樱花视频

Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Study Protocol
  • Published:

A participatory research to assess how a student citizens鈥� assembly can facilitate the co-creation of nutrition interventions in higher education settings

樱花视频 volume听24, Article听number:听2772 (2024) Cite this article

A Correction to this article was published on 22 October 2024

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

The transition period from adolescence to early adulthood is critical for developing new nutritional behaviors, making higher education students an important target group for public health nutrition interventions. Given the complexity of nutrition-related behaviors and their various determinants, involving the student population (the future beneficiaries of interventions) and the partners engaged in their implementation when designing campus nutrition interventions is essential. Citizens鈥� assemblies are deliberative processes which are more and more frequently organized to co-create solutions to complex problems. This study aims 1) to design and implement a student citizens鈥� assembly using participatory research methods, 2) to describe its process and evaluate its transferability, 3) to evaluate changes in dietary habits, knowledge and citizen practices among students participating in this assembly.

Methods

This study will take place at a French university (University Sorbonne Paris Nord, USPN) located in socio-economically disadvantaged suburbs of Paris. The student citizens鈥� assembly will gather a mini-public of 30 students enrolled at the time of the study and a co-creation team of academic and non-academic partners involved in student life, nutrition, physical activity, or public policies. The aim of the assembly is to co-create a set of concrete proposals that would enhance USPN students鈥� access to sustainable diets and physical activity. The protocol is based on a continuous process evaluation and a pre-post design among the mini-public. A mixed-method framework combining quantitative and qualitative approaches will be developed. This study will make use of (i) field observations of the intervention process and transferability, (ii) data collected by questionnaires on pre- and post- dietary habits, knowledge and citizen practices of the mini-public, and (iii) pre-post interviews with a subsample of the same mini-public.

Discussion

Relying on participatory research methods, this study will provide new insights into involving higher education students and diverse partners in co-creating campus nutrition interventions. Through the collaborative work of researchers, higher education students, university representatives, public institutions, and local and community actors, this study will provide evidence-based guidance for designing innovative and contextually-relevant nutrition interventions in the higher education setting.

Trial registration

This research was registered at the ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT06580795; registration date: 2024鈥�08-30; ).

Peer Review reports

Background

The transition from adolescence to young adulthood is seen as a critical period for developing new lifestyle habits [1, 2]. In terms of nutritional behaviors, the transition from high school to higher education is characterized by a shift towards less healthy and sustainable habits compared to adolescence: decreased diet quality [1, 2], disruption of eating patterns [3], decreased physical activity [4], significant weight gain [5] and low levels of sustainable dietary patterns and practices [6]. Higher education students are also particularly likely to experience food insecurity, defined as a lack of consistent access to sufficient food for an active and healthy life [7]. According to a recent review, 41% of higher education students in the US report food insecurity, a proportion higher than the national average of 10% [8, 9]. In France, where this study will occur, rates of food insecurity varying from 7% [10] to 43% [11] have been reported among students. Given its prevalence and detrimental consequences on diet quality, physical and emotional health, or academic achievement, food insecurity is a major cause of concern in the higher education setting [12,13,14,15].

In this specific setting, several determinants of nutritional behaviors have been identified. Individual characteristics such as younger age, a lack of cooking ability, low nutrition knowledge and financial difficulties, as well as interpersonal factors, such as having parents with a lower socioeconomic position and living away from the family home, have been associated with less healthy eating behaviors and food insecurity [16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. The campus food and built environment and university policies also influence students鈥� nutritional habits. For example, housing with on-site dining or unlimited access to on-campus dining have been associated with less healthy habits, and lower walkability or bikeability around campus with lower physical activity [18, 19]. As in the general population, multi-level interventions tackling individual, interpersonal, environmental, and policy determinants of students nutritional behaviors may therefore be needed to significantly impact their nutritional habits [23, 24].

According to a recent review, co-creating interventions with higher education students and campus food services staff may increase their effectiveness in improving students鈥� diet, compared to intervention designed solely by researchers [25]. Involving those who are intended to be the beneficiaries and partners of public health interventions is indeed increasingly seen as essential to designing tailor-made, context-specific interventions [26, 27]. Involving non-academic partners such as citizens, patients, community members, professionals or institutional representatives in the research process with the aim of producing solution- and public-oriented knowledge is the fundamental principle of participatory research [26]. Their participation can take various forms. In the deepest forms of participation, non-academic partners are involved from problem definition to intervention design, implementation and evaluation [28]. This form of participation is characterized by active collaboration and shared decision-making between academic and non-academic actors at every stage of the research process [28]. When it comes to published campus nutrition interventions, students have usually been involved at the stage of intervention implementation, and not at the earliest phases of problem definition and intervention design [25]. It is, therefore, essential to organize and evaluate innovative strategies for involving non-academic partners (i.e. students) in designing and implementing campus nutrition interventions.

Deliberative mini-publics are increasingly popular for co-creating solutions to complex problems that have proved difficult to solve using traditional approaches [29, 30]. Mini-publics involve small groups of randomly chosen lay citizens who are invited to deliberate and produce policy recommendations to government executives or elected authorities. Mini-publics have been used at national levels (e.g. Ireland鈥檚 [31] and France鈥檚 [29] citizen鈥檚 assemblies on climate change) but also at regional levels (e.g. Budapest鈥檚 public consultation on climate strategy [32]) local levels, for example, within universities [33, 34]. Conducting citizen鈥檚 assemblies in higher education settings appears feasible, as illustrated by the first student citizen鈥檚 assembly conducted in a French university (i.e. University Paris-Est Creteil in the Paris region), which focused on sustainable diet, with the mandate to produce a series of measures that would allow an alternative food system to be set on campus [33]. More research is needed, however, to better assess student citizen鈥檚 assemblies鈥� ability to produce measures addressing the multiple determinants of students鈥� diet, and thus to better estimate their potential impact on public health.

In this context, the main objective of this project is to provide insights into involving higher education students and diverse partners in co-creating nutrition interventions in a higher education setting through a deliberative mini-public. The specific aims are 1) to design and implement a student citizens鈥� assembly using participatory research methods, 2) to describe its process and evaluate its transferability, 3) to evaluate changes in dietary habits, knowledge and citizen practices among the mini-public (i.e. students participating in the student citizen鈥檚 assembly), using quantitative and qualitative methods.

Methods

Study setting

This study will take place at the University Sorbonne Paris Nord (USPN), located in the Seine Saint Denis department, in the Northern area of the Paris region (France). USPN has a population of approximately 25,000 students across three main campuses located in the cities of Villetaneuse, Bobigny and Saint-Denis. The Seine Saint Denis department exhibits specific characteristics compared to the broader Parisian region, including a higher proportion of young people under the age of 25 y [35] but also a higher rate of unemployment [36] and households living in poverty [37]. The participants evaluated in this study are students taking part in the intervention, i.e. the student citizens鈥� assembly.

Overall study procedures

The intervention will consist in a deliberative mini-public, a student citizen鈥檚 assembly on diet and physical activity. As presented in Fig.听1, after an initial phase of co-design in the early months of 2024, the assembly will take place between September 2024 and January 2025 (study aim #1). The other study aims will be addressed through a continuous process evaluation (study aim #2) and a pre-post quantitative and qualitative evaluation (study aim #3). This research is conducted in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki, and all procedures have been approved by the University Sorbonne Paris Nord Research Ethics Committee (no. 2024鈥�055) and registered with the Commission Nationale de l鈥橧nformatique et des Libert茅s (no. 2228413 v0). All participants will provide an electronic informed consent prior to their enrollment in the study. This research was registered at the ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT06580795).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study procedures

Full size image

Intervention description

Mandate of the student citizen鈥檚 assembly

The mandate of this student citizen鈥檚 assembly will be to co-create a set of concrete proposals that would enhance USPN students鈥� access to sustainable diets and physical activity. These proposals will then be submitted to the President of USPN, who has committed to making them public and evaluating them through ad hoc academic committees that will provide a detailed response to each proposal. The FAO's broad definition of sustainable diets, which encompasses environmental, health, economic and sociocultural dimensions, will be used as a reference to guide the work of the student citizens' assembly: 鈥�dietary patterns that promote all dimensions of individuals鈥� health and wellbeing; have low environmental pressure and impact; are accessible, affordable, safe and equitable; and are culturally acceptable鈥� [38]. Similarly, the following consensual definition of physical activity will be used: 鈥�any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that results in energy expenditure鈥� [39].

Members of the student citizen鈥檚 assembly

The mini-public will involve 30 students enrolled at USPN at the time of the study. This convenience sample of 30 students will allow for the creation of a group of six students for each of the five defined work themes, as detailed below. The criteria for inclusion will comprise: being an adult (18听years of age or older), being enrolled at USPN at the time of the study, being enrolled in initial training with in-person classes. Students enrolled in continuing education or work-study programs will not be included due to their limited time on university campuses and schedules constrained by mandatory presence at their host organization.

During the student citizens鈥� assembly, in order to formulate informed and relevant proposals, the mini-public will interact with a co-creation team of academic and non-academic partners involved in student life, nutrition, physical activity, or public policies (university administrative, teaching and research staff, and actors from the civic society) (Table听1).

Table 1 Description of the student citizens鈥� assembly members
Full size table

Procedures and timeline of the student citizens鈥� assembly

The USPN student citizens鈥� assembly is organized in five steps and will be based on collective deliberation and co-creation. Collective deliberation involves the process of confronting arguments and collectively evaluating their strengths in order to make a choice or solve a problem (Manin B: Deliberation: why we should focus on debate rather than discussion, unpublished). In citizens鈥� assemblies, the opinion of citizens prevails. Therefore, the external input is usually limited to what is strictly necessary to provide lay citizens with the tools they need to understand the subject and the issues at stake, such as training sessions and expert hearings [29]. Co-creation refers to the engagement of beneficiaries (i.e. students) and partners of public health interventions (e.g. university staff, food services, political representatives) in the design, implementation and evaluation of interventions [28]. Thus, co-creation differs from deliberation between lay citizens in that it involves citizens alongside decision-makers, who all share responsibility for the proposals [29].

Step 1- Recruitment of the mini-public. Students will be randomly selected out of a pool of volunteers. In September 2024, a communication campaign targeting all university students (of all ages and fields of study) will be conducted through emails, social media, and events on campus. Voluntary students will answer an online questionnaire to confirm their willingness to participate in the random draw. The random selection will then be conducted among them, in an effort to fill quotas based on gender (60% women), campus (56%, 37% and 7% at the Villetaneuse, Bobigny and Saint-Denis campuses, respectively), field of study (33% enrolled in Health Medicine and Human Biology, 36% in Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences or Communication, Economic and Management sciences, 12% in Engineering sciences, 19% in Technical studies) and study level (74%, 24% and 2% undergraduate, post-graduate, PhD students, respectively). Assuming that some students will stop participating during the student citizens鈥� assembly, we plan to initially select 45 students to ensure the participation of 30 students until the end of the assembly. Students will not receive financial compensation for their participation in the study. However, they will receive ECTS credits and a certificate from the University confirming their participation in the student citizens鈥� assembly.

Step 2 鈥� Assembly sessions. The student citizens鈥� assembly will take place during three days in November 2024 (see Fig. 2 for program details). On day 1, introductions and presentations, conferences, round tables and interactive training will be organized. On day 2, the student mini-public will be separated into five thematic groups defined by the Governance Committee: 1) reducing the burden of food insecurity among students, 2) improving students鈥� nutritional quality of the diet, 3) reducing the environmental impact of students鈥� diet, 4) improving students鈥� relationships with their body, weight, and eating behavior, 5) increasing their physical activity and active mobility. These themes are broad enough to allow students the freedom to approach them according to their needs, knowledge, and aspirations. On the morning of day 2, students will deliberate to define a list of preliminary proposals for each theme. Then, they will reconvene in plenary sessions in the afternoon to discuss and refine their proposals. On day 3, students will present their proposals and debate with the co-creation team. This will result in a list of co-created proposals. The sessions will be facilitated by a certified health education educator, with the assistance of master's students in nutrition who were previously trained in facilitation. An independent guarantor will ensure that the necessary conditions are met to guarantee the autonomy of assembly members and compliance with best practices in participatory research and collective deliberation [40, 41].

Fig. 2
figure 2

Timeline of the student citizens鈥� assembly

Full size image

Step 3 鈥� Vote. Shortly after day 3, the guarantor will supervise an online anonymous among all assembly members, asking them how much they approve the proposals on a 10-point Likert scale. Proposals receiving an average appreciation below 5 on the 10-point scale will be withdrawn from the list of proposals. Thus, after this step, a list of definitive proposals will be defined.

Step 4 鈥� Writing of the final report. The coordination team, in collaboration with one student from each thematic group, will draft the final report presenting the definitive proposals. The draft will then be amended, approved and signed by all assembly members. To inform the 鈥渕axi-public鈥� of USPN (i.e. all the students and staff of the university) and to ensure transparency on process and outcomes of the assembly, the finalized proposals will also be published on the university website.

Step 5 鈥� Closure. Members of the governance committee and voluntary assembly members will formally present proposals, which will be discussed with the maxi-public.

Participatory research and co-creation procedures

According to the typology of Biggs, this study is based on a collegiate (and deepest) mode of participation, where academic and non-academic partners collaborate in a process of mutual learning, sharing control over the research process [42]. Indeed, the beneficiaries of the intervention (i.e. university students) and non-academic partners likely to implement the proposals are involved in the research from the start, in different ways, as summarized in Table 2. Non-academic partners participate in all steps of the process from problem definition to solution design, implementation, and evaluation.

Table 2 Involvement of partners in the research process
Full size table

Data collection and planned statistical analyses

Transferability of the student citizens鈥� assembly (aim #2)

A continuous process evaluation will be conducted to estimate the transferability of the student citizen鈥檚 assembly (Fig. 1), defined as the ability of a program to be successfully disseminated and maintained under real-life conditions [43]. Indicators of transferability will be assessed throughout the student citizen鈥檚 assembly and after its completion using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework [44, 45]. The following indicators will be computed.

Reach measures participation at the individual level. To assess the proportion and representativeness of the student mini-public, their data on individual characteristics (gender, level of study, discipline, campus) will be collected and compared with the statistics of the overall USPN student population. Their participation (i.e. presence) to assembly sessions will also be recorded.

Effectiveness refers to the impact on selected outcomes, participant satisfaction and any adverse effects. Because the proposals of the student citizens' assembly will not be implemented during the time frame of this study, assessing their effectiveness on the diet of the overall student population will not be possible. Therefore, effectiveness evaluation will consist of presenting the proposals of the student citizens鈥� assembly and assessing whether they target the main determinants of the population's diet. Relevant frameworks, such as the (Determinants of Nutrition and Eating) DONE framework synthesizing the individual, interpersonal, environmental and policy determinants of diet [46], will be used to conduct this comparison.

Adoption measures the proportion and representativeness of settings and staff members adopting a given program. To describe the co-creation team, data on their individual characteristics (gender, age, employer and job description) will be collected.

Implementation is the extent to which a program is delivered as intended. It will consist of describing the assembly members' expertise, calculating the monetary cost of implementing the citizens鈥� assembly, and comparing its actual to its planned implementation.

Maintenance refers to long-term changes at both the individual and setting levels. This will be assessed by tracking the evolution of proposals (e.g. whether they have been accepted and implemented) and the willingness of USPN representatives to replicate the student citizens鈥� assembly in another location or on another topic will be assessed through interviews conducted with USPN representatives one year after completion of the assembly.

A narrative approach and/or standard descriptive statistics will be used to summarize data collected for process evaluation. Comparisons between characteristics of the student mini- and maxi-public will be conducted using the 蠂2 test for categorical variables and Wilcoxon or Kruskal Wallis tests for continuous variables.

Changes in dietary habits, knowledge and citizen practices (aim #3)

A combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches will be used to assess and understand changes in dietary habits, as well as knowledge of the environmental impact of diet and citizen practices among the student mini-public.

Quantitative data collection

An online survey will be conducted before and after the student citizens鈥� assembly among the student mini-public to assess changes in their dietary habits, knowledge on the environmental impact of diet and citizen practices. Questionnaires will be completed online using a dedicated secure website (). At inclusion in the study and one month after the citizen鈥檚 assembly, the mini-public will be invited to complete a set of self-administered questionnaires (Additional file 1). Questionnaire 1 (pre-assembly) will assess socioeconomic and demographic characteristics (level of study and discipline, housing conditions, perceived economic difficulties鈥�). Questionnaire 2 (pre- and post-assembly) is a short food frequency questionnaire assessing food group consumption, adapted from French national studies [47, 48]. Questionnaire 3 (pre- and post-assembly) is a French version of the SHED index assessing sustainable dietary practices [49]. Questionnaire 4 (pre- and post-assembly) is a French version of a short questionnaire assessing knowledge of diet鈥檚 environmental impact [50]. Questionnaire 5 (post-assembly) will assess the perception of the student citizen鈥檚 assembly and citizen practices.

Qualitative data collection

Semi-structured interviews will be conducted among the mini-public before and one month after the student citizens鈥� assembly. Before the student citizen鈥檚 assembly, the interviews will explore each person's interpretation of the term 'eating well,' their understanding of the food system and its environmental impact, their dietary habits and eating practices, as well as the barriers they face in achieving a sustainable diet. Following the student citizen鈥檚 assembly, the interviews will focus on any changes observed in these areas since participating in the assembly.

Analyses

Pre- and post- quantitative data on dietary habits, knowledge, and citizen practices will be described using standard descriptive statistics. Changes over time will be assessed using McNemar or Wilcoxon signed rank test, wherever appropriate.

The qualitative analysis is based on the transcription of interviews conducted with students. The interviews will be analyzed using thematic content analysis to highlight the similarities and differences in the respondents' statements [51]. This approach allows us to identify and code the main emerging themes. After a thorough reading and an initial open coding phase, axial coding to group the initial codes into larger and more meaningful categories will be performed. This step is followed by a selective coding phase, where the main categories are refined and interconnected to reveal recurring patterns and relationships between concepts.

Integrative analyses will also be performed to investigate how quantitative and qualitative data correspond and complement each other.

Discussion

A participatory research project

This study aims to provide insights into involving higher education students and diverse partners in co-creating nutrition interventions in a higher education setting through a deliberative mini-public. This project is based on participatory research, which has emerged as an appropriate approach for designing and implementing public health interventions [26]. In participatory research, academic and non-academic partners collaborate to produce solution- and public-oriented knowledge [26]. Potential benefits of participatory research include the definition of more relevant research questions, greater community engagement and better responses to the needs and expectations of target populations [52,53,54]. In this study, we pay particular attention to involve a diversity of partners from the start of the research. Academic partners have diverse profiles (administrative, teaching and research staff, and elected students), and non-academic partners come from public institutions (university catering services), local authorities (municipalities, groups of municipalities, departmental council), student associations, or associations established locally or nationally. Their involvement in the different research steps, from problem definition to solution design, implementation, and evaluation, is a strength of this study.

Co-creation of nutritional interventions

This study will help understand whether using such participatory research methods and co-creation approaches can lead to the design of relevant interventions targeting the main determinants of students鈥� diets. Among the numerous studies reporting the effectiveness of nutrition interventions in the higher education setting, the majority of interventions were designed solely by researchers and were based on one single strategy, such as implementing a nutritional education program or changing the campus food environment [25, 55]. The first student citizens鈥� assembly conducted on a global scale, at Paris Est Cr茅teil University in 2021, France, gathered 150 students who were asked to produce measures that would allow an alternative food system on campus [33]. Their proposals included both individual- and organizational-level interventions, indicating that students recognized the need for multi-level interventions [33]. The training sessions at the outset of citizens' assemblies are critical, as they equip participants with a common foundation of knowledge on the key issues at stake, fostering informed and productive debates. In our study, these training sessions are co-designed with master鈥檚 students in public health nutrition and focus on the multi-level determinants of students鈥� diets. This approach aims to guide discussions and proposals across these different intervention levels. Beyond analyzing the proposals, it will be critical to assess their acceptability by the university community and their effective implementation. Although the USPN President committed to making the proposals public and having them evaluated by ad hoc academic committees, it is important to clarify that, in France, universities are not solely responsible for the food environment and policy on and off campus. However, they can play a role in negotiation and coordination. This is why we believe that the involvement of other key actors during the student citizens鈥� assembly will increase the chances of effectively implementing the proposals.

Mixed-methods exploration

This study aims to evaluate the transferability of the student citizens鈥� assembly, and to assess and understand changes in the participating students' dietary habits, knowledge, and citizen practices. To that end, quantitative and qualitative approaches will be combined to gain insights that neither approach alone would provide [56]. The process of the student citizens鈥� assembly will be described in detail using the RE-AIM framework presented above, which has been used extensively in public health research [44, 57]. Describing the intervention process is critical for transferability purposes, especially for interventions using participatory and co-creation approaches, involving numerous partners. So far, studies that have conducted participatory and co-created campus-based nutrition interventions did not sufficiently report the process of intervention, which limits their potential for transferability [25].

Limitations and feasibility risks

This participatory research project involves several risks. The first risk pertains to the participation of students in the student citizens' assembly and the research protocol, and the diversity of their profiles. We are aware that the project depends on the willingness of students representing the diversity of students鈥� profiles to invest time in this project and that disadvantaged groups are a hard-to-reach segment of the population [58]. However, this risk is reduced by the early involvement of university students and university representatives as full research partners in our consortium, thereby ensuring the adaptation of the communication strategy to student population's habits, needs and aspirations. Second, all measures of changes in dietary habits, knowledge and citizen practices are self-reported, representing a limitation due to the known social desirability bias in such sensitive topics [59]. However, the use of online questionnaires will reduce this risk, compared to a more traditional face-to-face interview [60]. Changes are also assessed in the short term, although it would be of interest to assess them at longer term. Finally, in the timeline of this study, the proposals put forward by the student citizens鈥� assembly will not be implemented and their effectiveness on students鈥� diets will not be assessed. Other outcomes will be assessed, such as the assembly transferability and the changes occurring within students involved in the assembly. This study will provide the foundation for designing a future research protocol to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the proposals.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Change history

  • 22 October 2024

    A Correction to this paper has been published:

Abbreviations

DONE:

Determinants of Nutrition and Eating

RE-AIM:

Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance

USPN:

University Sorbonne Paris Nord

References

  1. Winpenny EM, van Sluijs EMF, White M, Klepp KI, Wold B, Lien N. Changes in diet through adolescence and early adulthood: longitudinal trajectories and association with key life transitions. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15(1):86.

    听 听 听 听

  2. Deliens T, Clarys P, Van Hecke L, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Deforche B. Changes in weight and body composition during the first semester at university. A Prospect Explan Study Appetite. 2013;65:111鈥�6.

    听

  3. Maillet MA, Grouzet FME. Understanding changes in eating behavior during the transition to university from a self-determination theory perspective: a systematic review. J Am Coll Health. 2021;71(2):422鈥�39.

    听 听 听

  4. Winpenny EM, Smith M, Penney T, Foubister C, Guagliano JM, Love R, et al. Changes in physical activity, diet, and body weight across the education and employment transitions of early adulthood: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2020;21(4): e12962.

    听 听 听 听

  5. Crombie AP, Ilich JZ, Dutton GR, Panton LB, Abood DA. The freshman weight gain phenomenon revisited. Nutr Rev. 2009;67(2):83鈥�94.

    听 听 听

  6. Aguirre S谩nchez L, Roa-D铆az ZM, Gamba M, Grisotto G, Moreno Londo帽o AM, Mantilla-Uribe BP, et al. What Influences the sustainable food consumption behaviours of university students? A systematic review. Int J Public Health. 2021;66: 1604149.

    听 听 听 听

  7. FAO. Declaration on World Food Security. World Food Summit. Rome: FAO. (1996). Available from: . Cited 2023 Sep 11.

  8. Nikolaus CJ, An R, Ellison B, Nickols-Richardson SM. Food insecurity among college students in the United States: a scoping review. Adv Nutr. 2020;11(2):327鈥�48.

    听 听 听

  9. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Key Statistics & Graphics - Food Security Status of U.S. Households in 2021. Available from: . Cited 2024 May 3.

  10. Miller L, D茅chelotte P, Ladner J, Tavolacci MP. Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthy components of diet and factors associated with unfavorable changes among university students in France. Nutrients. 2022;14(18): 3862.

    听 听 听 听

  11. Isoard-Gautheur S, Ginoux C, Petit R, Clavier V, Dias D, Sarrazin P, et al. Relationships between food insecurity, physical activity, detachment from studies, and students鈥� well-being: a prospective study. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2023;33(7):1242鈥�53.

    听 听 听

  12. Loofbourrow BM, Scherr RE. Food insecurity in higher education: a contemporary review of impacts and explorations of solutions. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(10): 5884.

    听 听 听 听

  13. Kendrick A, Fantasia H, Morse B, Willis D. Food insecurity in college students: a concept analysis. Nurs Forum. 2022;57(5):898鈥�904.

    听 听 听

  14. Shi Y, Davies A, Allman-Farinelli M. The association between food insecurity and dietary outcomes in university students: a systematic review. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2021;121(12):2475鈥�2500.e1.

    听 听 听

  15. Radtke MD, Steinberg FM, Scherr RE. Methods for assessing health outcomes associated with food insecurity in the united states college student population: a narrative review. Adv Nutr.听2024;15(1):100131.

  16. Martinez-Lacoba R, Pardo-Garcia I, Amo-Saus E, Escribano-Sotos F. Socioeconomic, demographic and lifestyle-related factors associated with unhealthy diet: a cross-sectional study of university students. 樱花视频. 2018;18(1):1241.

    听 听 听 听

  17. Sprake EF, Russell JM, Cecil JE, Cooper RJ, Grabowski P, Pourshahidi LK, et al. Dietary patterns of university students in the UK: a cross-sectional study. Nutr J. 2018;17(1):90.

    听 CAS听 听 听 听

  18. Bailey CP, Sharma S, Economos CD, Hennessy E, Simon C, Hatfield DP. College campuses鈥� influence on student weight and related behaviours: A review of observational and intervention research. Obes Sci Pract. 2020;6(6):694鈥�707.

    听 听 听 听

  19. Saha S, Al Mamun MA, Kabir MR. Factors affecting fast food consumption among college students in South Asia: a systematic review. J Am Nutr Assoc. 2022;41(6):627鈥�37.

    听 听

  20. Hilger J, Loerbroks A, Diehl K. Eating behaviour of university students in Germany: Dietary intake, barriers to healthy eating and changes in eating behaviour since the time of matriculation. Appetite. 2017;109:100鈥�7.

    听 听 听

  21. Velez-Toral M, Rodriguez-Reinado C, Ramallo-Espinosa A, Andres-Villas M. 鈥淚t鈥檚 Important but, on What Level?鈥�: healthy cooking meanings and barriers to healthy eating among university students. Nutrients. 2020;12(8): 2309.

    听 听 听 听

  22. Zigmont V, Linsmeier A, Gallup P. Understanding the why of college student food insecurity. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2021;16(5):595鈥�610.

    听 听

  23. Rutter H, Savona N, Glonti K, Bibby J, Cummins S, Finegood DT, et al. The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. Lancet. 2017;390(10112):2602鈥�4.

    听 听 听

  24. Pineda E, Poelman MP, Aasp玫llu A, Bica M, Bouzas C, Carrano E, et al. Policy implementation and priorities to create healthy food environments using the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI): a pooled level analysis across eleven European countries. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2022;23: 100522.

    听 听 听 听

  25. Assilian T, Dehove H, Charreire H, Baudry J, Kesse-Guyot E, P茅neau S, et al. Improving student diet and food security in higher education using participatory and co-creation approaches: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2024;21(1):71.

    听 听 听 听

  26. Cargo M, Mercer SL. The value and challenges of participatory research: strengthening its practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:325鈥�50.

    听 听 听

  27. Singh DR, Sah RK, Simkhada B, Darwin Z. Potentials and challenges of using co-design in health services research in low- and middle-income countries. Glob Health Res Policy. 2023;8(1):5.

    听 听 听 听

  28. Vargas C, Whelan J, Brimblecombe J, Allender S. Co-creation, co-design, co-production for public health - a perspective on definition and distinctions. Public Health Res Pract. 2022;32(2):3222211.

    听 听 听

  29. Giraudet LG, Apouey B, Arab H, Baeckelandt S, B茅gout P, Berghmans N, et al. 鈥淐o-construction鈥� in deliberative democracy: lessons from the French citizens鈥� convention for climate. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022;9(1):1鈥�16.

    听

  30. Dryzek JS, B盲chtiger A, Chambers S, Cohen J, Druckman JN, Felicetti A, et al. The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science. 2019;363(6432):1144鈥�6.

    听 CAS听 听 听

  31. Devaney L, Torney D, Brereton P, Coleman M. Ireland鈥檚 citizens鈥� assembly on climate change: lessons for deliberative public engagement and communication. Environ Commun. 2020;14(2):141鈥�6.

    听 听

  32. King M, Wilson R. Local government and democratic innovations: reflections on the case of citizen assemblies on climate change. Public Money & Management. 2023;43(1):73鈥�6.

    听 听

  33. Frenkiel E, El-Karmouni H. La convention citoyenne 茅tudiante鈥�: quel impact sur l鈥檋orizontalisation du processus d茅cisionnel et le syst猫me alimentaire de l鈥檜niversit茅 Paris Est Cr茅teil鈥�? Technol Innov. 2023;8(4):1鈥�14.

    听

  34. UNIL Universit茅 de Lausanne. Assembl茅e de la transition - Rapport final. Lausanne; 2023 Sep. Available from: .

  35. Insee. La Seine-Saint-Denis鈥�: entre dynamisme 茅conomique et difficult茅s sociales persistantes. 2020. Available from: .

  36. Insee. Taux de ch么mage localis茅s au 2e trimestre 2023. 2023. Available from: .

  37. Insee. Principaux r茅sultats sur les revenus et la pauvret茅 des m茅nages en 2020 Dispositif Fichier localis茅 social et fiscal (Filosofi). 2020. Available from: .

  38. FAO and WHO. Sustainable healthy diets: Guiding principles. Rome, Italy: FAO and WHO; 2019:44. Available from: . Cited 2022 May 31.

  39. Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep. 1985;100(2):126鈥�31.

    CAS听 听 听 听

  40. Houllier F. Minist猫re de l鈥櫭ヾucation nationale, de l鈥檈nseignement sup茅rieur et de la recherche. Les Sciences participatives en France - Etat des lieux, bonnes pratiques et recommandations. Paris: 2016.

  41. Charter of citizen science and participatory research in France - Supporting and promoting collaboration between scientific research stakeholders and civil society. Available from: .

  42. Cornwall A, Jewkes R. What is participatory research? Soc Sci Med. 1995;41(12):1667鈥�76.

    听 CAS听 听 听

  43. Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E, Marcus AC. Why don鈥檛 we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(8):1261鈥�7.

    听 听 听 听

  44. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322鈥�7.

    听 CAS听 听 听 听

  45. Bellicha A, Kieusseian A, Fontvieille AM, Tataranni A, Copin N, Charreire H, et al. A multistage controlled intervention to increase stair climbing at work: effectiveness and process evaluation. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13:47.

    听 听 听 听

  46. Stok FM, Hoffmann S, Volkert D, Boeing H, Ensenauer R, Stelmach-Mardas M, et al. The DONE framework: Creation, evaluation, and updating of an interdisciplinary, dynamic framework 2.0 of determinants of nutrition and eating. PLoS One. 2017;12(2): e0171077.

    听 听 听 听

  47. Sant茅 Publique France. 脡tude de sant茅 sur l鈥檈nvironnement, la biosurveillance, l鈥檃ctivit茅 physique et la nutrition (ESTEBAN 2014鈥�2016). Volet Nutrition. Chapitre Corpulence. 2017.

  48. Castetbon K, M茅jean C, Deschamps V, Bellin-Lestienne C, Oleko A, Darmon N, et al. Dietary behaviour and nutritional status in underprivileged people using food aid (ABENA study, 2004鈥�2005). J Hum Nutr Diet. 2011;24(6):560鈥�71.

    听 CAS听 听 听

  49. Tepper S, Geva D, Shahar DR, Shepon A, Mendelsohn O, Golan M, et al. The Shed Index: a tool for assessing a Sustainable HEalthy Diet. Eur J Nutr. 2021;60(7):3897鈥�909.

    听 听 听

  50. Hartmann C, Lazzarini G, Funk A, Siegrist M. Measuring consumers鈥� knowledge of the environmental impact of foods. Appetite. 2021;167: 105622.

    听 听 听

  51. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc; 1994. p. xiv 338 p (Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd ed).

    听

  52. McCoy MS, Jongsma KR, Friesen P, Dunn M, Neuhaus CP, Rand L, et al. National standards for public involvement in research: missing the forest for the trees. J Med Ethics. 2018;44(12):801鈥�4.

    听 听 听

  53. Harting J, Kruithof K, Ruijter L, Stronks K. Participatory research in health promotion: a critical review and illustration of rationales. Health Promot Int. 2022;37(Supplement_2):ii7鈥�20.

    听 听 听 听

  54. Cook T, Boote J, Buckley N, Vougioukalou S, Wright M. Accessing participatory research impact and legacy: developing the evidence base for participatory approaches in health research. Educ Action Res. 2017;25(4):473鈥�88.

    听 听

  55. Belogianni K, Baldwin C. Types of interventions targeting dietary, physical activity, and weight-related outcomes among university students: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Adv Nutr. 2019;10(5):848鈥�63.

    听 听 听 听

  56. Levitt HM, Bamberg M, Creswell JW, Frost DM, Josselson R, Su谩rez-Orozco C. Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: the APA publications and communications board task force report. Am Psychol. 2018;73(1):26鈥�46.

    听 听 听

  57. Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B, Rabin B, Smith ML, Porter GC, et al. RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front Public Health. 2019;7: 64.

    听 听 听 听

  58. Bonevski B, Randell M, Paul C, Chapman K, Twyman L, Bryant J, et al. Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. 樱花视频 Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1): 42.

    听 听 听 听

  59. Krumpal I. Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual Quant. 2013;47(4):2025鈥�47.

    听 听

  60. Touvier M, Kesse-Guyot E, M茅jean C, Pollet C, Malon A, Castetbon K, et al. Comparison between an interactive web-based self-administered 24 h dietary record and an interview by a dietitian for large-scale epidemiological studies. Br J Nutr. 2011;105(7):1055鈥�64.

    听 CAS听 听 听

Acknowledgements

The authors warmly thank all (future) volunteer members of the student citizens鈥� assembly for their participation in the study. We would also like to thank the academic, institutional, territorial and associative partners for their support of the study.

Members of the 鈥淯SPN Student Citizens鈥� Assembly Group鈥� collaboration Group should be searchable through their individual PubMed records: Alice BELLICHA, Carole BAEZA, Laurent BAUER, Yann CHAPIN, Henri DEHOVE, Vanessa DEWALLERS, Jean-Luc DUMAS, Aude-Marie FOUCAUT, Emilie FRENKIEL, Olivia GROSS, C茅line GUERRAND, Inaara HAIDARALY, Goran KAYMAK, Nathalie LIDGI-GUIGUI, Malo MOFAKHAMI, Pascale MOLINIER, Leslie NOUNDOU, Olivier OUDAR, Rapha毛lle PISTORESI, Rouguy THIAM-SY, Lucile VIGOUROUX.

Funding

This research has undergone independent peer-review and has received funding from the French National Research Agency (Agence Nationale de la Recherche, DACCORD study, no. ANR-23-SSAI-0020鈥�01) and the Institute for Public Health Research (Institut pour la Recherche en Sant茅 Publique, CoCoNut study, AAP-2022-SIP-312743).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universit茅 Sorbonne Paris Nord and Universit茅 Paris Cit茅, Inserm, INRAE, CNAM, Center of Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN), Bobigny, France

    Alice Bellicha,听Benjamin All猫s,听Julia Baudry,听Henri Dehove,听Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot听&听Sandrine P茅neau

  2. Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire d鈥櫭塼ude du Politique Hannah Arendt (LIPHA), Universit茅 Paris Est-Cr茅teil, Fontainebleau, France

    Lucile Bour茅听&听Emilie Frenkiel

  3. Institut de Recherche en Gestion, Universit茅 Paris Est-Cr茅teil, Cr茅teil, France

    Hajar El Karmouni

  4. Institute for Interdisciplinary Research On Social Issues (IRIS), Universit茅 Sorbonne Paris Nord, Aubervilliers, Bobigny, France

    Malo Mofakhami

Authors
  1. Alice Bellicha

    You can also search for this author in 听

  2. Benjamin All猫s

    You can also search for this author in 听

  3. Julia Baudry

    You can also search for this author in 听

  4. Lucile Bour茅

    You can also search for this author in 听

  5. Henri Dehove

    You can also search for this author in 听

  6. Hajar El Karmouni

    You can also search for this author in 听

  7. Emilie Frenkiel

    You can also search for this author in 听

  8. Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot

    You can also search for this author in 听

  9. Sandrine P茅neau

    You can also search for this author in 听

  10. Malo Mofakhami

    You can also search for this author in 听

Consortia

the USPN Student Citizens鈥� Assembly Group

  • Alice Bellicha
  • ,听Carole Baeza
  • ,听Laurent Bauer
  • ,听Yann Chapin
  • ,听Henri Dehove
  • ,听Vanessa Dewallers
  • ,听Jean-Luc Dumas
  • ,听Aude-Marie Foucaut
  • ,听Emilie Frenkiel
  • ,听Olivia Gross
  • ,听C茅line Guerrand
  • ,听Inaara Haidaraly
  • ,听Goran Kaymak
  • ,听Nathalie Lidgi-Guigui
  • ,听Malo Mofakhami
  • ,听Pascale Molinier
  • ,听Leslie Noundou
  • ,听Olivier Oudar
  • ,听Rapha毛lle Pistoresi
  • ,听Rouguy Thiam-Sy
  • 听&听Lucile Vigouroux

Contributions

AB, HEK, EF, and MM contributed to the conceptualization of the study. All authors participated in study design and were involved in writing the study protocol. All authors contributed to the manuscript preparation and have read and approved the final manuscript. The USPN Student Citizens鈥� Assembly Group is a consortium of researchers, university representatives, students, and associative partners who are members of the student citizens assembly governance committee.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice Bellicha.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This research is conducted in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki, and all procedures have been approved by the University Sorbonne Paris Nord Research Ethics Committee (no. 2024鈥�055) and registered with the Commission Nationale de l鈥橧nformatique et des Libert茅s (no. 2228413 v0). All participants will provide an electronic informed consent prior to their enrollment in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher鈥檚 Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article has been updated to correct an author name.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article鈥檚 Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article鈥檚 Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit .

About this article

Cite this article

Bellicha, A., All猫s, B., Baudry, J. et al. A participatory research to assess how a student citizens鈥� assembly can facilitate the co-creation of nutrition interventions in higher education settings. 樱花视频 24, 2772 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-20277-3

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-20277-3

Keywords

樱花视频

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us