Next Article in Journal
Hypoxic Pilates Intervention for Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Next Article in Special Issue
The Determinants of Conspiracy Beliefs Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Nationally Representative Sample of Internet Users
Previous Article in Journal
Body Composition and a School Day Hydration State among Polish Children—A Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Social Networking Sites and Perceived Content Influence: An Exploratory Analysis from Focus Groups with French Adolescents
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 17
Issue 19
10.3390/ijerph17197185
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Digital Healthy Diet Literacy and Self-Perceived Eating Behavior Change during COVID-19 Pandemic among Undergraduate Nursing and Medical Students: A Rapid Online Survey

by
Tuyen Van Duong
1,*,
Khue M. Pham
2,3,
Binh N. Do
4,5,
Giang B. Kim
6,7,
Hoa T. B. Dam
8,
Vinh-Tuyen T. Le
9,10,
Thao T. P. Nguyen
11,12,
Hiep T. Nguyen
13,14,15,
Trung T. Nguyen
16,
Thuy T. Le
17,18,
Hien T. T. Do
19 and
Shwu-Huey Yang
1,20,21
1
School of Nutrition and Health Sciences, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110–31, Taiwan
2
Faculty of Public Health, Hai Phong University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hai Phong 042–12, Vietnam
3
President Office, Hai Phong University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hai Phong 042–12, Vietnam
4
Department of Infectious Diseases, Vietnam Military Medical University, Hanoi 121–08, Vietnam
5
Division of Military Science, Military Hospital 103, Hanoi 121–08, Vietnam
6
Institute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi 115–20, Vietnam
7
Center for Assessment and Quality Assurance, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi 115–20, Vietnam
8
Department of Psychiatry, Thai Nguyen University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Thai Nguyen 241–17, Vietnam
9
Department of Pharmacognosy—Traditional Pharmacy—Pharmaceutical Botanic, Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Can Tho 941–17, Vietnam
10
Ph.D. Program in Clinical Drug Development of Herbal Medicine, College of Pharmacy, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110–31, Taiwan
11
Health Management Training Institute, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Thua Thien Hue 491–20, Vietnam
12
Department of Health Economics, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest 1093, Hungary
13
Faculty of Public Health, Pham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine, Ho Chi Minh 725–10, Vietnam
14
Pham Ngoc Thach Clinic, Pham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine, Ho Chi Minh 725–10, Vietnam
15
President Office, Pham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine, Ho Chi Minh 725–10, Vietnam
16
School of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vietnam National University, Hanoi 113–09, Vietnam
17
Faculty of Medical Laboratory Science, Da Nang University of Medical Technology and Pharmacy, Da Nang 502–06, Vietnam
18
President Office, Da Nang University of Medical Technology and Pharmacy, Da Nang 502–06, Vietnam
19
Faculty of Nursing, Hai Duong Medical Technical University, Hai Duong 031–17, Vietnam
20
Research Center of Geriatric Nutrition, Taipei Medical University, Taipei 110–31, Taiwan
21
Nutrition Research Center, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei 110–31, Taiwan
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(19), 7185; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197185
Submission received: 14 August 2020 / Revised: 25 September 2020 / Accepted: 29 September 2020 / Published: 30 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue eHealth Literacy)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Assessing healthy diet literacy and eating behaviors is critical for identifying appropriate public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined the psychometric properties of digital healthy diet literacy (DDL) and its association with eating behavior changes during the COVID-19 pandemic among nursing and medical students. We conducted a cross-sectional study from 7 April to 31 May 2020 at 10 public universities in Vietnam, in which 7616 undergraduate students aged 19–27 completed an online survey to assess socio-demographics, clinical parameters, health literacy (HL), DDL, and health-related behaviors. Four items of the DDL scale loaded on one component explained 71.32%, 67.12%, and 72.47% of the scale variances for the overall sample, nursing, and medical students, respectively. The DDL scale was found to have satisfactory item-scale convergent validity and criterion validity, high internal consistency reliability, and no floor or ceiling effect. Of all, 42.8% of students reported healthier eating behavior during the pandemic. A 10-index score increment of DDL was associated with 18%, 23%, and 17% increased likelihood of healthier eating behavior during the pandemic for the overall sample (OR, 1.18; 95%CI, 1.13, 1.24; p < 0.001), nursing students (OR, 1.23; 95%CI, 1.10, 1.35; p < 0.001), and medical students (OR, 1.17; 95%CI, 1.11, 1.24; p < 0.001), respectively. The DDL scale is a valid and reliable tool for the quick assessment of digital healthy diet literacy. Students with higher DDL scores had a higher likelihood of healthier eating behavior during the pandemic.

1. Introduction

The unprecedented coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has created vast socioeconomic burdens [1], morbidity, and mortality [2,3]. The pandemic has also changed eating behaviors for the worse [4,5,6,7]. To deal with this challenge, the USA National Institute of Health Nutrition Research Task Force developed a 2020–2030 strategic plan to improve health and prevent or combat diseases and conditions that have been affected by food and nutrition [8].
Healthy dietary intake has shown protective effects on the immune systems and health outcomes during the COVID-19 crisis [9,10]. There are no data available, and rigorous clinical trials conducted to elaborate and confirm the benefits of a healthy diet in the current COVID-19 pandemic. Diversified and balanced diets improve the immune response to viral infection (e.g., SARS-CoV-2) [11], helping to reduce the severity [12] and any complications of COVID-19 [13]. Yet, unhealthy eating behaviors rapidly increased worldwide [14,15], including in Vietnam [16]. In ASEAN countries, the proportions of disordered eating attitudes among university students were 10%–20.6% [17].
The COVID-19 pandemic has also caused an “infodemic” of diverse information and sources [18,19]. Health literacy [20] and eHealth literacy [21] are highly recommended as strategic approaches to contain the pandemic. Nursing and medical students were mobilized to respond to the global health crisis [22,23,24,25], and because these future health workers can help combat misinformation and disinformation [26,27], their digital literacy should be promoted [28,29].
It is critical to promote healthy dietary behaviors to improve health outcomes [30] and contain the COVID-19 disease and its consequences [31,32,33]. The assessments of eating behaviors and nutritional status are critical to identifying comprehensive approaches for managing COVID-19 [34] and suggesting sustainable food intake [35]. To identify behavior changes and develop strategies to improve students’ eating behaviors, their ability to access, understand, appraise, and apply the healthy diet information on the internet during the pandemic requires a short, valid, and reliable survey tool.
We examined the psychometric properties of an expanded digital healthy diet literacy (DDL) domain of health literacy to investigate associations between DDL and eating behavior changes during the COVID-19 pandemic among nursing and medical students at 10 public universities in Vietnam.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey from 7 April to 31 May 2020. Participants from 10 universities across Vietnam were recruited, including those from six universities in the nation’s north, two in the south, and two in the country’s central region. The study settings were all public universities that train and provide the nation’s healthcare workforce.

2.2. Study Sample

Undergraduate medical and nursing students were invited as they are the medical university’s major focus and the country’s future healthcare providers. The data collection procedure was similar to a previous study [36]. In brief, researchers as university lecturers invited students to voluntarily participate, and there were no direct benefits or compensations for participating in the survey. Lecturers sent the survey link to student leaders via email, Messenger, and Zalo. The student leaders sent the link to other students. The online consent forms were signed before taking the survey. Students filled in the form with their name and phone number to avoid duplications, while data were coded and analyzed confidentially.
A total sample of 7616 students (out of 32,632 possible participants) aged 21 to 27 years completed the survey. The studied and possible students at each university are listed in Table 1.

2.3. Instruments and Measurements

2.3.1. Sociodemographics and Clinical Parameters

Students reported sociodemographic information, including age, gender, academic year (1 to 6 for the medical field, 1 to 4 for nursing field), academic field (medical vs. nursing), and ability to pay for medication (very or fairly difficult vs. very or fairly easy).
Clinical parameters were assessed including self-reported body height (cm) and weight (kg). Body mass index (BMI, kg/m2) was also calculated. Students also reported health problems that resembled symptoms of COVID-19, which were recorded as suspected COVID-19 symptoms (S-COVID-19-S) [37]. These included common symptoms of fever, cough, and dyspnea along with less common symptoms of myalgia, fatigue, sputum production, confusion, headache, sore throat, rhinorrhea, chest pain, hemoptysis, diarrhea, and nausea/vomiting. If students had any of those symptoms, they were classified as having S-COVID-19-S or symptoms like COVID-19. Chronic health problems were assessed using Charlson comorbidity index items [38,39].

2.3.2. Health Literacy and Digital Healthy Diet Literacy

Health literacy (HL) was evaluated using a 12-item short-form health literacy questionnaire (HLS-SF12) that has been widely used in Asian countries [40], including in Vietnam [41,42,43]. The HLS-SF12 questionnaire was used to measure comprehensive health literacy, including four stages of information processing (e.g., accessing, understanding, appraising, and applying), and three domains of health (e.g., health care, disease prevention, and health promotion) [44,45].
During the COVID-19 pandemic, digital healthy diet literacy (DDL) guides people towards healthier eating behaviors that can improve immune resistance [9,10]. Therefore, as an expanded concept of health literacy, DDL refers to the ability to access, understand, judge, and apply digital healthy-diet-related information to improve healthy eating behavior and health outcomes that are critical to contain the pandemic. We adapted the HL conceptual framework and expanded a DDL domain by adding four more items to assess the information processing ability, including the ability to (1) … find reliable and accurate healthy diet information on the internet, (2) … understand healthy diet information and dietary guidelines on the internet, (3) … judge whether healthy diet information on the internet is applied for individuals, and (4) … apply healthy diet information from the internet into individuals’ daily lives to eat healthily.
Participants reported difficulty in performing each task item based on 4-point Likert scales from 1 = very difficult to 2 = fairly difficult, 3 = fairly easy, and 4 = very easy. The HL and DDL indices were standardized to a unified metric from 0 to 50 with higher scores representing better HL or DDL [46] using Formula (1):
Index = (Mean − 1) × (50/3)
where Index is the specific index calculated, Mean is the mean of all participating items for each individual, 1 is the minimal possible value of the mean (leading to a minimum value of the index of 0), 3 is the range of the mean, and 50 is the chosen maximum value. Both HLS-SF12 and DDL are subjective measures.

2.3.3. Eating Behavior and Other Lifestyle Changes

Students reported their current health-related behaviors compared with before the pandemic [36]. We did not assess the actual dietary intake or eating habits in this study. Students simply self-reported the perception of eating behaviors. Students rated their eating behavior as less healthy, unchanged, and healthier. They also ranked their smoking, drinking, and physical activity on a scale ranging from never to stopped, less, unchanged, and more. During the pandemic, healthier eating, continued or additional physical activity, and decreases in or the cessation of both smoking and drinking are crucial, along with the risk management strategies of hand-washing, mask-wearing, and social distancing [31]. On the one hand, we did not investigate whether the “unchanged” eating behavior during the pandemic was considered “unhealthy” or “healthy” behavior. On the other hand, in health promotion, people are suggested to comply with healthy behaviors on every basis. These healthy behaviors are even more important during the pandemic; people should have healthier eating behaviors that can improve immune function and prevent viral infection. Therefore, we aimed to compare the “healthier diet” and other behavioral categories, including “unchanged” and “less healthy”. Similarly, because physical activity and cessation/reduction of smoking/drinking are suggested, “never, stopped, or less” were grouped into one category, and “unchanged or more” was another category. “Healthier diet” and “unchanged or more physical activity” were positive behaviors; “unchanged or more” smoking or drinking were negative behaviors.

2.4. Ethical Consideration

The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Ethical Review Committee of Hanoi University of Public Health, Vietnam (IRB No. 133/2020/YTCC-HD3). Students voluntarily took the survey.

2.5. Data Analysis

2.5.1. Psychometric Properties of Digital Healthy Diet Literacy

Principal component analysis (PCA) with the oblique rotation (Promax) method was utilized to assess the construct of the DDL scale. Correlations between the DDL scale and its four items were estimated using Spearman’s correlation test which provided evidence of item-scale convergent validity. In addition, the correlation between DDL and HLS-SF12 was estimated using the Pearson correlation test that provides evidence of criterion validity [47]. Cronbach’s alpha test was used to check the internal consistency of the DDL scale. The floor and ceiling effects of the DDL scale were assessed by calculating percentages of the possibly lowest and highest DDL index scores.

2.5.2. Health Literacy, Digital Healthy Diet Literacy, and Eating Behavior Changes

The frequency of eating behaviors (less healthy/unchanged vs. healthier) in different categories of socio-demographics, clinical parameters, and other health-related behaviors were explored using a Chi-square test. In addition, a one-way ANOVA test was used to check the distribution of HL and DDL scales by two categories of eating behavior. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the associations of HL and DDL along with eating behavior change. Adjusted variables in the multivariable model were those demonstrating the associations with eating behavior change at p < 0.20 in the univariable analysis [48]. In order to exclude colliders which may cause multicollinearity, Spearman’s correlation test was used to check correlations between them. If the case of a moderate or high correlation, a representative variable was selected in the multivariable analysis.
Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Version 20.0 for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). p < 0.05 was set for statistical significance.

3. Results

3.1. Students’ Characteristics

The mean age was 21.4 ± 1.8 years. Out of all ages, 37.5% were men, 60.1% were 3rd–6th-year students, 75.7% were medical students, and 51.8% reported the ability to pay for medications at a very easy or fairly easy level. Of the study sample, 20.8% were underweight, 6.5% were overweight or obese, 19.2% reported S-COVID-19-S, and 4.4% reported one or more chronic health problems. In all, 2.9%, 6.3%, and 69.7% of students reported “unchanged or more” smoking, drinking, and physical activity during the pandemic as compared to that before the pandemic, respectively. During the pandemic, 42.8% of students reported healthier eating behavior compared to before the pandemic. Means of HL and DDL scores were 34.4 ± 6.9 and 33.9 ± 8.5, respectively (Table 2).

3.2. Psychometric Properties of Digital Healthy Diet Literacy

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin values (KMO) for the whole scale of the overall sample, nursing, and medical students were 0.78, 0.77, and 0.79, respectively. In addition, ranges of KMO values for individual items of the overall sample, nursing, and medical students were 0.75–0.83, 0.74–0.81, and 0.75–0.83, respectively. These values were higher than 0.6, which was set for measuring the sampling adequacy [49]. Furthermore, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity values of the overall sample, nursing, and medical students were less than 0.05 which indicated data suitability for the PCA [49].
Four items were strongly loaded on a single component and explained 71.32%, 67.12%, and 72.47% of the scale variance in the overall sample, nursing, and medical students, respectively (Table 3). Ranges of correlations between the DDL scale and its four items were 0.80–0.83, 0.76–0.80, and 0.81–0.84 for the overall sample, nursing, and medical students, respectively. This provides adequate evidence of the item-scale convergent validity [50]. The DDL correlated with HL at a rho value of 0.68 for all, which provided satisfactory evidence of the criterion’s validity [47].
Cronbach’s alpha values of the DDL scale for the overall sample, nursing, and medical students were 0.86, 0.83, and 0.87, respectively, which were larger than 0.70, indicating the satisfactory reliability [51]. Percentages of the lowest and highest score in the overall sample (0.20% and 12.00%), nursing students (0.30% and 7.90%), and medical students (0.20% and 13.30%) were smaller than 15% which were reflected no floor and ceiling effects [52].

3.3. Associations of HL and DDL with Eating Behavior Changes

Age highly correlated with the academic year (rho = 0.95), gender moderately correlated with the academic field (rho = 0.36), and smoking moderately correlated with drinking (rho = 0.50; Table S1). Therefore, age, gender, and drinking were selected with medical payment ability, BMI, chronic health conditions, and physical activity for the overall sample; with BMI, and physical activity for the sample of nursing students; and with medical payment ability, chronic health conditions, and physical activities for the sample of medical students in the multivariable analysis. After adjusting for these mentioned confounders, a 10-score increment of HL and DDL indices were associated with the increased likelihood of healthier eating behavior of 23% and 18% for the overall sample, 24% and 23% for the sample of nursing students, and 23% and 17% for the sample of medical students (Table 4).

4. Discussion

The current study shows the digital healthy diet literacy (DDL) scale is a brief, valid, and reliable tool with satisfactory construct, criterion, and convergent validity, with a high level of internal consistency reliability, and with no floor or ceiling effect. The psychometric properties of the expanded DDL domain of HL were similar to the HLS-SF12 scale [40,41,53] and e-healthy diet literacy (e-HDL) scale [54]. Moreover, the performance of the DDL scale was similar in medical and nursing students. In a previous study, the e-HDL scale was developed with inconsistent response options for eleven survey questions. The number of questions was not equally distributed in different subscales [54]. Therefore, a shorter DDL questionnaire with the same concept and response options of the original health literacy that is needed for research and practice [44,45].
In this study, our findings illustrate that higher scores of health literacy and digital healthy diet literacy were positively associated with healthier eating behavior during the pandemic for both nursing and medical students. College students with higher eHealth literacy engaged better in positive health-promoting behaviors [29,55]. A previous study also showed that higher e-HDL scores were associated with better health status and health-related behaviors in the general population in Taiwan [54]. In addition, food literacy was found to be associated with healthier food consumption in the public in the Netherlands [56] and Canada [57]. In university settings, it is strategic to create opportunities (e.g., academic courses, media, and the internet) and motivators (e.g., social responsibility, and personal development) for students to develop food literacy and apply them in improving healthy eating behaviors and health outcomes [58]. Digital healthy diet literacy should be emphasized and taken into account for better decision making and health outcomes [59].
Medical school students play important roles in responding to the pandemic [22,23,60] and can promote healthy behaviors (e.g., healthy eating, preventive behaviors) to their peers, communities, and patients using social media or other available modalities [61,62]. Improving digital literacy focusing on a healthy diet for nursing and medical students is a strategic approach [28,29] that can influence public behavior in positive ways.
We conducted an online cross-sectional study in which the findings cannot be interpreted as causal relationships. The category of “unchanged” eating behavior during the pandemic does not distinguish “unhealthy” from “healthy” behaviors that may potentially bias the analysis. In addition, we did not use questions about actual nutritional habits or behaviors and diet. The actual dietary intake was not assessed in the current study. Future studies are suggested to recruit questionnaires investigating dietary intake, such as a food frequency questionnaire or a 24 h food record form. Another limitation was that respondents were not informed about the meaning of “healthy eating behaviors” that may cause reporting bias and potentially affect the association between DDL and eating behaviors. Furthermore, the test–retest reliability of the DDL scale was not evaluated. However, the findings from the large sample analysis can possibly be generated to nursing and medical students. Despite the limitations, the online survey is suggested in conducting the study with fewer resources required and providing timely evidence for research and practice, further contributing to COVID-19 containment. Future studies are suggested to compare DDL, eating behaviors, and their association in students with those in general populations and healthcare workers. A longitudinal design is recommended to assess the long-term effect and causality.

5. Conclusions

The digital healthy diet literacy scale with four items (DDL-4) was an extended domain of a comprehensive health literacy framework. This scale was found to be a valid and reliable tool for the quick assessment of students’ ability to access, understand, appraise, and apply healthy diet information found on the internet. Nursing and medical students with higher HL or DDL scores had a higher likelihood of healthier eating behavior. The findings of our study provide a brief, valid, and reliable tool for research and practice during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/19/7185/s1, Table S1: Spearman’s correlation among the studied variables (N = 7616).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.V.D., K.M.P., B.N.D., G.B.K., H.T.B.D., V.-T.T.L., T.T.P.N., H.T.N., T.T.N., T.T.L., H.T.T.D., and S.-H.Y.; data curation, T.V.D., K.M.P., B.N.D., G.B.K., H.T.B.D., T.T.P.N., H.T.N., T.T.N., T.T.L., and H.T.T.D.; formal analysis, T.V.D.; funding acquisition, T.V.D.; investigation, T.V.D., K.M.P., B.N.D., G.B.K., H.T.B.D., V.-T.T.L., T.T.P.N., H.T.N., T.T.N., T.T.L., H.T.T.D., and S.-H.Y.; methodology, T.V.D., K.M.P., B.N.D., G.B.K., H.T.B.D., V.-T.T.L., T.T.P.N., H.T.N., T.T.N., T.T.L., H.T.T.D., and S.-H.Y.; project administration, T.T.P.N.; resources, T.V.D., K.M.P., B.N.D., G.B.K., H.T.N., T.T.N., T.T.L.; software, T.V.D., and T.T.P.N.; supervision, T.V.D., K.M.P., G.B.K., H.T.B.D., and S.-H.Y.; validation, T.V.D., K.M.P., B.N.D., G.B.K., H.T.B.D., V.-T.T.L., T.T.P.N., H.T.N., T.T.N., T.T.L., H.T.T.D., and S.-H.Y.; writing—original draft, T.V.D.; writing—review and editing, T.V.D., K.M.P., B.N.D., G.B.K., H.T.B.D., V.-T.T.L., T.T.P.N., H.T.N., T.T.N., T.T.L., H.T.T.D., and S.-H.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Taipei Medical University (108-6202-008-112; 108-3805-022-400).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all experts, research assistants, and students who participated in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

BMIbody mass index
COVID-19coronavirus disease-2019
S-COVID-19-Ssuspected coronavirus disease-2019 symptoms
SDstandard deviation
HLhealth literacy
HLS-SF12a 12-item short-form health literacy survey questionnaire
DDLdigital healthy diet literacy
ORodds ratio
CIconfidence interval

References

  1. Nicola, M.; Alsafi, Z.; Sohrabi, C.; Kerwan, A.; Al-Jabir, A.; Iosifidis, C.; Agha, M.; Agha, R. The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. Int. J. Surg. 2020, 78, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Clark, A.; Jit, M.; Warren-Gash, C.; Guthrie, B.; Wang, H.H.X.; Mercer, S.W.; Sanderson, C.; McKee, M.; Troeger, C.; Ong, K.L.; et al. Global, regional, and national estimates of the population at increased risk of severe COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions in 2020: A modelling study. Lancet Glob. Health 2020, 8, e1003–e1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Banerjee, A.; Pasea, L.; Harris, S.; Gonzalez-Izquierdo, A.; Torralbo, A.; Shallcross, L.; Noursadeghi, M.; Pillay, D.; Sebire, N.; Holmes, C.; et al. Estimating excess 1-year mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic according to underlying conditions and age: A population-based cohort study. Lancet 2020, 395, 1715–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Di Renzo, L.; Gualtieri, P.; Pivari, F.; Soldati, L.; Attinà, A.; Cinelli, G.; Leggeri, C.; Caparello, G.; Barrea, L.; Scerbo, F.; et al. Eating habits and lifestyle changes during COVID-19 lockdown: An Italian survey. J. Transl. Med. 2020, 18, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ammar, A.; Brach, M.; Trabelsi, K.; Chtourou, H.; Boukhris, O.; Masmoudi, L.; Bouaziz, B.; Bentlage, E.; How, D.; Ahmed, M.; et al. Effects of COVID-19 Home Confinement on Eating Behaviour and Physical Activity: Results of the ECLB-COVID19 International Online Survey. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sidor, A.; Rzymski, P. Dietary Choices and Habits during COVID-19 Lockdown: Experience from Poland. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Rodríguez-Pérez, C.; Molina-Montes, E.; Verardo, V.; Artacho, R.; García-Villanova, B.; Guerra-Hernández, E.J.; Ruíz-López, M.D. Changes in Dietary Behaviours during the COVID-19 Outbreak Confinement in the Spanish COVIDiet Study. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. US Department of Health & Human Services; National Institutes of Health. 2020–2030 Strategic Plan for NIH Nutrition Research: A Report of the NIH Nutrition Research Task Force. Available online: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/about-niddk/strategic-plans-reports/strategic-plan-nih-nutrition-research (accessed on 27 May 2020).
  9. Iddir, M.; Brito, A.; Dingeo, G.; Fernandez Del Campo, S.S.; Samouda, H.; La Frano, M.R.; Bohn, T. Strengthening the Immune System and Reducing Inflammation and Oxidative Stress through Diet and Nutrition: Considerations during the COVID-19 Crisis. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Calder, P.C.; Carr, A.C.; Gombart, A.F.; Eggersdorfer, M. Optimal Nutritional Status for a Well-Functioning Immune System Is an Important Factor to Protect against Viral Infections. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Morais, A.H.A.; Aquino, J.S.; Silva-Maia, J.K.D.; Vale, S.H.L.; Maciel, B.L.L.; Passos, T.S. Nutritional status, diet and viral respiratory infections: Perspectives for SARS-CoV-2. Br. J. Nutr. 2020, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Martinez-Ferran, M.; de la Guía-Galipienso, F.; Sanchis-Gomar, F.; Pareja-Galeano, H. Metabolic Impacts of Confinement during the COVID-19 Pandemic Due to Modified Diet and Physical Activity Habits. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Butler, M.J.; Barrientos, R.M. The impact of nutrition on COVID-19 susceptibility and long-term consequences. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 87, 53–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Pike, K.M.; Dunne, P.E. The rise of eating disorders in Asia: A review. J. Eat. Disord. 2015, 3, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. GBD 2017 Diet Collaborators. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2019, 393, 1958–1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Tuan, T.N.; Minh, V.H. Non-communicable diseases, food and nutrition in Vietnam from 1975 to 2015: The burden and national response. Asian Pac. J. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 27, 19–28. [Google Scholar]
  17. Pengpid, S.; Peltzer, K. Risk of disordered eating attitudes and its relation to mental health among university students in ASEAN. Eat. Weight Disord. 2018, 23, 349–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hua, J.; Shaw, R. Corona Virus (COVID-19) “Infodemic” and Emerging Issues through a Data Lens: The Case of China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Okan, O.; Bollweg, T.M.; Berens, E.-M.; Hurrelmann, K.; Bauer, U.; Schaeffer, D. Coronavirus-Related Health Literacy: A Cross-Sectional Study in Adults during the COVID-19 Infodemic in Germany. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Paakkari, L.; Okan, O. COVID-19: Health literacy is an underestimated problem. Lancet Public Health 2020, 5, e249–e250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chong, Y.Y.; Cheng, H.Y.; Chan, H.Y.L.; Chien, W.T.; Wong, S.Y.S. COVID-19 pandemic, infodemic and the role of eHealth literacy. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2020, 108, 103644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bauchner, H.; Sharfstein, J. A Bold Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Medical Students, National Service, and Public Health. JAMA 2020, 323, 1790–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Baker, D.M.; Bhatia, S.; Brown, S.; Cambridge, W.; Kamarajah, S.K.; McLean, K.A.; Brindl, N.; Lapolla, P.; Pérez-Ajates, S.; Raubenheimer, K.; et al. Medical student involvement in the COVID-19 response. Lancet 2020, 395, 1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Klasen, J.M.; Meienberg, A.; Nickel, C.; Bingisser, R. WAB team instead of SWAT team - students as front-line force during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Med. Educ. 2020, 54, 860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Rasmussen, S.; Sperling, P.; Poulsen, M.S.; Emmersen, J.; Andersen, S. Medical students for health-care staff shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 2020, 395, e79–e80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Abd-Alrazaq, A.; Alhuwail, D.; Househ, M.; Hamdi, M.; Shah, Z. Top Concerns of Tweeters During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Infoveillance Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e19016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Park, H.W.; Park, S.; Chong, M. Conversations and Medical News Frames on Twitter: Infodemiological Study on COVID-19 in South Korea. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e18897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sharma, S.; Oli, N.; Thapa, B. Electronic health-literacy skills among nursing students. Adv. Med. Educ. Pract. 2019, 10, 527–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Yang, S.-C.; Luo, Y.-F.; Chiang, C.-H. The Associations among Individual Factors, eHealth Literacy, and Health-Promoting Lifestyles among College Students. J. Med. Internet Res. 2017, 19, e15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. de Ridder, D.; Kroese, F.; Evers, C.; Adriaanse, M.; Gillebaart, M. Healthy diet: Health impact, prevalence, correlates, and interventions. Psychol. Health 2017, 32, 907–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Gasmi, A.; Noor, S.; Tippairote, T.; Dadar, M.; Menzel, A.; Bjørklund, G. Individual risk management strategy and potential therapeutic options for the COVID-19 pandemic. Clin. Immunol. 2020, 215, 108409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, L.; Liu, Y. Potential interventions for Novel Coronavirus in China: A systematic review. J. Med. Virol. 2020, 92, 479–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Kakodkar, P.; Kaka, N.; Baig, M.N. A Comprehensive Literature Review on the Clinical Presentation, and Management of the Pandemic Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Cureus 2020, 12, e7560. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Gasmi, A.; Tippairote, T.; Mujawdiya, P.K.; Peana, M.; Menzel, A.; Dadar, M.; Gasmi Benahmed, A.; Bjørklund, G. Micronutrients as immunomodulatory tools for COVID-19 management. Clin. Immunol. 2020, 220, 108545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Batlle-Bayer, L.; Aldaco, R.; Bala, A.; Puig, R.; Laso, J.; Margallo, M.; Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Antó, J.M.; Fullana, I.P.P. Environmental and nutritional impacts of dietary changes in Spain during the COVID-19 lockdown. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 748, 141410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nguyen, H.T.; Do, B.N.; Pham, K.M.; Kim, G.B.; Dam, H.T.B.; Nguyen, T.T.; Nguyen, T.T.P.; Nguyen, Y.H.; Sørensen, K.; Pleasant, A.; et al. Fear of COVID-19 Scale—Associations of Its Scores with Health Literacy and Health-Related Behaviors among Medical Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Editorial Team. Overview of Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Available online: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-gb/3000165 (accessed on 10 February 2020).
  38. Quan, H.; Li, B.; Couris, C.M.; Fushimi, K.; Graham, P.; Hider, P.; Januel, J.-M.; Sundararajan, V. Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2011, 173, 676–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Charlson, M.E.; Pompei, P.; Ales, K.L.; MacKenzie, C.R. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J. Chronic Dis. 1987, 40, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Duong, T.V.; Aringazina, A.; Baisunova, G.; Nurjanah, N.; Pham, T.V.; Pham, K.M.; Truong, T.Q.; Nguyen, K.T.; Oo, W.M.; Su, T.T.; et al. Development and validation of a new short-form health literacy instrument (HLS-SF12) for the general public in six Asian countries. Health Lit. Res. Pract. 2019, 3, e91–e102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Duong, T.V.; Nguyen, T.T.P.; Pham, K.M.; Nguyen, K.T.; Giap, M.H.; Tran, T.D.X.; Nguyen, C.X.; Yang, S.-H.; Su, C.-T. Validation of the short-form health literacy questionnaire (HLS-SF12) and its determinants among people living in rural areas in Vietnam. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Ho, H.V.; Hoang, G.T.; Pham, V.T.; Duong, T.V.; Pham, K.M. Factors associated with health literacy among the elderly people in Vietnam. Biomed. Res. Int. 2020, 2020, 3490635. [Google Scholar]
  43. Nguyen, H.C.; Nguyen, M.H.; Do, B.N.; Tran, C.Q.; Nguyen, T.T.P.; Pham, K.M.; Pham, L.V.; Tran, K.V.; Duong, T.T.; Tran, T.V.; et al. People with suspected COVID-19 symptoms were more likely depressed and had lower health-related quality of life: The potential benefit of health literacy. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Sørensen, K.; Van den Broucke, S.; Fullam, J.; Doyle, G.; Pelikan, J.; Slonska, Z.; Brand, H. Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Sørensen, K.; Van den Broucke, S.; Pelikan, J.M.; Fullam, J.; Doyle, G.; Slonska, Z.; Kondilis, B.; Stoffels, V.; Osborne, R.H.; Brand, H. Measuring health literacy in populations: Illuminating the design and development process of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q). BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. HLS-EU Consortium. Comparative Report of Health Literacy in Eight EU Member States. The European Health Literacy Project 2009–2012. Available online: https://www.healthliteracyeurope.net/hls-eu (accessed on 22 October 2012).
  47. Kimberlin, C.L.; Winterstein, A.G. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2008, 65, 2276–2284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Maldonado, G.; Greenland, S. Simulation study of confounder-selection strategies. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1993, 138, 923–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Kaiser, H.F. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974, 39, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hays, R.D.; Hayashi, T. Beyond internal consistency reliability: Rationale and user’s guide for multitrait analysis program on the microcomputer. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 1990, 22, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cronbach, L.J.; Shavelson, R.J. My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2004, 64, 391–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Terwee, C.B.; Bot, S.D.M.; de Boer, M.R.; van der Windt, D.A.W.M.; Knol, D.L.; Dekker, J.; Bouter, L.M.; de Vet, H.C.W. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2007, 60, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Duong, T.V.; Chang, P.W.; Yang, S.-H.; Chen, M.-C.; Chao, W.-T.; Chen, T.; Chiao, P.; Huang, H.-L. A new comprehensive short-form health literacy survey tool for patients in general. Asian Nurs. Res. 2017, 11, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Duong, T.V.; Chiu, C.-H.; Lin, C.-Y.; Wong, T.-C.; Chen, Y.-C.; Chang, P.W.; Yang, S.-H. E-healthy diet literacy scale and its relationship with behaviors and health outcomes in Taiwan. Health Promot. Int. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Britt, R.K.; Collins, W.B.; Wilson, K.; Linnemeier, G.; Englebert, A.M. eHealth Literacy and Health Behaviors Affecting Modern College Students: A Pilot Study of Issues Identified by the American College Health Association. J. Med. Internet Res. 2017, 19, e392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Poelman, M.P.; Dijkstra, S.C.; Sponselee, H.; Kamphuis, C.B.M.; Battjes-Fries, M.C.E.; Gillebaart, M.; Seidell, J.C. Towards the measurement of food literacy with respect to healthy eating: The development and validation of the Self Perceived food literacy scale among an adult sample in the Netherlands. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Fernandez, M.A. Food Literacy and Healthy Diets of Canadian Parents: Associations and Evaluation of the Eat Well Campaign. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  58. Malan, H.; Watson, T.D.; Slusser, W.; Glik, D.; Rowat, A.C.; Prelip, M. Challenges, Opportunities, and Motivators for Developing and Applying Food Literacy in a University Setting: A Qualitative Study. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2020, 120, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Truman, E.; Bischoff, M.; Elliott, C. Which literacy for health promotion: Health, food, nutrition or media? Health Promot. Int. 2019, 35, 432–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gallagher, T.H.; Schleyer, A.M. “We Signed Up for This!”—Student and trainee responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, e96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rose, S. Medical Student Education in the Time of COVID-19. JAMA 2020, 323, 2131–2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rothstein, R.; Olympia, R.P. School Nurses on the Front Lines of Healthcare: The Approach to Maintaining Student Health and Wellness during COVID-19 School Closures. NASN Sch. Nurse 2020, 35, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Study participants in different universities by geographic locations.
Table 1. Study participants in different universities by geographic locations.
Geographic LocationHospital/Health CenterAcademic FieldPossible ParticipantsStudied Participants
North
Ha Noi1. Hanoi Medical UniversityMedical3386844
Nursing285166
2. Vietnam Military Medical UniversityMedical30341198
3. Vietnam National University-School of Medicine and PharmacyMedical444385
Thai Nguyen4. Thai Nguyen University of Medicine and PharmacyMedical2830742
Nursing579200
Hai Duong5. Hai Duong Medical Technical UniversityNursing697379
Hai Phong6. Haiphong University of Medicine and PharmacyMedical3153800
Nursing317145
Center
Thua Thien Hue7. Hue University of Medicine and PharmacyMedical3800425
Nursing594265
Da Nang8. Da Nang University of Medical Technology and PharmacyNursing718311
South
Ho Chi Minh9. Pham Ngoc Thach University of MedicineMedical5510473
Nursing424203
Can Tho10. Can Tho University of Medicine and PharmacyMedical6580898
Nursing281182
Subtotal Medical28,7375765
Nursing38951851
Total 32,6327616
Table
Table 2. Participants’ characteristics and eating behavior change in the overall sample, nursing, and medical students.
Table 2. Participants’ characteristics and eating behavior change in the overall sample, nursing, and medical students.
Eating BehaviorOverall SampleNursing StudentsMedical Students
Total (N = 7616)Unchanged or Less Healthy (N = 4353)Healthier (N = 3263) Subtotal (N = 1851)Unchanged or Less Healthy (N = 924)Healthier (N = 927) Subtotal (N = 5765)Unchanged or Less Healthy (N = 3429)Healthier (N = 2336)
n (%)n (%)n (%)p *n (%)n (%)n (%)p *n (%)n (%)n (%)p *
Age, year 0.002 0.946 0.024
19–202834 (37.2)1554 (35.7)1280 (39.2) 957 (51.7)477 (51.6)480 (51.8) 1877 (32.6)1077 (31.4)800 (34.2)
21–274782 (62.8)2799 (64.3)1983 (60.8) 894 (48.3)447 (48.4)447 (48.2) 3888 (67.4)2352 (68.6)1536 (65.8)
Gender <0.001 0.016 <0.001
Women4762 (62.5)2512 (57.7)2250 (69.0) 1723 (93.1)847 (91.7)876 (94.5) 3039 (52.7)1665 (48.6)1374 (58.8)
Men2854 (37.5)1841 (42.3)1013 (31.0) 128 (6.9)77 (8.3)51 (5.5) 2726 (47.3)1764 (51.4)962 (41.2)
Academic year <0.001 0.756 0.004
Year 1–23036 (39.9)1655 (38.0)1381 (42.3) 1000 (54.0)496 (53.7)504 (54.4) 2036 (35.3)1159 (33.8)877 (37.5)
Year 3–64580 (60.1)2698 (62.0)1882 (57.7) 851 (46.0)428 (46.3)423 (45.6) 3729 (64.7)2270 (66.2)1459 (62.5)
Academic field < 0.001
Nursing1851 (24.3)924 (21.2)927 (28.4)
Medical5765 (75.7)3429 (78.8)2336 (71.6)
Ability to pay for medication 0.078 0.385 0.034
Very or fairly difficult3674 (48.2)2138 (49.1)1536 (47.1) 1005 (54.3)511 (55.3)494 (53.3) 2669 (46.3)1627 (47.4)1042 (44.6)
Very or fairly easy3942 (51.8)2215 (50.9)1727 (52.9) 846 (45.7)413 (44.7)433 (46.7) 3096 (53.7)1802 (52.6)1294 (55.4)
BMI, kg/m2 0.027 0.172 0.240
BMI < 18.51584 (20.8)864 (19.9)720 (22.1) 589 (31.8)296 (32.0)293 (31.6) 995 (17.2)568 (16.6)427 (18.3)
18.5 ≤ BMI < 25.05535 (72.7)3188 (73.3)2347 (72.0) 1217 (65.8)600 (64.9)617 (66.6) 4318 (75.0)2588 (75.5)1730 (74.1)
BMI ≥ 25.0492 (6.5)298 (6.9)194 (5.9) 44 (2.4)28 (3.1)16 (1.7) 448 (7.8)270 (7.9)178 (7.6)
S-COVID-19-S ** 0.361 0.705 0.283
No6156 (80.8)3503 (80.5)2653 (81.3) 1461 (78.9)726 (78.6)735 (79.3) 4695 (81.4)2777 (81.0)1918 (82.1)
Yes1460 (19.2)850 (19.5)610 (18.7) 390 (21.1)198 (21.4)192 (20.7) 1070 (18.6)652 (19.0)418 (17.9)
Comorbidity 0.029 0.576 0.021
None7279 (95.6)4141 (95.1)3138 (96.2) 1762 (95.2)877 (94.9)885 (95.5) 5517 (95.7)3264 (95.2)2253 (96.4)
One or more337 (4.4)212 (4.9)125 (3.8) 89 (4.8)47 (5.1)42 (4.5) 248 (4.3)165 (4.8)83 (3.6)
Smoking status 0.003 0.375 0.009
Never, stopped, or smoke less7395 (97.1)4205 (96.6)3190 (97.8) 1818 (98.2)905 (97.9)913 (98.5) 5577 (96.7)3300 (96.2)2277 (97.5)
Unchanged or smoke more221 (2.9)148 (3.4)73 (2.2) 33 (1.8)19 (2.1)14 (1.5) 188 (3.3)129 (3.8)59 (2.5)
Drinking status <0.001 0.002 <0.001
Never, stopped, or drink less7137 (93.7)4005 (92.0)3132 (96.0) 1791 (96.8)882 (95.5)909 (98.1) 5346 (92.7)3123 (91.1)2223 (95.2)
Unchanged or drink more479 (6.3)348 (8.0)131 (4.0) 60 (3.2)42 (4.5)18 (1.9) 419 (7.3)306 (8.9)113 (4.8)
Physical activity <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Never, stopped, or exercise less2309 (30.3)1600 (36.8)709 (21.7) 499 (27.0)311 (33.7)188 (20.3) 1810 (31.4)1289 (37.6)521 (22.3)
Unchanged or exercise more5307 (69.7)2753 (63.2)2554 (78.3) 1352 (73.0)613 (66.3)739 (79.7) 3955 (68.6)2140 (62.4)1815 (77.7)
HL index, mean ± SD34.4 ± 6.934.0 ± 6.934.9 ± 6.9<0.00134.4 ± 6.934.0 ± 6.934.9 ± 6.9<0.00134.4 ± 6.934.0 ± 6.934.9 ± 6.9< 0.001
DDL index, mean ± SD33.9 ± 8.533.3 ± 8.634.6 ± 8.4<0.00133.9 ± 8.533.3 ± 8.634.6 ± 8.4<0.00133.9 ± 8.533.3 ± 8.634.6 ± 8.4< 0.001
* Result of one-way ANOVA test or Chi-square test appropriately. ** Suspected COVID-19 symptoms included common symptoms (fever, cough, dyspnea) and less common symptoms (myalgia, fatigue, sputum production, confusion, headache, sore throat, rhinorrhea, chest pain, hemoptysis, diarrhea, and nausea/vomiting).
Table
Table 3. Construct, convergent, criterion validity, internal consistency, floor, and ceiling effects of digital healthy diet literacy scale (N = 7616).
Table 3. Construct, convergent, criterion validity, internal consistency, floor, and ceiling effects of digital healthy diet literacy scale (N = 7616).
DDL ScaleOverall SampleNursing StudentsMedical Students
Factor loadings: “On a scale from very difficult to very easy, to what extent would you say it is difficult or easy to: …”
1. Find reliable and accurate healthy diet information on the internet?0.850.820.86
2. Understand healthy diet information and dietary guidelines on the internet?0.880.860.88
3. Judge whether healthy diet information on the internet applied to you?0.860.840.86
4. Apply healthy diet information from the internet to your daily life to make you eat better?0.790.760.80
Percentage of variance, %71.3267.1272.47
Item-scale convergent validity, mean of Rho (range) *0.81
(0.80–0.83)		0.78
(0.76–0.80)		0.82
(0.81–0.84)
Criterion validity, correlation with HL, Rho **0.680.680.68
Internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha0.860.830.87
Floor effects, %0.200.300.20
Ceiling effect, %12.007.9013.3
* Rho, Spearman’s correlation coefficient. ** Rho, Pearson correlation coefficient.
Table
Table 4. Associations of health literacy and digital healthy diet literacy with eating behavior changes (N = 7616).
Table 4. Associations of health literacy and digital healthy diet literacy with eating behavior changes (N = 7616).
Healthier Eating Behaviors *Total SampleNursing StudentsMedical Students
OR
(95%CI)		pOR (95%CI)pOR
(95%CI)		p
HL index **
Model 11.19
(1.12, 1.26)		<0.0011.28
(1.13, 1.43)		<0.0011.19
(1.12, 1.27)		<0.001
Model 21.23
(1.15, 1.30)		<0.0011.24
(1.09, 1.40)		0.0011.23
(1.15, 1.31)		<0.001
DDL index **
Model 11.17
(1.11, 1.22)		<0.0011.25
(1.13, 1.37)		<0.0011.16
(1.10, 1.22)		<0.001
Model 21.18
(1.13, 1.24)		<0.0011.23
(1.10, 1.35)		<0.0011.17
(1.11, 1.24)		<0.001
* Reference group is “Eat less healthy or unchanged”. ** With a 10-index score increment. Model 1: Associations of the HL and DDL indexes with eating behavior change. Model 2: Adjusted for age, gender, ability to pay for medication, body mass index, comorbidity, drinking, physical activity for overall sample; adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, drinking, physical activity for the sample of nursing students; adjusted for age, gender, ability to pay for medication, comorbidity, drinking, physical activity for the sample of medical students.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Duong, T.V.; Pham, K.M.; Do, B.N.; Kim, G.B.; Dam, H.T.B.; Le, V.-T.T.; Nguyen, T.T.P.; Nguyen, H.T.; Nguyen, T.T.; Le, T.T.; et al. Digital Healthy Diet Literacy and Self-Perceived Eating Behavior Change during COVID-19 Pandemic among Undergraduate Nursing and Medical Students: A Rapid Online Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7185. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197185

AMA Style

Duong TV, Pham KM, Do BN, Kim GB, Dam HTB, Le V-TT, Nguyen TTP, Nguyen HT, Nguyen TT, Le TT, et al. Digital Healthy Diet Literacy and Self-Perceived Eating Behavior Change during COVID-19 Pandemic among Undergraduate Nursing and Medical Students: A Rapid Online Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(19):7185. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197185

Chicago/Turabian Style

Duong, Tuyen Van, Khue M. Pham, Binh N. Do, Giang B. Kim, Hoa T. B. Dam, Vinh-Tuyen T. Le, Thao T. P. Nguyen, Hiep T. Nguyen, Trung T. Nguyen, Thuy T. Le, and et al. 2020. "Digital Healthy Diet Literacy and Self-Perceived Eating Behavior Change during COVID-19 Pandemic among Undergraduate Nursing and Medical Students: A Rapid Online Survey" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 19: 7185. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197185

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop