all three parts, students were asked to respond to the statement using a five-point Likert scale that consists of the following points: yes, maybe, no, it does not matter, I do not know. The level of knowledge among students was determined based on their responses to the questions. If a higher number of “yes” responses were selected, it was considered an indication of good knowledge regarding a particular statement. Conversely, if “no”, “I do not know”, or “it does not matter” were selected, it was assumed that the student had poor knowledge in that statements. A medium level of knowledge was inferred when the response “maybe” was selected (See Appendix 1: The Study Questionnaire).
The students were able to join the study by clicking on a link that they received on their mobile devices. Students needed to read the study objectives carefully and go through the statements if they agree to join. Prior to the survey, students were not provided with any orientation or instructions regarding the study and questionnaire was distributed among them during their daily university activities.
All the data were entered into an Excel data sheet and the quality of the data were controlled by the double entry verification. After that, the data were analyzed using (SPSS version 13.0, Inc., Chicago, USA statistical software). Statistical analysis was conducted using the mean and standard deviation (SD) to summarize each student’s age and score on nutrition knowledge. Frequency and proportion were calculated to describe gender, majors, degree levels and attitudes towards food safety. An analysis of a variance test (ANOVA) was used as well to compare the overall knowledge of the students between the three universities.
The questionnaire took an average of 4 minutes for a student to complete, and out of the 500 distributed questionnaires, 408 (82%) were completed. Of the participating students, 297 (72.8%) were females and 108 (26.5%) were males (see
The overall results did not reveal a significant difference in the knowledge of students of basic food safety across the three universities. However, further analysis indicated that the students in one of the universities had better overall knowledge than the other two. This was established by examining the amount of variation within each sample, relative to the number of variations between the samples using the ANOVA test (see
| Gender | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 108 | 26.5% |
| Female | 297 | 72.8% |
| Missing value | 3 | 0.7% |
| Total | 408 | 100% |
| Age | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Less than 20 | 89 | 21.8% |
| From 20 to 22 | 280 | 68.6% |
| More than 22 | 16 | 3.9% |
| Missing value | 23 | 5.6% |
| Total | 408 | 100% |
| Source of variation | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between Groups | 733.304 | 2 | 366.652 | 14.137 | <0.001 |
| Within Groups | 10296.456 | 397 | 25.936 | ||
| Total | 11029.760 | 399 |
P < 0.05) (see
In the first part of the questionnaire, which centered on the cafeteria’s location and general hygiene standards, 77% (14/18) of the answers were answered “yes”. The rest of the answers were directed to the other options. This indicates that students possess a solid foundational understanding of the cafeteria’s overall requirements. Only four statements out of the 18 failed to exceed a 48% response rate. The initial query pertained to rubbish bags and their function, characteristics, location, and whether or not they were covered when students were in the cafeteria. In response to this statement, around 47% (193/408) said “yes,” indicating that less than half of the students only have some knowledge about rubbish bags and their importance in maintaining overall hygiene in a cafeteria. The second statement focused on student behavior regarding observing the cleanliness of a cafeteria’s wall structure and if they are free from cracks and holes. Only 29% (121/408) responded positively to this statement by saying “yes,” indicating that only a few of them notice this when they enter a cafeteria. The third statement focused on whether windows were frequently opened to prevent dust and dirt accumulation. Only 26% (106/408) were positively knowledgeable about this. Lastly, ventilation fans and their efficacy in eliminating cooking odors from the cafeteria were addressed as well. The focus was to check if students noticed if fans were clean, functioning properly, and free from dirt or grease. Only 45% (187/408) responded “yes” to this statement (see
As is seen in
| P-Value | Mean Difference | Comparisons |
|---|---|---|
| 0.119 | 0.88121 | U-A with U-B |
| 0.119 | −0.88121 | U-C with U-B |
| 0.00 | 3.55197 | U-A with U-C |
| Missing Value | I don’t know | It Does Not Matter | No | Maybe | Yes | Statements |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 1 | 8 | 35 | 67 | 294 | The location of the cafeteria and the general appearance of it are important for me |
| 0.7% | 0.2% | 2% | 8.6% | 16.4% | 72.1% | |
| 5 | 8 | 7 | 39 | 82 | 267 | When I enter the Cafeteria, I try to take a quick look to the general hygiene regulations followed in. |
| 1.2% | 2% | 1.7% | 9.6% | 20.1% | 65.4% | |
| 5 | 4 | 13 | 70 | 123 | 193 | I always look for the rubbish bags and make sure that they are suitable to be used in the cafeteria |
| 1.2% | 1% | 3.2% | 17.2% | 30.1% | 47.3% | |
| 3 | 3 | 11 | 29 | 79 | 283 | It's very important for me when I entre a cafeteria to make sure that there is a hand washing sink with all the required materials like the hand soap and tissue papers |
| 0.7% | 0.7% | 2.7% | 7.1% | 19.4% | 69.4% | |
| 2 | 2 | 4 | 17 | 57 | 326 | I always make sure that the chairs and tables are clean |
| 0.5% | 0.5% | 1% | 4.2% | 14% | 79.9% | |
| 1 | 5 | 3 | 21 | 49 | 329 | I always make sure that the place is free from insects and especially cockroaches or rodents. |
| 0.2% | 1.2% | 0.7% | 5.1% | 12% | 80.6% | |
| 4 | 7 | 6 | 31 | 104 | 256 | I always observe the floors to make sure that they are clean. |
| 1.0% | 1.7% | 1.5% | 7.6% | 25.5% | 62.7% | |
| 2 | 20 | 53 | 90 | 122 | 121 | I always observe the cafeteria walls to make sure that they are clean, free from cracks and holes. |
| 0.5% | 4.9% | 13% | 22.1% | 29.9% | 29.7% | |
| 5 | 31 | 37 | 126 | 103 | 106 | I always check on the cafeteria windows to make sure that they were made in a way that prevent dust accumulation |
| 1.2% | 7.6% | 9.1% | 30.9% | 25.2% | 26% | |
| 1 | 17 | 18 | 42 | 59 | 271 | The cafeteria has the mosquito – repellant device |
| 0.2% | 4.2% | 4.4% | 10.3% | 14.5% | 66.4% | |
| 6 | 35 | 22 | 25 | 62 | 258 | The benches that were made for food preparation are made from marble. |
| 1.5% | 8.6% | 5.4% | 6.1% | 15.2% | 63.2% | |
| 3 | 13 | 9 | 22 | 38 | 323 | The benches that were made for food preparations are clean and free from cracks and fishers |
| 0.7% | 3.2% | 2.2% | 5.4% | 9.3% | 79.2% | |
| 5 | 40 | 13 | 99 | 64 | 187 | Vent fans are available clean and appear in good condition. |
| 1.2% | 9.8% | 3.2% | 24.3% | 15.7% | 45.8% | |
| 3 | 15 | 9 | 13 | 24 | 344 | The cafeteria has good ventilation system that prevents smell and steam accumulation |
| 0.7% | 3.7% | 2.2% | 3.2% | 5.9% | 84.3% | |
| 5 | 11 | 1 | 9 | 13 | 369 | The cooking utensils appear clean and free from corrosion or blackened |
| 1.2% | 2.7% | 0.2% | 2.2% | 3.2% | 90.4% | |
| 3 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 23 | 369 | The rubbish collection is done by using proper plastic bags, or special containers that are usually covered |
| 0.7% | 0.5% | 1.2% | 1.5% | 5.6% | 90.4% | |
| 5 | 19 | 5 | 14 | 35 | 330 | All cooking utensils are kept inside proper cupboards. |
| 1.2% | 4.7% | 1.2% | 3.4% | 8.6% | 80.9% | |
| 4 | 8 | 18 | 8 | 50 | 320 | The structure of the cafeteria is large enough to let the workers move inside it freely |
| 1.0% | 2% | 4.4% | 2% | 12.3% | 78.4% |
| Statements | Yes | Maybe | I don’t Know | It doesn’t Matter | No | Missing Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cafeteria employee’s must practice proper hygiene | 391 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 8 |
| 95.8% | 0% | 0.7% | 0.2% | 1.2% | 2% | |
| Cafeteria employee’s must cover their heads with proper head cover and wear plastic apron | 346 | 29 | 3 | 7 | 15 | 8 |
| 84.8% | 7.1% | 0.7% | 1.7% | 3.7% | 2% | |
| Cafeteria employee’s valid health certificates are hanged on the wall. | 272 | 69 | 18 | 17 | 23 | 9 |
| 66.7% | 16.9% | 4.4% | 4.2% | 5.6% | 2.2% | |
| It is observed that the cafeteria employee’s clean their hands regularly | 249 | 52 | 38 | 2 | 59 | 8 |
| 61% | 12.7% | 9.3% | 0.5% | 14.5% | 2% | |
| Cafeteria employees must wear clear plastic gloves when they prepare food. | 370 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 8 |
| 90.7% | 3.7% | 0.7% | 0.7% | 2.2% | 2% | |
| Cafeteria employee’s must be experts in sandwiches preparation | 280 | 80 | 7 | 14 | 18 | 9 |
| 68.6% | 19.6% | 1.7% | 3.4% | 4.4% | 2.2% | |
| Cafeteria employee’s do not touch their hair, noses or faces when they are wearing the clear plastic gloves | 372 | 14 | 4 | 1 | 9 | 8 |
| 91.2% | 3.4% | 1% | 0.2% | 2.2% | 2% | |
| Cafeteria employee’s do not keep the gloves on when they take the money from the students | 285 | 45 | 15 | 13 | 38 | 12 |
| 69.9% | 11% | 3.7% | 3.2% | 9.3% | 2.9% |
| Statements | Yes | Maybe | I don’t know | it doesn’t matter | No | Missing Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh food and meat should not be left outside the fridge to avoid contamination | 222 | 35 | 40 | 1 | 102 | 8 |
| 54.4% | 8.6% | 9.8% | 0.2% | 25% | 2% | |
| Sandwiches contents such as eggs, cheese and tuna are kept in separate containers | 343 | 24 | 13 | 6 | 14 | 8 |
| 84.1% | 5.9% | 3.2% | 1.5% | 3.4% | 2% | |
| Cooked food is not left outside the fridge for long time | 356 | 21 | 9 | 4 | 10 | 8 |
| 87.3% | 5.1% | 2.2% | 1% | 2.5% | 2% | |
| The available fridge appears in good condition, and its temperature are monitored and recorded on a special sheet on the outside door | 228 | 57 | 43 | 5 | 65 | 10 |
| 55.9% | 14% | 10.5% | 1.2% | 15.9% | 2.5% | |
| Fresh meat and chicken are not cut on the same cutting board that other type of food is cut on | 333 | 23 | 24 | 6 | 12 | 10 |
| 81.6% | 5.6% | 5.9% | 1.5% | 2.9% | 2.5% | |
| Mayonnaise is kept in small containers and not in a large open bowl that expose it to contamination | 335 | 24 | 15 | 10 | 15 | 9 |
| 82.1% | 5.9% | 3.7% | 2.5% | 3.7% | 2.2% | |
| Food that was freshly prepared is not close by the air condition which might carry dust that lead to contamination | 338 | 22 | 17 | 7 | 15 | 9 |
| 82.8% | 5.4% | 4.2% | 1.7% | 3.7% | 2.2% | |
| Tuna fish is left in its special cans and only open before using. | 341 | 27 | 17 | 3 | 11 | 9 |
| 83.6% | 6.6% | 4.2% | 0.7% | 2.7% | 2.2% | |
| There is no mix-up between the freshly cooked food and row food and vegetables | 337 | 26 | 16 | 5 | 15 | 9 |
| 82.6% | 6.4% | 3.9% | 1.2% | 3.7% | 2.2% |
availability of health and safety certificates, proper skills in preparing sandwiches, and wearing clean plastic gloves while preparing food. The least proportion detected in this part of the questionnaire was observing the employees’ hand hygiene performance and that was only 61% (249/408).
In third section of the questionnaire, students had nine statements to select which were about food preparation. Interestingly, seven out of these nine statements received a “yes” with a response rate exceeding 80%. However, two statements had a low response rate. The first one was related to the importance of not leaving fresh food and meat outside the fridge to avoid contamination. Only 54% (222/408) of the students chose “yes,” indicating that more than half of the student population were not aware of this crucial aspect of food safety. The other statement with a low response rate was about the availability and the condition of the fridge, and whether its temperature was monitored and recorded on a special sheet on the outside door. The response rate to this statement was 55.9% (228/408) (see
| Statements | Yes | Maybe | I don’t know | it doesn’t matter | No | Missing Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh food and meat should not be left outside the fridge to avoid contamination | 222 | 35 | 40 | 1 | 102 | 8 |
| 54.4% | 8.6% | 9.8% | 0.2% | 25% | 2% | |
| Sandwiches contents such as eggs, cheese and tuna are kept in separate containers | 343 | 24 | 13 | 6 | 14 | 8 |
| 84.1% | 5.9% | 3.2% | 1.5% | 3.4% | 2% | |
| Cooked food is not left outside the fridge for long time | 356 | 21 | 9 | 4 | 10 | 8 |
| 87.3% | 5.1% | 2.2% | 1% | 2.5% | 2% | |
| The available fridge appears in good condition, and its temperature are monitored and recorded on a special sheet on the outside door | 228 | 57 | 43 | 5 | 65 | 10 |
| 55.9% | 14% | 10.5% | 1.2% | 15.9% | 2.5% | |
| Fresh meat and chicken are not cut on the same cutting board that other type of food is cut on | 333 | 23 | 24 | 6 | 12 | 10 |
| 81.6% | 5.6% | 5.9% | 1.5% | 2.9% | 2.5% | |
| Mayonnaise is kept in small containers and not in a large open bowl that expose it to contamination | 335 | 24 | 15 | 10 | 15 | 9 |
| 82.1% | 5.9% | 3.7% | 2.5% | 3.7% | 2.2% | |
| Food that was freshly prepared is not close by the air condition which might carry dust that leads to contamination | 338 | 22 | 17 | 7 | 15 | 9 |
| 82.8% | 5.4% | 4.2% | 1.7% | 3.7% | 2.2% | |
| Tuna fish is left in its special cans and only open before using. | 341 | 27 | 17 | 3 | 11 | 9 |
| 83.6% | 6.6% | 4.2% | 0.7% | 2.7% | 2.2% | |
| There is no mix-up between the freshly cooked food and row food and vegetables | 337 | 26 | 16 | 5 | 15 | 9 |
| 82.6% | 6.4% | 3.9% | 1.2% | 3.7% | 2.2% |
The study’s aim is to evaluate students’ knowledge of basic food safety from three different universities in Saudi Arabia when they visit off-campus cafeterias. Another aim is to investigate whether this knowledge will positively be influenced by their educational background or not using a simple questionnaire. Three universities from different cities were included University A, B and C.
The overall analysis of the data indicated that the results did not show a big difference between the overall knowledge of the students in the three different universities. Though further analysis was done on the same data, it was clear that University A out of the three universities was better than the other two in terms of food safety knowledge. The results, which are similar to other studies, indicate that medical students have better knowledge of food safety than other university students because of the nature of their type of education [
When data were analyzed by cafeteria location, 77% of the students responded positively to most of the statements on the list. Nevertheless, the knowledge rate did not exceed 45% in four questions: the cafeteria walls, the cleanness of the ventilation fans, cafeteria windows opening to prevent dust accumulation and the availability of covered rubbish bags. Several factors could explain this finding. Firstly, students usually come in a rush to cafeterias to grab their meals and then go back to their educational activities. Observation of general hygiene is not important to them since cafeteria walls, cleanness of the ventilation fans, the covered rubbish bags and frequent opening of the cafeteria windows have no direct contact with their food [
When the data were analyzed based on employees, which mainly observed their practice skills in the cafeteria during food preparation, the overall response to this section indicated high probable knowledge of the students. However, the response rate of the students to the statement relating to frequent employee hand hygiene application had only 60% response rate, which is considered low compared to other answered questions in this section. This was not surprising, as most employee(s) wear plastic gloves and this, might mislead consumers about the application of frequent hand hygiene in the cafeteria during food preparation. It is important to note that these gloves can be contaminated with different bacteria which may lead to food poisoning if they are not changed frequently [
Regarding the third set of questionnaire statements on food, seven out of the nine statements had a response rate that exceeded 80%. One unanticipated result clearly showed that only 54.4% of the study population were positive about fresh food and meat that should not be left outside the fridge to avoid contamination. The remaining results had negative answers which indicated uncertainty about the response to the statements. These results reflected those of [
The other statement which has a very close response rate of 59.9% was related to the fridge’s appearance in good condition, and if its temperature is monitored and recorded on a special sheet on the outside door of the fridge. The rate of answers obtained to this question is not surprising. This kind of information is usually monitored through a special systematic survey known as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), which is run by some specialized agencies in food safety. It must be stated however that nothing was found in the literature that indicates a link between HACCP importance and medical/non-medical students. Only students who study food science as an undergraduate course are introduced to the HACCP program during their academic years [
The findings of this study demonstrate that there are differences in attitudes toward food safety in university students’ responses. Furthermore, the food safety knowledge score of the students in majors other than medicine needs to be improved. This is because this study’s results clearly showed that University A’s students were better at their food knowledge than the other two universities. This may confirm that one’s educational background can interfere with the overall knowledge of the subject. Medical students gave more attention to nutrition and health knowledge because of their major. Besides, they have more opportunities to access that knowledge than other students through their readings, so it could explain their relatively higher scores. This finding comes in agreement with other domestic reports which had similar outcomes that confirmed that non-medical students had poor knowledge of food safety [
In conclusion, the main aim of this study was to assess the basic knowledge of food safety among three different university student types in Saudi Arabia beyond the confines of their university cafeterias. Additionally, another aim was to investigate whether students’ educational background had a positive impact on this knowledge or not. The findings indicated that medical students who represented one of the universities, exhibited better knowledge compared to students from other majors in the remaining two universities. This suggests that students’ academic background may influence their overall response. Furthermore, the study revealed that there is an overall good level of basic knowledge regarding food safety, as evidenced by the high response rates for most of the statements, with only a few statements receiving low response rates. For that reason, students from other majors may still need knowledge about food safety to apply when they use off-campus cafeterias, which may help in controlling food-related illnesses.
Like all research studies, this study has certain limitations. Firstly, it only included three universities, and therefore, the findings may not be representative of the knowledge of all students across the country. Secondly, the study did not differentiate between senior and junior students, which could have impacted the results as senior students may possess more relevant knowledge than juniors. Thirdly, the students’ economic status or monthly income was not determined which may interfere with the students’ selections of the type of cafeteria they go to. Lastly, due to a significantly higher number of female participants, it was not feasible to analyze data based on gender. This presents an opportunity for future research to explore this topic further. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies consider these limitations and address them accordingly.
The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Halwani, M.A. (2023) A Study to Assess Basic Food Safety Knowledge among University Students. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 14, 526-541. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2023.146035
Y = Yes, M = Maybe, N = No, D = does not matter, I = I do not know, F = missing value.