# Improving student diet and food security in higher education using participatory and co-creation approaches: a systematic review

Tamar Assilian, Henri Dehove, Hélène Charreire, Julia Baudry, Emmanuelle

Kesse-Guyot, Sandrine Péneau, Chantal Julia, Olivia Gross, Jean-Michel

Oppert, Alice Bellicha

► To cite this version:

Tamar Assilian, Henri Dehove, Hélène Charreire, Julia Baudry, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, et al. Improving student diet and food security in higher education using participatory and co-creation approaches: a systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2024, 21 (1), pp.71. 10.1186/s12966-024-01613-7. hal-04643718

HAL Id: hal-04643718

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04643718v1

Submitted on 10 Jul 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
REVIEW

Open Access

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

# Improving student diet and food security in higher education using participatory and co-creation approaches: a systematic review

Tamar Assilian¹, Henri Dehove¹, Hélène Charreire²,³, Julia Baudry¹, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot¹, Sandrine Péneau¹, Chantal Julia¹, Olivia Gross⁴, Jean-Michel Oppert¹,⁵ and Alice Bellicha¹*

**Abstract**

**Background** Higher education students are an important target group for public health nutrition interventions. When designing tailored and contextually relevant interventions, participatory and co-creation approaches are increasingly recognized as promising but their use and effectiveness has not been assessed in this type of population. We systematically reviewed interventions aiming to improve dietary quality and/or food security in higher education settings with the aims 1) to identify and describe their participatory and co-creation approaches and 2) to compare the effectiveness of interventions using or not using participatory and co-creation approaches.

**Methods** Our search in PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, EMBASE was performed in January 2023 and yielded 3658 unique records, out of which 42 articles (66 interventions) were included. Effectiveness of interventions was assessed at the individual level (longitudinal evaluations) or at the group level (repeated cross-sectional evaluations). A five-level classification was used to describe a continuum of engagement from students and other partners in the intervention design and implementation: no participation (level one), consultation, co-production, co-design and co-creation (levels two to five). To synthesize effectiveness, comparisons were made between studies without participation (level one) or with participation (levels two-five).

**Results** Ten (24%) out of 42 studies used a participatory and co-creation approach (levels two-five). Studies using a participatory and co-creation approach reported a positive finding on individual-level outcome (i.e. overall diet quality or food group intake or food security) in 5/13 (38%) intervention arms (vs 13/31 or 42% for those without participation). Studies using a participatory and co-creation approach reported a positive finding on group-level outcomes (i.e. food choices in campus food outlets) in 4/7 (57%) (vs 8/23 or 35% in those without participation).

**Conclusions** Participatory and co-creation approaches may improve the effectiveness of nutrition interventions in higher education settings but the level of evidence remains very limited. More research is warranted to identify best co-creation practices when designing, implementing and evaluating nutritional interventions in the higher education setting.

**Trial registration** PROSPERO registration number CRD42023393004.

<footnote>*Correspondence:
Alice Bellicha
a.bellicha@eren.smbh.univ-paris13.fr
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article</footnote>
**Keywords** Young adults, Students in higher education, Intervention, Participatory approach, Co-creation, Systematic review

**Background**

Unhealthy diets are among the leading contributors to non-communicable diseases morbidity and mortality worldwide [1]. Young adults, i.e. those aged 18–25 y, including the student population enrolled in higher education, are considered an important target group for public health nutrition interventions, in particular because the transition period from adolescence to young adulthood is critical for developing new health behaviors [2, 3]. However, this period of life appears increasingly characterized by a shift towards less healthy dietary intakes [2, 3], a disruption of eating behavior patterns [4] and weight gain [5]. Rates of food insecurity, defined as a lack of access to adequate food to support a healthy and active lifestyle [6], are also high in higher education students, with potential detrimental consequences on academic achievement as well as physical and emotional health [7–9]. In a recent scoping review, 41% of higher education students in the US reported food insecurity, a proportion higher than the national average of 10% [10, 11]. Identifying interventions likely to improve diet quality and food security of students is therefore a relevant and timely objective.

Barriers to healthy eating habits and food security in higher education students encompass lack of time, poor cooking skills and limited financial resources [12–14], but also unhealthy campus food environments [15–17]. Broadly defined as “the collective physical, economic, policy and sociocultural surroundings, opportunities and conditions that influence people’s food and beverage choices and nutritional status” [18], the food environment is recognized as a major determinant of diet. Prior reviews have synthesized literature on interventions intended to promote healthy eating habits or food security in this setting [8, 19–22]. Overall results of these reviews provided no clear evidence that on-campus interventions improve students’ diet [8, 19–22]. Education interventions were found to be effective to improve nutritional quality of dietary intakes in less than 50% of studies [19]. Reviews of interventions targeting the campus food environment showed large variability in results, with positive findings on improved diet quality or food purchases reported in 47% [19], 58% [22] or 87% [20] of studies. Interventions addressing food insecurity using multiple strategies such as providing nutrition education, recipes, meal and produce vouchers, or access to food charity may improve the diet quality of food-insecure students [8].

Importantly, these reviews have not considered how and by whom the intervention was designed and implemented. Involving those who are intended to be the beneficiaries and partners of public health interventions is however considered critical to design tailored, pragmatic and contextually relevant interventions [23, 24]. Co-creation promotes the engagement of beneficiaries and partners in the design, implementation and evaluation of interventions, and thus aligns with the fundamental principle of participatory research [25]. In participatory research, the persons whose life or work is the subject of the research (e.g. citizens, patients, community members, professionals or institutional representatives) partner with academics and actively take part to the research process [23]. This partnership can take many forms and can lead to shared decision-making between academic and non-academic actors in the deepest forms of participation [25, 26]. Participatory research is increasingly recognized as a promising approach to improve the relevance and suitability of research questions, to better meet the needs and expectations of target populations, and to favor community engagement which, subsequently, could improve the effectiveness of interventions [27–29]. In the field of public health nutrition, the number of intervention studies that have used participatory and co-creation approaches to improve the quality of dietary intakes or the food environment remains limited, with however some evidence of the benefits of co-creation [30, 31]. To date, the application of participatory research and co-creation in higher education settings, and its potential added value in improving students’ diet, has not been systematically synthesized.

To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a systematic review with the aims 1) to identify and describe participatory and co-creation approaches used in interventions which aim to improve dietary quality and/or food security in higher education settings and 2) to evaluate their effectiveness compared to those without participation and co-creation approach.

**Methods**

This systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023393004).
## Literature search and selection of studies

We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science and EMBASE in January 2023 using a combination of terms related to students, diet, intervention and participation (Supplementary Table 1). We also manually scanned the reference sections of the included original papers and reviews for further eligible studies.

We included papers written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals since January 2013 if they met the following inclusion criteria: 1) an intervention aiming at improving dietary intakes, food purchases and/or food security was conducted in a higher education (i.e. post-secondary education) setting, 2) the intervention targeted students dietary behaviors and/or the campus food environment, 3) the study design was controlled when the intervention targeted individual behaviors, and controlled or based on an interrupted time-series design when the intervention targeted the campus food environment, and 4) outcomes were related to diet quality (overall diet quality score or consumption of food groups considered as healthy or unhealthy), food security, or food choices in campus food outlets (campus restaurant, cafeteria, vending machines). We included studies using, or not, participatory and co-creation approaches to be able to compare the effectiveness of studies with and without participation and co-creation.

Combined interventions aiming at improving dietary intakes and other health behaviors (e.g., physical activity, stress, smoking...) were included. Studies targeting a specific group of students (e.g., with eating disorders, type 2 diabetes...), or assessing only eating disorders, intentions to change dietary intakes, or sustainable eating practices such as food waste were not included. Finally, studies targeting both students and university staff without stratifying on population type in analyses were not included. Abstracts and full texts were assessed for eligibility by two authors independently (TA and AB). Any disagreement between reviewers was resolved through discussion.

## Data extraction

Data were extracted by one author (TA) using standardized forms and then checked by another author (AB). The characteristics of each article included: country, study design, population characteristics, description of intervention topic and strategy, outcome variables, assessment methods and findings. Emphasis was placed on the description of interventions. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist [32] (including the following items: why, what materials and procedures, who provided, how, where,

when and how much, tailoring, modification of intervention throughout trial, strategies to improve or maintain intervention fidelity and extent of intervention fidelity) was used for description of intervention and control conditions (Supplementary Table 2).

## Classification of participatory and co-creation approaches

We summarized participatory and co-creation approaches using two different but complementary frameworks presented in Fig. 1. First, we used the typology of Biggs [33], as reported in the article by Cornwall and Jewkes in 1995 [26], which has been used previously to analyze participatory approaches in nutrition research [31]. This typology describes four modes of participation of non-academic partners in the research process [26]. The modes of participation are considered as a continuum, where control over the research process gradually shifts from academic to non-academic partners. This classification has the advantage of proposing a consultative mode of participation in which non-academic partners are consulted, but not directly involved in the design or implementation of the intervention. Second, we used the definitions of co-production, co-design and co-creation as reported in the article by Vargas et al. in 2022 [25], where the engagement of non-academic partners in the problem identification and in the intervention design and implementation gradually increases across these three notions.

Then, based on these two previous frameworks, we proposed a five-level classification which we found more adapted to our specific research question and context. This classification describes a continuum of engagement from non-academic partners in the creation of interventions (Fig. 1). We defined partners as students and actors involved in the university management and the campus food environment. In level one called "No participation", partners are not involved in any step of the intervention design or implementation. In level two called "Consultation", partners are asked for their opinion by researchers before interventions are designed but do not take an active part in the definition of interventions. In level three called "Co-production", partners are involved at the stage of intervention implementation, therefore at the late stage of the intervention process. In level four called "Co-design", partners are also involved in the intervention design stage, meaning that they participate in designing and implementing a solution to a problem previously defined by the researchers. Finally, in level five called "Co-creation", the most active form of collaboration, partners participate in the whole process, from the definition of the problem to intervention design and implementation.
Level of engagement of student and stakeholders in the creation of interventions

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Contractual mode</th><th>Consultative mode</th><th>Collaborative mode</th><th>Collegiate mode</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Typology of Biggs¹</th><td>People are contracted into the projects of researchers to take part in their enquiries or experiments.</td><td>People are asked for their opinions and consulted by researchers before interventions are made.</td><td>Researchers and local people work together on projects designed, initiated and managed by researchers.</td><td>Researchers and local people work together as colleagues with different skills to offer, in a process of mutual learning where local people have control over the process.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Co-production</th><th>Co-design</th><th>Co-creation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Definition of co-creation, co-design and co-production²</th><td>Stakeholders engaged in the implementation of a prespecified solution to a prespecified problem.</td><td>Collaboration between stakeholders in designing and implementing solutions to a prespecified Problem.</td><td>Cooperation of stakeholders in all steps of the process from problem definition, design of solutions, and implementation.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Fig. 1** Classification of participatory and co-creation approaches</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>1. No participation</th><th>2. Consultation</th><th>3. Co-production</th><th>4. Co-design</th><th>5. Co-creation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>New classification used in this review</th><td>Stakeholders are not involved in the problem identification, intervention design or implementation.</td><td>Stakeholders are consulted by researchers before interventions are designed. They do not take an active part in the problem definition, intervention design or implementation.</td><td>Stakeholders are involved at the stage of intervention implementation. They are not involved in the problem definition or intervention design.</td><td>Stakeholders are involved at the stage of intervention design and implementation. They are not involved in the problem definition.</td><td>Stakeholders are involved at the stage of problem definition, intervention design and implementation.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Legend: ¹ Typology of Biggs as presented in Cornwall and Jewkes (1995) [26]. ² Co-creation, co-design and co-production as defined in Vargas (2022) [25]

## Quality assessment

We assessed study quality with the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies 2003 [34]. This tool was developed to evaluate both randomized and non-randomized studies and provides a global rating of study quality using six components which can be rated as ‘strong’, ‘moderate’ or ‘weak’: A) selection bias, B) study design, C) confounders, D) blinding, E) data collection methods, and F) withdrawals and drop-outs. Because blinding of participants as well as evaluators is inherently difficult or impossible to achieve in nutritional intervention studies, we did not consider this dimension in the global scoring. The global quality score was defined as strong, moderate or weak if no component, one, or two or more components were rated as weak, respectively [34]. Quality of each included study was assessed independently by two reviewers (TA and AB). Any disagreement between the reviewers was resolved through discussion.

## Synthesis of effectiveness

In the included studies, effectiveness of interventions was reported either at the individual level (longitudinal evaluation, i.e. among the same participants before and after the intervention) or at the group level (i.e., repeated cross-sectional evaluations). When the study included a control group or a control location, we reported between-group comparisons only. Otherwise in interrupted time series design, we reported pre-post intra-group comparisons. Our analysis focused on short-term effectiveness. Studies with multiple post-intervention data collection were rare. Thus, we used the earliest post-intervention assessment for synthesis of effectiveness.

For each intervention arm, we reported the effectiveness of interventions on 5 categories of outcomes: self-reported overall diet quality score, consumption of food groups considered as healthy or unhealthy (e.g. fruit/ vegetables and sugar-sweetened beverages, respectively) and food security assessed at the individual level;
objectively-measured or self-reported food choices in campus food outlets assessed at the group level. For studies assessing two or more different parameters in a given category of outcomes (e.g. fruits and vegetables as well as whole grains), we considered the overall effect on this category as: 1) positive if a statistically significant improvement was found for at least one outcome, and no significant effect was found for other outcomes, 2) negative if a statistically significant deterioration was found for at least one outcome, and no significant effect was found for other outcomes, 3) null (no effect) if no significant change in any direction was found, 4) mixed if both a significant improvement and deterioration were found for different outcomes. Results were considered statistically significant when *p*-values reported by authors of included studies were < 0.05.

To synthetize effectiveness, we compared effectiveness of studies without participation (level 1) or with participation (levels 2–5). No meta-analysis could be conducted due to heterogeneity of study designs, intervention strategies and outcomes.

## Results

The database search yielded 3658 articles after duplicates were removed (Fig. 2). The full text was retrieved from 137 articles, and 42 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Some articles compared in the same paper two or more interventions carried out at the same time in different groups or locations, and some articles implemented two or more consecutive interventions. Overall, 66 distinct interventions were described and included in the synthesis of findings.

## Study characteristics

Studies were conducted in 15 different countries. Most studies were conducted in North America (N=23 in the USA and N=2 in Canada). Seven studies were conducted in Europe (UK, Belgium, Spain, The Netherlands), 5 in Asia (China, Japan, India, Malaysia), 3 in South and Latin America (Peru, Puerto Rico, Chile), one in Oceania (Australia) and one in the Middle East (Turkey). The controlled design was used at the individual level in 26 studies: 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), five non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs). In seven studies, the controlled design was used at the group or building level, with (N=5) or without (N=2) randomization. The remaining nine studies used an interrupted time series design (i.e. two or more intervention phases interrupted by wash-out periods). The number of participants ranged from 23 [35] to 4208 [36] students and, for studies assessing food choices through sales data or observation, the number of meals or sales analyzed ranged from 260 [37] to 434,625 [38].

## Description of interventions

The main characteristics of interventions are summarized (articles by first author in alphabetical order) in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 and are described in detail in Supplementary Table 2. Overall, diet-only interventions were conducted in 28 (67%) of studies and combined interventions (i.e. targeting dietary intakes and other health behaviors) were conducted in 14 (33%) of studies. Diet interventions were classified as follows: education programs targeting individual dietary behavior conducted in 30 (45%) interventions, campus food environment

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Systematic review flow diagram</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 1** Characteristics of education interventions in higher education settings (N=26 studies and 30 intervention arms)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">First author,<br>date<br>(reference)</th><th colspan="5">Type of intervention</th><th rowspan="2">Topic</th><th rowspan="2">Duration of<br>intervention</th><th colspan="2">Participatory approach</th></tr><tr><th>In-person<br>education<br>program</th><th>Digital<br>education<br>program</th><th>Cooking<br>classes</th><th>Peer support</th><th>Financial<br>incentives</th><th>Classification</th><th>Non-academic<br>actors<br>involved</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bejar 2022<br>[40]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>4 weeks</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Blow 2022<br>[41]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Combined</td><td>2 weeks</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Brown 2014<br>[42]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>7 weeks</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Brown 2014<br>[43]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Combined</td><td>20 weeks</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Cameron 2015 [36]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Combined</td><td>NR</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Dost 2022 [44]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Combined</td><td>6 months</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Epton 2014<br>[45]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Combined</td><td>6 months</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Halperin 2019<br>[46]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td>Combined</td><td>6 months</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Hardan-Khalil<br>2022 [47]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Combined</td><td>8 weeks</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Hayes 2020—<br>Intervention<br>1 [48]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>4 weeks</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Hayes 2020—<br>Intervention<br>2 [48]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>4 weeks</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hernández-Jaña 2020 [35]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Combined</td><td>1 session</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Kattelmann<br>2014 [49]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Combined</td><td>10 weeks</td><td>Co-creation</td><td>Students,<br>faculty staff</td></tr><tr><td>Krzyzanowski<br>2020 [50]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Combined</td><td>12 weeks</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Lhakhang<br>2014—Inter-<br>vention 1 [51]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>NR</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Lhakhang<br>2014—Inter-<br>vention 2 [51]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>NR</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Meng 2017<br>[52]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>4 weeks</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>O'Brien<br>2016—Inter-<br>vention 1 [53]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>4 weeks</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>O'Brien<br>2016—Inter-<br>vention 2 [53]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>4 weeks</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ohtsuki 2018<br>[54]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>6 months</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Patel 2020 [55]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>2 weeks</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Pope 2021—<br>Intervention<br>2 [56]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>6 weeks</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Quintiliani<br>2016 [57]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td>Combined</td><td>8 weeks</td><td>Co-production</td><td>Students</td></tr><tr><td>Sandrick 2017<br>[58]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Combined</td><td>8 weeks</td><td>Consultation</td><td>Students</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1** (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">First author,<br>date<br>(reference)</th><th colspan="5">Type of intervention</th><th rowspan="2">Topic</th><th rowspan="2">Duration of<br>intervention</th><th colspan="2">Participatory approach</th></tr><tr><th>In-person<br>education<br>program</th><th>Digital<br>education<br>program</th><th>Cooking<br>classes</th><th>Peer support</th><th>Financial<br>incentives</th><th>Classification</th><th>Non-academic<br>actors<br>involved</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Schroeter<br>2021—Inter-<br>vention 1 [59]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>4 weeks</td><td>Co-production</td><td>Students</td></tr><tr><td>Schroeter<br>2021—Inter-<br>vention 2 [59]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td>4 weeks</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Schweitzer<br>2016 [60]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Combined</td><td>6 months</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Shahril 2013<br>[61]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>10 weeks</td><td>Consultation</td><td>Students</td></tr><tr><td>Wang 2021<br>[62]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Combined</td><td>3 weeks</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Whatnall 2019<br>[63]</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>NR</td><td>Co-creation</td><td>Students,<br>faculty staff</td></tr></tbody></table>

Mixed interventions aimed at improving dietary intakes and other lifestyle habits (e.g., physical activity, stress, smoking...). When a study compared two interventions implemented at the same time in two different groups, interventions were named "interventions 1" and "interventions 2". Abbreviations: NR, not reported

interventions conducted in 29 (44%) interventions, food assistance programs aimed at improving food security conducted in five (8%) interventions, and multi-level interventions conducted in two (3%) interventions. Intervention duration was very short (< one month) for 23 (35%) interventions, short (one to < three months) for 20 (30%) interventions, intermediate (three to < six months) for eight (12%) interventions and long (> six months) for nine (14%) interventions. Intervention duration ranged from one unique session (one day) [35] to 10 months [39]. Duration was not reported for six (9%) interventions. Details regarding the intervention implementation such as who delivered the intervention, how and where, as well as strategies used to maintain fidelity, were reported in only very few studies (see Supplementary Table 2 for TIDieR checklist).

## Description of participatory and co-creation approaches

The participatory and co-creation approaches are summarized in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 and described in detail in Supplementary Table 3. Overall, 32 (76%) studies did not use participatory and co-creation approaches. Among the 10 (24%) studies using a participatory and co-creation approach, six (60%) studies (corresponding to seven distinct interventions) implemented an education program [22, 49, 57–59, 61] (Table 1) and four (40%) studies (corresponding to 10 distinct interventions) conducted a campus food environment intervention [64, 67, 69, 72] (Table 2). None of them conducted a food assistance program. Four (10%) studies used a consultative approach [58, 61, 67, 69]. All of them consulted students

using surveys, focus groups or pre-tests, and one study also conducted focus groups with food services staff [67]. Three (7%) studies used a co-production approach [57, 59, 64]. Students participated in the implementation of the intervention by providing information to other students in the on-campus food restaurant [64] and by acting as peer-counsellors or educator during educational programs [57, 59]. One (2%) study used a co-design approach [72]. Students were involved in the intervention design by participating in a brainstorming session and were also responsible for implementing the intervention [72]. Finally, two (5%) studies used a co-creation approach [22, 49]. In both studies, a steering committee composed of students and university staff members developed the intervention using the Predisposing, Reinforcing and Enabling Constructs in Educational Diagnosis and Evaluation (PRECEDE)—Policy, Regulatory, and Organizational Constructs in Educational and Environmental Development (PROCEED) participatory research model.

## Quality assessment

Summary results of study quality are presented in Table 5 and detailed results are presented in Supplementary Table 4. Among studies using a participatory and co-creation approach, study quality was rated as moderate in seven (70%) studies and as weak in three (30%) studies. Among those without participatory and co-creation approach, study quality was rated as strong in four (13%) studies, as moderate in 16 (50%) studies and as weak in 12 (38%) studies.
<table><caption>**Table 2** Characteristics of campus food environment interventions in higher education settings (N = 13 studies and 29 intervention arms)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">First author,<br>date<br>(reference)</th><th colspan="4">Type of intervention</th><th rowspan="2">Topic</th><th rowspan="2">Duration of<br>intervention</th><th colspan="2">Participatory approach</th></tr><tr><th>Food labeling</th><th>Food<br>promotion</th><th>Food prices</th><th>Food<br>provision</th><th>Classification</th><th>Non-academic<br>actors involved</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cardenas<br>2015—Inter-<br>vention phase<br>1 [37]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>Diet</td><td>3 weeks</td><td>No participa-<br>tion</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Cardenas<br>2015—Inter-<br>vention phase<br>2 [37]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td>3 weeks</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Deliens 2016—<br>Intervention<br>phase 1 [64]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>2 weeks</td><td>Co-production</td><td>Students</td></tr><tr><td>Deliens 2016—<br>Intervention<br>phase 2 [64]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2 weeks</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dingman 2015<br>[65]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>8 weeks</td><td>No participa-<br>tion</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Lambert<br>2023—Inter-<br>vention 1 [66]</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>14 weeks</td><td>No participa-<br>tion</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Lambert<br>2023—Inter-<br>vention 2 [66]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>16 weeks</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mistura 2019—<br>Intervention<br>phase 1 [67]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>2 weeks</td><td>Consultation</td><td>Students, food<br>services staff</td></tr><tr><td>Mistura 2019—<br>Intervention<br>phase 2 [67]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>2 weeks</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Policastro 2017<br>[68]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>4 weeks</td><td>No participa-<br>tion</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Policastro<br>2017—Inter-<br>vention phase<br>1 [69]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>1 week</td><td>Consultation</td><td>Students</td></tr><tr><td>Policastro<br>2017—Inter-<br>vention phase<br>2 [69]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1 week</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Policastro<br>2017—Inter-<br>vention phase<br>3 [69]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1 week</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Schindler-<br>Ruwisch<br>2021—Inter-<br>vention phase<br>1 [70]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>1 week</td><td>No participa-<br>tion</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Schindler-<br>Ruwisch<br>2021—Inter-<br>vention phase<br>2 [70]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>1 week</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Schindler-<br>Ruwisch<br>2021—Inter-<br>vention phase<br>3 [70]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1 week</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 2** (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">First author,<br>date<br>(reference)</th><th colspan="4">Type of intervention</th><th rowspan="2">Topic</th><th rowspan="2">Duration of<br>intervention</th><th colspan="2">Participatory approach</th></tr><tr><th>Food labeling</th><th>Food<br>promotion</th><th>Food prices</th><th>Food<br>provision</th><th>Classification</th><th>Non-academic<br>actors involved</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Seward 2016—<br>Intervention<br>1 [38]</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>Diet</td><td>7 weeks</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Seward 2016—<br>Intervention<br>2 [38]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>7 weeks</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Turnwald<br>2019—Intervention<br>1 [71]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>NR</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Turnwald<br>2019—Intervention<br>2 [71]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>NR</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Van den<br>Bogerd 2020—<br>Intervention<br>1 [72]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>3 weeks</td><td>Co-design</td><td>Students</td></tr><tr><td>Van den<br>Bogerd 2020—<br>Intervention<br>2 [72]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>3 weeks</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Van den<br>Bogerd 2020—<br>Intervention<br>3 [72]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>3 weeks</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Vermote<br>2020—Intervention<br>phase<br>1 [73]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>1 week</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Vermote<br>2020—Intervention<br>phase<br>2 [73]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1 week</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Vermote<br>2020—Intervention<br>phase<br>3 [73]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1 week</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Vermote<br>2020—Intervention<br>phase<br>4 [73]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1 week</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Walmsley<br>2018—Intervention<br>phase<br>1 [39]</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>10 months</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Walmsley<br>2018—Intervention<br>phase<br>2 [39]</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>10 months</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

When a study compared two interventions implemented at the same time in two different groups or locations, interventions were named "interventions 1" and "interventions 2". When a study compared two consecutive interventions within the same group or location, interventions were named "intervention phase 1" and "intervention phase 2".

Abbreviations: NR Not reported

## Effectiveness of interventions

### Effectiveness assessed at the individual level

A participatory and co-creation approach was used in

10/39 (26%) interventions assessing individual-level outcomes (Fig. 3 A-D). Among interventions using a participatory and co-creation approach, a positive effect
<table><caption>**Table 3** Characteristics of food assistance programs in higher education settings (N=4 studies and 5 intervention arms)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">First author, date (reference)</th><th rowspan="2">Topic</th><th rowspan="2">Duration of intervention</th><th colspan="2">Participatory approach</th></tr><tr><th>Type of intervention</th><th>Non-academic actors involved</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gamba 2021—Intervention 1 [74]</td><td>Diet</td><td>16 weeks</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Gamba 2021—Intervention 2 [74]</td><td>Diet</td><td>16 weeks</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Hernandez 2021 [75]</td><td>Diet</td><td>8 months</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Nazmi 2022 [76]</td><td>Diet</td><td>1 year</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Pope 2021—Intervention 3 [56]</td><td>Diet</td><td>6 weeks</td><td>No participation</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table>

When a study compared two interventions implemented at the same time in two different groups or locations, interventions were named "interventions 1" and "interventions 2"

of intervention was found on overall diet quality in 2/4 (50%) interventions, on the intake of healthy food groups in 3/7 (43%) interventions and on the intake of unhealthy food groups in 0/2 (0%) interventions. Among interventions without participation, a positive effect of intervention was found on overall diet quality in 2/7 (29%) interventions, on the intake of healthy food groups in 8/18 (44%) interventions and on the intake of unhealthy food groups in 0/2 (0%) interventions. None of the interventions assessing the effect of intervention on food security used a participatory and co-creation approach. Overall, independent of the type of individual-level outcome assessed, interventions using a participatory and co-creation approaches reported a positive effect in 5/13 (38%) cases (versus 13/31 or 42% for those without participation).

### Effectiveness assessed at the group level

A participatory and co-creation approach was used in 7/26 (27%) interventions assessing group-level outcomes (Fig. 4 A-D). Among interventions using a participatory and co-creation approach, a positive effect of intervention was found on healthier food choices in campus food outlets in 3/6 (50%) interventions and on less healthy food choices in 1/1 (100%) interventions. Among interventions without participation, a positive effect of intervention was found on healthier food choices in 7/20 (35%) interventions and on less healthy food choices in 1/3 (33%) interventions. Overall, independent of the type of group-level outcome assessed, interventions using a participatory and co-creation approaches reported a positive effect in 4/7 (57%) cases (versus 8/23 or 35% for those without participation).

### Discussion

This systematic review examined 66 interventions, retrieved from 42 articles published since 2013, aimed at improving dietary intakes and/or food security in higher education students. Approximately a fourth of studies

used a participatory and co-creation approach. These studies appeared to be more effective on students' food choices in campus food outlets, with 57% of intervention arms reporting a positive finding (compared with 35% when no participatory and co-creation approach was used). The effect on individual dietary intakes and/or food security was however similar when comparing interventions with or without participatory and co-creation approaches (38% vs 42% of intervention arms with a positive finding, respectively). These results strengthen previous findings suggesting that a higher percentage of studies reported a positive effect on diet quality if they involved end-users in a participatory and co-creation approach, especially in the early stages of research design to identify the optimal intervention [31]. Our results should however be interpreted with caution given the limited number of studies using a participatory and co-creation approach, and the heterogeneity of studies in terms of study designs, interventions conducted and outcomes reported. Isolating the effect of participation and co-creation in this context is therefore challenging.

Studies using participatory and co-creation approaches carried out either education programs [22, 49, 57–59, 61] or campus food environment interventions [64, 67, 69, 72] but none of them carried out multi-level interventions targeting both the individuals and the food environment. The only intervention of this type identified in this review did not use participatory and co-creation approaches [66]. The rarity of multi-level nutritional interventions in the higher education setting contrasts with the variety of individual, interpersonal or environmental determinants of eating behavior that have been identified in this setting, such as lack of time, insufficient cooking skills, lack of financial resources, living away from the family home, or characteristics of the campus food environment [77, 78]. As in the general population [79], we can hypothesize that interventions targeting both the individual and environmental determinants of diet may be needed to further impact food habits of
<table><caption>**Table 4** Characteristics of combined interventions in higher education settings (N = 2 studies and 2 intervention arms)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">First author, date (reference)</th><th colspan="2">Education interventions</th><th colspan="2">Food assistance programs</th><th colspan="2">Food environment interventions</th><th rowspan="2">Topic</th><th rowspan="2">Duration of intervention</th><th rowspan="2">Participatory approach</th></tr><tr><th>In-person education program</th><th>Cooking classes</th><th>Food assistance programs</th><th>Food labeling</th><th>Food promotion</th><th>Food prices</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lambert 2023—Intervention 3 [66]</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td>x</td><td></td><td>x</td><td>Diet</td><td>14 weeks</td><td>No participation –</td></tr><tr><td>Pope 2021—Intervention 1 [56]</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Diet</td><td>12 weeks</td><td>No participation –</td></tr></tbody></table>

When a study compared two interventions implemented at the same time in two different groups or locations, interventions were named "interventions 1" and "interventions 2"
<table><caption>**Table 5** Summary of results on quality assessment</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Selection bias N (%)</th><th>Study design N (%)</th><th>Confounders N (%)</th><th>Data collection methods N (%)</th><th>Withdrawals and drop-outs N (%)</th><th>Global rating N (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Strong quality</td><td>3 (7%)</td><td>29 (66%)</td><td>29 (66%)</td><td>24 (55%)</td><td>15 (34%)</td><td>5 (12%)</td></tr><tr><td>Moderate quality</td><td>18 (41%)</td><td>15 (34%)</td><td>2 (5%)</td><td>6 (14%)</td><td>20 (45%)</td><td>23 (52%)</td></tr><tr><td>Weak quality</td><td>23 (52%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>13 (30%)</td><td>14 (32%)</td><td>9 (20%)</td><td>16 (36%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

this population. This type of interventions however raises a number of operational and methodological challenges, including the need for teams made up of experts with diverse expertise from different organizations, the unpredictability of timelines or the lack of control over intervention implementation and changes in contextual variables [80, 81].

Participatory and co-creation approaches, which involve the beneficiaries and partners in the identification of problems and in the design and implementation of interventions, are thought to improve the relevance of interventions [23, 24]. Implementing multi-level nutrition interventions in the higher education setting would require the involvement of various partners, including students, university staff, on-campus food services staff, social organizations and, when appropriate, off-campus food retailers concerned with improving the healthiness of the broad campus food environment [30]. In this context, students are therefore considered as the direct beneficiaries of interventions, as well as potential partners of the participatory and co-creation process. Among the studies identified in this review, a majority of those using participatory and co-creation approaches involved only students in the co-creation process [57–59, 61, 64, 69], whereas only three studies also involved university and/or food services staff [49, 63, 67]. The nature of their involvement was very diverse, ranging from a simple consultation prior to the start of the intervention [58, 61, 67, 69] to an involvement from the earliest stages of problem definition and intervention design [49, 63]. We were therefore not able to infer how best to involve partners in this setting. Recent research suggests that trusting and respectful relationships, reciprocal acknowledgement between partners and flexibility were key practices in the co-creation process of health-enabling initiatives in food retail [82]. Involving partners in the entire research process, from problem identification through to intervention design, implementation and evaluation, has also been proposed to optimize the added-value of co-creation, although it is not a common practice in participatory nutrition interventions [83].

Demonstrating the added-value of participatory and co-creation approaches in the field of nutrition interventions is challenging [31]. Controlled trials providing

formal comparisons of outcomes with and without participation and co-creation are indeed difficult to achieve [81, 84]. Co-created interventions are likely to be different in nature from other interventions, making it very difficult to isolate the impact of the participatory and co-creation protocol [84]. Besides, measuring the effectiveness of participation and co-creation raises in itself a number of challenges. Comparing solely predefined quantitative outcomes (e.g. dietary habits) before and after the intervention, as was done in the vast majority of studies included in this review, does not fit well with certain types of changes that can occur at any stage of the research process (e.g. partners engagement, improved relevance of research questions, co-creation of knowledge...) [85, 86]. Process evaluations, which can be performed through qualitative and quantitative methods (e.g. participant surveys, focus groups, meeting minutes, observations...) are valuable in addition to quantitative before-after evaluations [87]. The only two studies included in our review that used the most active form of co-creation also performed a formal process evaluation [49, 63]. In one study, students enrolled in the study who took part in the intervention were invited to reply to an online survey after the intervention to rate its quality and to report participation [49]. In the other, students were invited to reply to an online survey before the intervention to assess how they had been informed about the study [63]. Many other outcomes are interesting for a deeper understanding of the co-creation process, such as the diversity of participants, their engagement and their influence in decision-making, the number and types of events attended, the satisfaction with the process of participation, or the benefits and challenges of participation [87]. Obtaining these data is crucial for identifying best participatory and co-creation practices when designing, implementing and evaluating nutritional interventions in the higher education setting.

Although our review has several methodological strengths, some limitations should be mentioned. First, the heterogeneity in the study designs, the interventions conducted and the outcomes reported prevented us from performing a meta-analysis and to consider the effect size when analyzing the effectiveness of interventions. For similar reasons, we were not able to compare
<table><caption>**Fig. 3** Synthesis of findings at the individual level on overall diet quality (A), healthy food group intake (B), unhealthy food group intake (C) and food security (D)</caption><thead><tr><th>Reference</th><th>Participatory approach</th><th>Intervention strategy</th><th>Outcomes</th><th>Findings</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Béjar*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Mediterranean diet score</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Hayes - i#1*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Healthy eating index</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Hayes - i#2*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Healthy eating index</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Hernández-Jaña*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Mediterranean diet score</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Global food index</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pope - i#1</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education + food assistance</td><td>Healthy eating index</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Pope - i#2</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Healthy eating index</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Pope - i#3</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food assistance program</td><td>Healthy eating index</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Sandrick*</td><td>Consultation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Rate your plate score</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Schroeter - i#1</td><td>Co-production</td><td>Education program</td><td>Healthy eating index</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Schroeter - i#2</td><td>Co-production</td><td>Education program</td><td>Healthy eating index</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Whatnall*</td><td>Co-creation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Australian recommended food score</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Blow</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Brown*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit, vegetables</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Brown</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Cameron</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Dost</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Epton*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Hardan-Khalil</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>Negative</td></tr><tr><td>Hernandez</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food assistance program</td><td>Fruit, vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Kattelmann</td><td>Co-creation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables, whole grains</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Krzyzanowski</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Lhakhang - i#1*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Lhakhang - i#2*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Meng</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>O'Brien - i#1*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>O'Brien - i#2*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Ohtsuki*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Patel*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Quintiliani*</td><td>Co-production</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Schweitzer*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Shahril*</td><td>Consultation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit, fish</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Van den Bogerd - p#1*</td><td>Co-design</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Fruit, vegetables</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Van den Bogerd - p#2*</td><td>Co-design</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Fruit, vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Van den Bogerd - p#3*</td><td>Co-design</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Fruit, vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Wang</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit, fish</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Whatnall*</td><td>Co-creation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Fruit, vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Halperin*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Sugar-sweetened beverages</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Hernández-Jaña*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Sugar-sweetened beverages</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Kattelmann</td><td>Co-creation</td><td>Education program</td><td>Sugar-sweetened beverages</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Quintiliani*</td><td>Co-production</td><td>Education program</td><td>Sugar-sweetened beverages</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Use of fast-food</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>D</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gamba - i#1*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food assistance program</td><td>Food security</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Gamba - i#2*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food assistance program</td><td>Food security</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Hernandez</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food assistance program</td><td>Food security</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Nazmi*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food assistance program</td><td>Food security</td><td>Positive</td></tr></tbody></table>

Legend: * Study quality was rated as moderate or strong. i#1: intervention 1 (several interventions implemented at the same time in two different groups or locations). p#1: intervention phase 1 (several consecutive interventions within the same group or location)

the effectiveness of interventions among those using a participatory and co-creation approach. Second, a number of studies under-reported important characteristics of interventions such as who delivered the intervention, how the intervention was tailored to the student

population, as well as strategies used to maintain fidelity. Data extraction and interpretation of participatory and co-creation approaches were therefore limited. This limitation, often found in the field of lifestyle/non-pharmacologic interventions, makes the interpretation and
<table><caption>**Fig. 4** Synthesis of findings at the group level on healthier food choices (A) and less healthy food choices (B)</caption><thead><tr><th>Reference</th><th>Participatory approach</th><th>Intervention strategy</th><th>Outcomes</th><th>Findings</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="13">A</td><td>Cardenas - p#1*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Fruit</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Cardenas - p#2*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Fruit</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Deliens - p#2*</td><td>Co-production</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Fruit</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Dingman 2015*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Healthier snacks**</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Lambert - i#1*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Healthier snacks**</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Lambert - i#2*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Healthier snacks**</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Lambert - i#3*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Healthier snacks**</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Mistura - p#1</td><td>Consultation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Mistura - p#2</td><td>Consultation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Policastro</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Healthier food choices**</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Policastro - p#1*</td><td>Consultation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Water</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Policastro - p#2*</td><td>Consultation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Water</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Policastro - p#3*</td><td>Consultation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Water</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Schindler-Ruwisch - p#1</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Water</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Schindler-Ruwisch - p#2</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Fruit</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Schindler-Ruwisch - p#3</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Healthier dessert items</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Seward - i#1*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Healthier food choices**</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Seward - i#1*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Healthier food choices**</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Turnwald - i#1*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Vegetables</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Turnwald - i#2*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Vermote - p#1*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Fruit</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Vermote - p#2*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Fruit</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Vermote - p#3*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Fruit</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Vermote - p#4*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Fruit</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Walmsley - p#1*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Walmsley - p#2*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Fruit and vegetables</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">B</td><td>Deliens - p#1*</td><td>Co-production</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>French fries</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Policastro</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Less healthy food choices**</td><td>Positive</td></tr><tr><td>Seward - i#1*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Less healthy food choices**</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Seward - i#1*</td><td>No participation</td><td>Food environment intervention</td><td>Less healthy food choices**</td><td>NS</td></tr></tbody></table>

Legend: * Study quality was rated as moderate or strong. ** Snacks or ingredients that were promoted during the intervention were considered as healthy food choices by authors of original studies. i#1: intervention 1 (several interventions implemented at the same time in two different groups or locations). p#1: intervention phase 1 (several consecutive interventions within the same group or location)

replication of results difficult [32, 88]. Third, our literature search was limited to the peer-reviewed literature to ensure methodological rigor in the assessment of intervention effectiveness, and gray literature databases were not reviewed.

## Conclusions

Higher education campuses offer real-world experimental settings in which to implement and evaluate innovative nutrition interventions. Participation and co-creation approaches have been used in only a quarter of the 42 peer-reviewed studies included in this systematic review. Among them, 57% interventions reported a positive finding on food choices in campus food outlets (vs 35% in those not using participation and co-creation approaches); and 38% reported a positive finding on diet quality or food insecurity (vs 42% in those not using participation and co-creation approaches). Participation

and co-creation approaches may therefore improve the effectiveness of such interventions but it has to be acknowledged the available evidence remains very limited with a small number of heterogeneous studies. This review points out there is a knowledge gap on how best to involve non-academic partners in the design and implementation of nutrition interventions in higher education settings. More research is therefore warranted to provide structured guidance on the practice of co-creation of nutrition interventions in this setting.

## Abbreviations

<table><tr><td>Non-RCTs</td><td>Non-randomized controlled trials</td></tr><tr><td>PRECEDE</td><td>Predisposing, Reinforcing and Enabling Constructs in Educational Diagnosis and Evaluation</td></tr><tr><td>PRISMA</td><td>Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis</td></tr><tr><td>PROCEED</td><td>Policy, Regulatory, and Organizational Constructs in Educational and Environmental Development RCTs: randomized controlled trials</td></tr><tr><td>TIDieR</td><td>Template for Intervention Description and Replication</td></tr></table>
**Supplementary Information**

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-024-01613-7.

Supplementary Material 1.

**Acknowledgements**

Not applicable

**Authors' contributions**

The authors' responsibilities were as follows – TA and AB designed research; TA and AB conducted research (led the search, screening and data extraction process); TA analyzed data; TA and AB wrote the paper; all authors contributed to the interpretation of findings and substantially revised the manuscript. AB had primary responsibility for final content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript, and agreed both to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

**Funding**

None.

**Availability of data and materials**

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

**Declarations**

**Ethics approval and consent to participate**

Not applicable.

**Consent for publication**

Not applicable.

**Competing interests**

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

**Author details**

¹Center of Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN), Université Sorbonne Paris Nord and Université Paris Cité, INSERM, INRAE, CNAM, Bobigny 93017, France. ²MoISA, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, CIHEAM-IAMM, INRAE, Institut Agro, IRD, Montpellier, France. ³Univ Paris Est Créteil, LabUrba, Créteil 94010, France. ⁴Health Education and Practices Laboratory, University Sorbonne Paris Nord, Bobigny 93017, France. ⁵Department of Nutrition, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Sorbonne University, CRNH-Ile de France, Paris, France.

Received: 4 March 2024 Accepted: 5 June 2024

Published online: 08 July 2024

**References**

1. 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(10184):1958–72.

2. 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.

3. 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 prospective explanatory study. Appetite. 2013;65:111–6.

4. 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):422–39.

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

6. FAO. Declaration on World Food Security. World Food Summit. Rome: FAO (1996). Available from: https://www.fao.org/3/w3613e/w3613e00.htm. Cited 2023 Sep 11.

7. 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.

8. Hickey A, Brown O, Fiagbor R. Campus-based Interventions and Strategies to Address College Students with Food Insecurity: a systematic review. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2023;18(1):81–95.

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

10. 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):327–48.

11. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Key Statistics & Graphics - Food Security Status of U.S. Households in 2021. Available from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/104656/err-309.pdf. Cited 2024 May 3.

12. 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;1(109):100–7.

13. Velez-Toral M, Rodriguez-Reinado C, Ramallo-Espinosa A, Andres-Villas M. "It's Important but, on What Level?": Healthy cooking meanings and barriers to healthy eating among university students. Nutrients. 2020;12(8):2309.

14. Zigmont V, Linsmeier A, Gallup P. Understanding the Why of College Student Food Insecurity. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2021;16(5):595–610.

15. Tseng M, DeGreef K, Fishler M, Gipson R, Koyano K, Neill DB. Assessment of a University Campus Food Environment, California, 2015. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016;4(13):E18.

16. Pulz IS, Martins PA, Feldman C, Veiros MB. Are campus food environments healthy? A novel perspective for qualitatively evaluating the nutritional quality of food sold at foodservice facilities at a Brazilian university. Perpect Public Health. 2017;137(2):122–35.

17. Roy R, Soo D, Conroy D, Wall CR, Swinburn B. Exploring University Food Environment and On-Campus Food Purchasing Behaviors, Preferences, and Opinions. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2019;51(7):865–75.

18. Swinburn B, Sacks G, Vandevijvere S, Kumanyika S, Lobstein T, Neal B, et al. INFORMAS (International Network for Food and Obesity/non-communicable diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support): overview and key principles. Obes Rev. 2013;14(Suppl):1.

19. 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):848–63.

20. Roy R, Kelly B, Rangan A, Allman-Farinelli M. Food environment interventions to improve the dietary behavior of young adults in tertiary education settings: a systematic literature review. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015;115(10):1647–1681.e1.

21. Deliens T, Van Crombruggen R, Verbruggen S, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Deforche B, Clarys P. Dietary interventions among university students: A systematic review. Appetite. 2016;105:14–26.

22. Whatnall MC, Patterson AJ, Hutchesson MJ. Effectiveness of nutrition interventions in vending machines to encourage the purchase and consumption of healthier food and drinks in the university setting: a systematic review. Nutrients. 2020;12(3):E876.

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

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. Cornwall A, Jewkes R. What is participatory research? Soc Sci Med. 1995;41(12):1667–76.
27. 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):801-4.

28. 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):i7-20.

29. 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):473-88.

30. Vargas C, Whelan J, Brimblecombe J, Brock J, Christian M, Allender S. Co-creation of healthier food retail environments: a systematic review to explore the type of stakeholders and their motivations and stage of engagement. Obes Rev. 2022;23(9):e13482.

31. Tay BSJ, Cox DN, Brinkworth GD, Davis A, Edney SM, Gwilt I, et al. Co-Design practices in diet and nutrition research: an integrative review. Nutrients. 2021;13(10):3593.

32. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;7(348):g1687.

33. Biggs S.D. Resource-Poor Farmer Participation in Research: a synthesis of experiences from nine national agricultural research systems. 1989. Available from: https://ebrary.ifpri.org/digital/collection/p15738coll11/id/92/. Cited 2023 May 30.

34. Thomas BH, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1(3):176-84.

35. Hernandez-Jana S, Huber-Perez T, Palma-Leal X, Guerrero-Ibacache P, Campos-Nunez V, Zavala-Crichton J, et al. Effect of a Single Nutritional Intervention Previous to a Critical Period of Fat Gain in University Students with Overweight and Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(14):5149.

36. Cameron D, Epton T, Norman P, Sheeran P, Harris PR, Webb TL, et al. A theory-based online health behaviour intervention for new university students (U@Uni: LifeGuide): Results from a repeat randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16(1):555.

37. Cardenas MK, Benziger CP, Pillay TD, Miranda JJ. The effect of changes in visibility and price on fruit purchasing at a university cafeteria in Lima. Peru Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(15):2742-9.

38. Seward MW, Block JP, Chatterjee A. A Traffic-Light Label Intervention and Dietary Choices in College Cafeterias. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(10):1808-14.

39. Walmsley R, Jenkinson D, Saunders I, Howard T, Oyebode O. Choice architecture modifies fruit and vegetable purchasing in a university campus grocery store: time series modelling of a natural experiment. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1149.

40. Bejar L, Garcia-Perea M, Mesa-Rodriguez P. Evaluation of an Application for Mobile Telephones (e-12HR) to Increase Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet in University Students: A Controlled, Randomized and Multicentric Study. Nutrients. 2022;14(19):4196.

41. Blow J, Iii R, Cooper T. A pilot study examining the impact of a brief health education intervention on food choices and exercise in a Latinx college student sample. Appetite. 2022;173:105979.

42. Brown O, O'Connor L, Savaiano D. Mobile MyPlate: A Pilot Study Using Text Messaging to Provide Nutrition Education and Promote Better Dietary Choices in College Students. J Am Coll Health. 2014;62(5):320-7.

43. Brown DMY, Bray SR, Beatty KR, Kwan MYW. Healthy active living: a residence community-based intervention to increase physical activity and healthy eating during the transition to first-year university. J Am Coll Health. 2014;62(4):234-42.

44. Dost A, Esin M. Effects of the UNI-PAHNP on physical activity and nutrition behaviors in overweight/obese university students in Turkey. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2022;58(4):2003-16.

45. Epton T, Norman P, Dadzie A, Harris P, Webb T, Sheeran P, et al. A theory-based online health behaviour intervention for new university students (U@Uni): results from a randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:563.

46. Halperin DT, Laux J, LeFranc-García C, Araujo C, Palacios C. Findings From a Randomized Trial of Weight Gain Prevention Among Overweight Puerto Rican Young Adults. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2019;51(2):205-16.

47. Hardan-Khalil K, Costa C, Fisher D. Daily motivational text messages impact on college students' nutritional awareness and physical activity levels. J Am Coll Health. 2022;70(8):2511-8.

48. Hayes JF, Balantekin KN, Graham AK, Strube MJ, Bickel WK, Wilfley DE. Implementation intentions for weight loss in college students with overweight and obesity: a proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial. Transl Behav Med. 2021;11(2):359-68.

49. Kattelmann KK, Bredbenner CB, White AA, Greene GW, Hoerr SL, Kidd T, et al. The effects of Young Adults Eating and Active for Health (YEAH): a theory-based Web-delivered intervention. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2014;46(6):S27-41.

50. Krzyzanowski M, Kizakevich P, Duren-Winfield V, Eckhoff R, Hampton J, Carr L, et al. Rams Have Heart, a Mobile App Tracking Activity and Fruit and Vegetable Consumption to Support the Cardiovascular Health of College Students: Development and Usability Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(8):15156.

51. Lhakhang P, Godinho C, Knoll N, Schwarzer R. A brief intervention increases fruit and vegetable intake. A comparison of two intervention sequences. Appetite. 2014;82:103-10.

52. Meng J, Peng W, Shin SY, Chung M. Online Self-tracking groups to increase fruit and vegetable intake: a small-scale study on mechanisms of group effect on behavior change. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(3):e63.

53. O'Brien LM, Palfai TP. Efficacy of a brief web-based intervention with and without SMS to enhance healthy eating behaviors among university students. Eat Behav. 2016;23:104-9.

54. Ohtsuki M, Shibata K, Fukuwatari T, Sasaki Y, Nakai K. Randomized controlled trial of educational intervention to increase consumption of vegetables by Japanese university students. Health educ. 2018;118(4):290-303.

55. Patel N, Lakshminarayanan S, Olickal JJ. Effectiveness of nutrition education in improving fruit and vegetable consumption among selected college students in urban Puducherry, South India. A pre-post intervention study. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2022;34(4):243-8.

56. Pope L, Alpaugh M, Trubek A, Skelly J, Harvey J. Beyond Ramen: Investigating Methods to Improve Food Agency among College Students. Nutrients. 2021;13(5):1674.

57. Quintiliani L, Whiteley J. Results of a Nutrition and Physical Activity Peer Counseling Intervention among Nontraditional College Students. J Cancer Educ. 2016;31(2):366-74.

58. Sandrick J, Tracy D, Eliasson A, Roth A, Bartel J, Simko M, et al. Effect of a counseling session bolstered by text messaging on self-selected health behaviors in college students: a preliminary randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(5):e67.

59. Schroeter C, Corder T, Brookes B, Reller V. An incentive-based health program using MyPlate: a pilot study analyzing college students' dietary intake behavior. J Am Coll Health. 2021;69(3):252-9.

60. Schweitzer A, Ross J, Klein C, Lei K, Mackey E. An Electronic Wellness Program to Improve Diet and Exercise in College Students: A Pilot Study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2016;5(1):e29.

61. Shahril MR, Wan Dali WPE, Lua PL. A 10-Week Multimodal Nutrition Education Intervention Improves Dietary Intake among University Students: Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial. J Nutr Metab. 2013;2013:658642.

62. Wang M, Guo Y, Zhang Y, Xie S, Yu Z, Luo J, et al. Promoting healthy lifestyle in Chinese college students: evaluation of a social media-based intervention applying the RE-AIM framework. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2021;75(2):335-44.

63. Whatnall M, Patterson A, Chiu S, Oldmeadow C, Hutchesson M. Feasibility and Preliminary Efficacy of the Eating Advice to Students (EATS) Brief Web-Based Nutrition Intervention for Young Adult University Students: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Nutrients. 2019;11(4):905.

64. Deliens T, Deforche B, Annemans L, De Bourdeaudhuij J, Clarys P. Effectiveness of pricing strategies on French fries and fruit purchases among university students: results from an on-campus restaurant experiment. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(11):e0165298.
65. Dingman DA, Schulz MR, Wyrick DL, Bibeau DL, Gupta SN. Does providing nutrition information at vending machines reduce calories per item sold? J Public Health Policy. 2015;36(1):110-22.

66. Lambert L, Mann G, Knight S, Partacz M, Jurss M, Eady M. Impact of Smart Snacks Intervention on College Students' Vending Selections. J Am Coll Health. 2023;71(3):952-8.

67. Mistura M, Fetterly N, Rhodes R, Tomlin D, Naylor P. Examining the Efficacy of a 'Feasible' Nudge Intervention to Increase the Purchase of Vegetables by First Year University Students (17-19 Years of Age) in British Columbia: A Pilot Study. Nutrients. 2019;11(8):1786.

68. Policastro P, Smith Z, Chapman G. Put the healthy item first: Order of ingredient listing influences consumer selection. J Health Psychol. 2017;22(7):853-63.

69. Policastro P, Palm T, Schwartz J, Chapman G. Targeted calorie message promotes healthy beverage consumption better than charity incentive. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2017;25(8):1428-34.

70. Schindler-Ruwisch J, Gordon M. Nudging healthy college dining hall choices using behavioral economics. J Am Coll Health. 2021;69(7):697-703.

71. Turnwald BP, Bertoldo JD, Perry MA, Policastro P, Timmons M, Bosso C, et al. Increasing Vegetable Intake by Emphasizing Tasty and Enjoyable Attributes: A Randomized Controlled Multisite Intervention for Taste-Focused Labeling. Psychol Sci. 2019;30(11):1603-15.

72. van den Bogerd N, Peppelenbos H, Leufkens R, Seidell JC, Maas J, Dijkstra SC. A free-produce stand on campus: impact on fruit and vegetable intake in Dutch university students. Public Health Nutr. 2020;23(5):924-34.

73. Vermote M, Nys J, Versele V, D'Hondt E, Deforche B, Clarys P, et al. The effect of nudges aligned with the renewed Flemish Food Triangle on the purchase of fresh fruits: An on-campus restaurant experiment. Appetite. 2020;144:104479.

74. Gamba R, Wood L, Ampil A, Engelman A, Lam J, Schmeltz M, et al. Investigating the Feasibility of a Restaurant Delivery Service to Improve Food Security among College Students Experiencing Marginal Food Security, a Head-to-Head Trial with Grocery Store Gift Cards. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(18):9680.

75. Hernandez DC, Daundasekara SS, Walton QL, Eigege CY, Marshall AN. Feasibility of Delivering an on-Campus Food Distribution Program in a Community College Setting: A Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Investigation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(22):12106.

76. Nazmi A, Condon K, Tseng M, Volpe R, Rodriguez L, Lopez M, et al. SNAP Participation Decreases Food Insecurity among California Public University Students: a quasi-experimental Study. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2022;18(1):123-38.

77. Mello Rodrigues V, Bray J, Fernandes AC, Luci Bernardo G, Hartwell H, SecchiMartinelli S, et al. Vegetable Consumption and Factors Associated with Increased Intake among College Students: A Scoping Review of the Last 10 Years. Nutrients. 2019;11(7):1634.

78. Li X, Braakhuis A, Li Z, Roy R. How does the university food environment impact student dietary behaviors? A systematic review. Front Nutr. 2022;9:840818.

79. 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):2602-4.

80. Sallis JF. Needs and Challenges Related to Multilevel Interventions: Physical Activity Examples. Health Educ Behav. 2018;45(5):661-7.

81. Agurs-Collins T, Persky S, Paskett ED, Barkin SL, Meissner HI, Nansel TR, et al. Designing and Assessing Multilevel Interventions to Improve Minority Health and Reduce Health Disparities. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(S1):S86-93.

82. Vargas C, Brimblecombe J, Allender S, Whelan J. Co-creation of health-enabling initiatives in food retail: academic perspectives. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):953.

83. Marquis GS, Martin SL, Lartey A. The Multiple Dimensions of Participation: Key Determinants of Nutrition Intervention Outcomes. Curr Dev Nutr. 2023;7(5):100001.

84. Smajgl A, Ward J. Evaluating participatory research: Framework, methods and implementation results. J Environ Manage. 2015;1(157):311-9.

85. International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research (ICPHR). Position Paper 3: Impact in Participatory Health Research. Version: March 2020. Berlin: International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research; 2020.

86. Abma TA, Cook T, Rämgård M, Kleba E, Harris J, Wallerstein N. Social impact of participatory health research: collaborative non-linear processes of knowledge mobilization. Educ Action Res. 2017;25(4):489-505.

87. Butterfoss FD. Process evaluation for community participation. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:323-40.

88. Hoffmann TC, Erueti C, Glasziou PP. Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials. BMJ. 2013;347:f3755.

## Publisher's Note

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