The purpose of this study was to evaluate nutritional status of school lunch-supported students of elementary school in order to find their nutrition problem and obtain basic data for education nutrition. We compared food behaviors and nutritional status between school lunch-supported students and n...
The purpose of this study was to evaluate nutritional status of school lunch-supported students of elementary school in order to find their nutrition problem and obtain basic data for education nutrition. We compared food behaviors and nutritional status between school lunch-supported students and non-supported students. The present situation of school lunch-supporting program was surveyed by a questionnaire and responses from dieticians obtained from forty-six elementary schools in the Gyeongbuk province between January 2006 to February 2006. Then, 100 school lunch-supported students and 119 non-supported students of fourth year class to sixth year class in 3 elementary schools in Gyeongbuk rural area were selected as the subjects, and surveys were conducted during term between June 2006 and July 2006 and during vacation between July 2006 to August 2006. The food consumption survey during term was carried out through interview by a dietitian at school-lunch time using a 24-hour recall method and a food frequency questionnaire. The students were asked to record food intakes for three days(2 days in weekday and 1 day in weekend) during summer vacation. Nutrient intakes were calculated using CAN-Pro 3.0 program, and data were analyzed by SPSS package program(Ver 12.0). The results are as follows: 1. The priority of selection of school lunch-supported students was that they belong to minimum expense-supported household. Major means of support was school lunch support during term, and offers of agricultural coupons or meal-ticket during vacation. 2. Percentage of a single-parent family was higher in school lunch-supported students than non-supported students. They seemed less active, less self-recognized on health, lower attention in class as compared with non-supported students. Also supported students seemed lower in height, weight, and BMI as compared with non-supported students. 3. Supported students have poor food habits compared with non-supported students. Skipping meals, especially breakfast was more frequent in supported students than non-supported students. The meal time was rather irregular, and frequency of snack intake was less in supported students. Eating alone was more frequent and food frequency score was lower in supported students than non-supported students. 4. The average nutrient intakes and nutrient adequacy ratios were lower in supported students than non-supported students. During term, percentages of nutrient intakes provided by school-lunch was higher in supported students than non-supported students. Indices of nutritional quality of most nutrients were above 1 during term and vacation, but those of folate and calcium were below 0.6. 5. Intakes of energy nutrients were within acceptable micronutrient distribution ranges, but portion of carbohydrate increased during vacation. Percentages of subjects who consumed energy less than 75% EER and nutrient intakes less than EAR were higher in supported students than non-supported students during term. 6. During term, major dietary diversity score (DDS) of supported students was 4 point out of 5 point, while DDS of non-supported students was mostly 5 point. During vacation, DDS of both groups was 4 point. Patterns of food intake based on major food groups(dairy, meat, grain, fruit, vegetable: DMGFV) was 11111 in both groups during term, but during vacation, major one was 11101 for supported students and 11111 for non-supported students. In conclusion, poor dietary environment and inadequate nutrient intakes, and a larger contribution of nutrient intakes from school lunch during term were evident for supported students as compared to non-supported students. To improve nutritional status of supported students, it is necessary to expand supporting meal program not only during term but also during vacation. Moreover, a proper nutrition education to improve food behaviors should be implemented. Meal support programs carried out in social welfare facilities and study room should be connected with nutrition programs supervised by nutrition professionals.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate nutritional status of school lunch-supported students of elementary school in order to find their nutrition problem and obtain basic data for education nutrition. We compared food behaviors and nutritional status between school lunch-supported students and non-supported students. The present situation of school lunch-supporting program was surveyed by a questionnaire and responses from dieticians obtained from forty-six elementary schools in the Gyeongbuk province between January 2006 to February 2006. Then, 100 school lunch-supported students and 119 non-supported students of fourth year class to sixth year class in 3 elementary schools in Gyeongbuk rural area were selected as the subjects, and surveys were conducted during term between June 2006 and July 2006 and during vacation between July 2006 to August 2006. The food consumption survey during term was carried out through interview by a dietitian at school-lunch time using a 24-hour recall method and a food frequency questionnaire. The students were asked to record food intakes for three days(2 days in weekday and 1 day in weekend) during summer vacation. Nutrient intakes were calculated using CAN-Pro 3.0 program, and data were analyzed by SPSS package program(Ver 12.0). The results are as follows: 1. The priority of selection of school lunch-supported students was that they belong to minimum expense-supported household. Major means of support was school lunch support during term, and offers of agricultural coupons or meal-ticket during vacation. 2. Percentage of a single-parent family was higher in school lunch-supported students than non-supported students. They seemed less active, less self-recognized on health, lower attention in class as compared with non-supported students. Also supported students seemed lower in height, weight, and BMI as compared with non-supported students. 3. Supported students have poor food habits compared with non-supported students. Skipping meals, especially breakfast was more frequent in supported students than non-supported students. The meal time was rather irregular, and frequency of snack intake was less in supported students. Eating alone was more frequent and food frequency score was lower in supported students than non-supported students. 4. The average nutrient intakes and nutrient adequacy ratios were lower in supported students than non-supported students. During term, percentages of nutrient intakes provided by school-lunch was higher in supported students than non-supported students. Indices of nutritional quality of most nutrients were above 1 during term and vacation, but those of folate and calcium were below 0.6. 5. Intakes of energy nutrients were within acceptable micronutrient distribution ranges, but portion of carbohydrate increased during vacation. Percentages of subjects who consumed energy less than 75% EER and nutrient intakes less than EAR were higher in supported students than non-supported students during term. 6. During term, major dietary diversity score (DDS) of supported students was 4 point out of 5 point, while DDS of non-supported students was mostly 5 point. During vacation, DDS of both groups was 4 point. Patterns of food intake based on major food groups(dairy, meat, grain, fruit, vegetable: DMGFV) was 11111 in both groups during term, but during vacation, major one was 11101 for supported students and 11111 for non-supported students. In conclusion, poor dietary environment and inadequate nutrient intakes, and a larger contribution of nutrient intakes from school lunch during term were evident for supported students as compared to non-supported students. To improve nutritional status of supported students, it is necessary to expand supporting meal program not only during term but also during vacation. Moreover, a proper nutrition education to improve food behaviors should be implemented. Meal support programs carried out in social welfare facilities and study room should be connected with nutrition programs supervised by nutrition professionals.
주제어
#결식아동
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.