Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Korean J Community Nutr : Korean Journal of Community Nutrition

Search
Advanced Search
OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Korean J Community Nutr > Volume 30(4); 2025 > Article
Research Article
Safety education status and needs priorities of Korean military food service personnel using the Borich Needs Assessment and the Locus for Focus model: a cross-sectional study
Jeongeun Park1)orcid, Eunsil Her2),†orcid
Korean Journal of Community Nutrition 2025;30(4):261-273.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5720/kjcn.2025.00185
Published online: August 29, 2025

1)Foodservice Consultant, Unit 6128, Republic of Korea Army, Haman, Korea

2)Professor, Department of Food and Nutrition, Changshin University, Changwon, Korea

†Corresponding author: Eunsil Her Department of Food and Nutrition, Changshin University, 262 Paryong-ro, Masanhoiwon-gu, Changwon 51352, Korea Tel: +82-55-250-1203 Fax: +82-55-250-1201 Email: heres@cs.ac.kr
• Received: July 11, 2025   • Revised: August 9, 2025   • Accepted: August 18, 2025

© 2025 The Korean Society of Community Nutrition

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 1,867 Views
  • 24 Download
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Objectives
    Since the enactment of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act in Korea in 2021, the importance of safety management in food service facilities has increased. This study was conducted to examine the status of safety education and to identify educational needs for safety accident prevention among army food service personnel.
  • Methods
    This study included 157 food service personnel from Army units located in Gyeongsangnam-do. Participants were divided into two groups based on the daily number of meals served. Demographic characteristics, the status of safety education, and priority for safety accident prevention education were evaluated.
  • Results
    A total of 97.5% of participants received safety education, with 60.8% attending at least monthly. “Lecture” (63.4%) was the most commonly used educational method. The preferred educational methods were “Lecture” (23.5%) and “Counselling” (23.5%), showing significant group differences (P < 0.001). A total of 79.6% of participants reported applying the educational content in their performance. The mean importance score for safety accident prevention (4.78) was higher than the performance score (4.44), with significant differences between the two groups observed in the importance scores (P < 0.05). “Slip & burn” had the highest importance score, while “Electric shock and fire” had the highest performance score. The educational needs analysis revealed that the highest priority item for the < 100 meals group was “When moving heavy items, an assistive device or assistance from colleagues should be utilized”, while for the ≥ 100 meals group, it was “When using a vegetable cutter or grinder, use an exclusive stick.”
  • Conclusion
    This study can serve as a foundational database for developing customized safety education programs tailored to Korean army food service personnel.
  • Keywords: safety; education; food service; military personnel
In Korea, military food service is a core element directly related to ensuring soldiers’ nutritional intake for health and maintaining combat readiness. It also significantly influences the operational efficiency of the military army organization and the quality of life in barracks [1, 2]. Recently, in Korea the Basic Act on Military Food Service was enacted to reflect this importance [3]. Personnel responsible for military food service include logistics officers, supply officers, food service managers, supply and food service coordinators, dietitians, civilian cooks, and military cooks, each with distinct roles and responsibilities. These personnel are responsible for a wide array of tasks, including meal planning, food procurement, production, hygiene, and safety management within space- and time-constrained environments [4]. These facilities are particularly vulnerable to physical, chemical, and biological hazards, resulting in frequent accidents, such as burns, cuts, slips, and musculoskeletal injuries [5-7]. In response to increasing concerns about workplace safety, the Serious Accidents Punishment Act was enacted in Korea in 2021 to emphasize the need for more robust safety management in food service settings [8]. Military cooks, who comprise the majority of food service personnel, receive only three weeks of initial training after enlistment, underscoring the need for continuous and practical safety education [9]. However, current education is mostly top-down and instruction-based, often failing to reflect real-world conditions and the specific needs of food service personnel [10]. Therefore, the need for practical and effective education to prevent safety accidents has become apparent. To design such safety education, a prior analysis of education needs that reflects the job roles and circumstances of the target trainees is essential [7, 11].
The Borich Needs Assessment quantitatively prioritizes educational needs by measuring the weighted gap between perceived importance and current performance. While it provides objective and precise identification of priority areas, its results may be less accessible without visual interpretation [12, 13]. The Locus for Focus model complements this by visually mapping importance and performance into four quadrants, facilitating intuitive recognition of critical educational priorities. However, it offers less quantitative precision compared to Borich. Integrating both models leverage their respective strengths, combining robust numerical analysis with clear visual prioritization to enhance the accuracy and usability of needs assessments. [14]. These models have been effectively applied across multiple disciplines, including healthcare, education, and food service [7, 12-14, 15, 16]. Despite the critical importance of military food service safety, research in this field remains limited due to concerns over national security and accessibility [17]. Moreover, few studies have examined how variations in unit size and meal volume affect educational needs. Based on the Food Sanitation Act, industrial foodservice facilities serving < 100 meals are classified as small-scale and are not required to employ a dietitian or a cook [18]. However, specific standards for the deployment of nutritionists and cooks within military foodservice facilities have not been established.
This study aimed to analyze the educational needs for safety accident prevention among Korean army food service personnel in Gyeongsangnam-do, using the Borich Needs Assessment and the Locus for Focus model. To reflect differences in the scale of food service facilities, the analysis was conducted by dividing participants into groups based on the daily number of meals served (< 100 and ≥ 100). This study is expected to provide practical foundational data not only for identifying the priorities of educational content but also for developing customized safety education programs tailored to the scale of each military unit.
Ethics statement
The informed consent was obtained from all participants for the survey. The survey procedures and protocols were approved by the institutional review board of Changshin University (Approval No. 104271-201501-HR-022). Additionally, the Security Office of the army unit conducted a security review.
1. Study design
This cross-sectional study was described with reference to the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) reporting guidelines (https://www.strobe-statement.org/).
2. Participants and data collection
Participants were army food service personnel in Gyeongsangnam-do, Korea who understood the purpose and content of the study and participated voluntarily. A survey was conducted online using Google Forms from October to November 2024. The survey link was distributed to participants via a social networking service. Responses were collected anonymously, and no personally identifiable information was recorded. The sample was obtained using a convenience sampling method, and the number of participants was 150, the minimum sample size when using the G*Power 3.1.9.2 (the hhu) with an effect size of 0.3, a significance level of 0.05, and a power of 0.95. Considering the anticipated dropout rate, the survey link was shared with a total of 165 people. A total of 163 copies were returned, with 157 used for data analysis, excluding 6 copies that had inconsistent responses or missing important variables.
3. Materials and methods
Demographic data included sex, age, meals served per day, work career, army hierarchy, the number of food service workers. Work career categorized into two groups: less than five years and five years or more. Army hierarchy was classified as either army officers (including commissioned officers, non-commissioned officers, government employees, and civilian cooks) or army cooks. The daily number of meals served was categorized as fewer than 100 or 100 or more, and the number of food service personnel was classified as five or fewer, or six or more. The measurement tool for assessing the importance and performance of safety accident prevention consisted of 22 items, which were directly adopted from used items in previous studies [6, 7]. The items were categorized into six types: slip & burn (4 items), cut & winding & stenosis (4 items), collisions & falling off (4 items), electric shock & fire (4 items), musculoskeletal disease (4 items), and contact with chemical substance (2 items). Each item was measured using a five-point Likert scale for importance, responses ranged from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important), and for performance, from 1 (not at all performed) to 5 (very well performed). Higher scores indicated higher levels of importance or performance. The Cronbach’s α coefficients for the importance and performance scales were 0.987 and 0.983, respectively.
4. Statistical analysis
All data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 23.0 (IBM Corp.). The daily number of meals served was the independent variable. The chi-square test and independent samples t-test were used to analyse the differences in proportions and means between groups. The reliability of the measurement tool was examined for internal consistency using Cronbach’s α coefficient. The priority of educational content for preventing safety accidents was analysed using the following three steps. In the first step, the difference in means between the importance and performance of safety accident prevention management was tested using a paired sample t-test. The second step was to calculate the Borich Needs in order to prioritize the safety accident prevention education content. The Borich Needs were calculated for each item using the formula ‘(importance mean – performance mean) × importance mean) / Total item number’. For example, if an item has an average importance of 4.5, an average performance of 3.0, and the total number of items is 22, the calculation would be ((4.5 – 3.0) × 4.5) / 22. In the third step, the Locus for Focus model was employed to visualize the priorities of educational content, with the X-axis representing importance and the Y-axis representing the discrepancy level (i.e., the difference between importance and performance). Quadrants were delineated using the mean values of each axis as the cut-off points. The first quadrant indicates high importance and high discrepancy levels; the second quadrant indicates low importance but high discrepancy levels; the third quadrant indicates low importance and low discrepancy levels; and the fourth quadrant indicates high importance but low discrepancy levels. Items located in the first quadrant represent the highest educational needs and should therefore be prioritized for implementation. The significance level was set at P < 0.05.
1. Demographic characteristics
The demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1. Among the participants, 73.2% were male, with a mean age of 29.5 ± 12.9 years. The majority of participants (80.3%) had less than five years of work career. The proportion of participants with less than five years of work career was higher in the group serving ≥ 100 meals group, although the difference was not statistically significant. The proportion of army cooks (63.7%) was relatively higher than that of army officers (36.3%). Regarding the number of food service personnel, 66.9% of participants reported having 5 or fewer personnel in their unit, nearly twice the proportion of those with six or more (33.1%). By the daily number of meals served, 82.9% of the < 100 meals group had 5 or fewer personnel, whereas 74.3% of the ≥100 meals group had 6 or more personnel (P < 0.001).
2. Status of safety education
As shown in Table 2, 97.5% of the participants had received safety education. The most frequently reported frequency of safety education was once a month or more (60.8%), while 9.1% received education only once a year. “Lecture” was the most frequently used method of safety education (63.4%), followed by “Counselling” (15.7%) and “Discussions” (9.8%). In the < 100 meals group, the proportion of “Counselling” was relatively higher, at 26.2%, whereas in the ≥ 100 meals group, “Discussions” and “Practice” were more prevalent, at 14.5% and 13.0%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P < 0.001). The preferred education methods indicated equal proportions for “Lecture” and “Counselling”, each at 23.5%, followed by “Practice” (15.0%), “Video-based education” (13.7%), “Discussions” (12.4%), and “Social media” (11.8%). In the < 100 meals group, “Counselling” (36.9%), “Video-based education” (15.5%), and “Social media” (14.3%) were the preferred education methods. In contrast, the ≥ 100 meals group showed greater preference for “Lecture” (34.8%) and “Practice” (23.2%) (P < 0.001). A total of 79.6% of participants reported implementing the received educational content in their actual performance.
3. The importance and performance of safety accident prevention
Table 3 presents a comparison of the importance and performance of safety accident prevention management between the two groups based on the daily number of meals served. The overall mean score for importance was 4.78 out of 5.0, with the < 100 meals group reporting a significantly higher score than the ≥ 100 meals group (4.86 vs. 4.70) (P < 0.05). The overall mean score for performance was 4.44, which was 0.34 points lower than the importance score. Although the < 100 meals group showed a slightly higher performance score than the ≥ 100 meals group (4.51 vs. 4.37), the difference was not statistically significant.
In the analysis of importance by type of safety accident, the “Slip & burn” indicated the highest mean score (4.82), while “Musculoskeletal disease” had the lowest (4.74). However, all six categories scored above 4.5 out of 5, indicating a generally high level of importance across all accident types. The < 100 meals group consistently reported higher importance scores across all accident types. Statistically significant differences were observed in the categories of “Collision & falling off” (P < 0.01), “Electric shock & fire” (P < 0.05), “Musculoskeletal disease” (P < 0.01), and “Contact with chemical substance” (P < 0.05), with the < 100 meals group showing a higher importance in each type. The highest level of performance was found in the “Electric shock & fire” (4.55), and the lowest in “Musculoskeletal disease” (4.18). In five out of the six accident types, excluding “Musculoskeletal disease”, the < 100 meals group reported higher mean performance scores. Statistically significant differences were observed in the types of “Cut & winding & stenosis” (P < 0.05), “Collision & falling off” (P < 0.05), and “Contact with chemical substance” (P < 0.05), with the < 100 meals group demonstrating higher levels of performance.
Among the 22 items, statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 groups in 14 items for importance and in 6 items for performance (P < 0.05-P < 0.01). For importance, the < 100 meals group reported significantly higher scores in the “When cleaning the gas hood, use the safe ladders and work in pairs” (P < 0.01), “When cleaning the trench, install a caution sign and cover it again after cleaning” (P < 0.01), “Do stretching exercise before starting and after working” (P < 0.01), and “When moving heavy things, use an assistive device or help from colleagues” (P < 0.01). In terms of performance, the “When cleaning the trench, install a caution sign and cover it again after cleaning” showed a more pronounced significant difference (P < 0.01), with the < 100 meals group demonstrating higher scores.
4. Educational needs and priorities for safety accident prevention
The results of the paired samples t-test conducted to analyze the differences between importance and performance for the 22 safety accident prevention items in the < 100 meals group are presented in Table 4. For all 22 items, the importance scores were higher than the current performance scores, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001). To determine the priorities for educational content, the Borich Needs values were calculated. The item “If the workbench height is inadequate, an auxiliary support is used to adjust it” showed the highest Borich Needs score at 4.740, followed by ‘Do stretching exercise before starting and after working’ with a score of 4.348. The model visualized using the Locus for Focus model is presented in Fig.1.(A). Quadrant I (High importance High discrepancy; HH) represents the highest priority for educational intervention. The items included are “When cleaning the gas hood, use the safe ladders and work in pairs”, “When moving heavy items, an assistive device or assistance from colleagues should be utilized”, and “When handling heavy objects, the correct posture and proper techniques are observed”. Based on the overlap between the Borich Needs and the Locus for Focus model, the item with the highest educational priority was “When moving heavy items, an assistive device or assistance from colleagues should be utilized” (Rank 1). This was followed by “When handling heavy objects, the correct posture and proper techniques are observed” (Rank 2) and “When cleaning the gas hood, use the safe ladders and work in pairs” (Rank 3).
The ≥ 100 meals group also showed statistically significantly higher importance scores than performance scores across all 22 items (P < 0.001). The Borich Needs scores were highest for the “If the workbench height is inadequate, an auxiliary support is used to adjust it” (2.235), as in the < 100 meals group (2.235). This was followed by “When using a vegetable cutter or grinder, use an exclusive stick” (2.117). Based on the visualization using the Locus for Focus model in Fig.1.(B), the items located in Quadrant I include “Pay attention to the burning when using hot water, oil, and utensils”, “Wear protective gloves when using sharp cooking utensils”, “Keep the knife in a hidden place or do not leave it in a sink with water”, and “When using a vegetable cutter or grinder, use an exclusive stick”. The highest educational priority item identified through the integration of the Borich Needs and the Locus for Focus model was “When using a vegetable cutter or grinder, use an exclusive stick” (Rank 1). The next priorities were “Keep the knife in a hidden place or do not leave it in a sink with water” (Rank 2) followed by “Wear protective gloves when using sharp cooking utensils” (Rank 3) and “Pay attention to the burning when using hot water, oil and utensils” (Rank 4).
This study examined the current status and perceived needs related to safety education among army food service personnel. Findings revealed that 97.5% of participants had received safety education, a rate comparable to that reported among industrial food service personnel (96.5%) [6], but lower than the 100% observed in school food service settings [9]. In the military, the main providers of safety education are typically food service supervisors or culinary consultants. Whereas the civilian sector benefits from a broader range of instructional agents, including dietitians, the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency, and educational institutions, indicating relatively restricted access to diverse and specialized educational resources in the military environment [6, 7]. Only 60.8% of participants reported receiving safety education on a monthly basis, a figure substantially lower than that of their civilian counterparts. Notably, even in the ≥ 100 meals group, where a high proportion of personnel had less than five years of work experience, participation in regular education remained insufficient. These findings underscore the critical need for systematic, continuous safety education programs tailored to less-experienced personnel [19].
The most commonly used method of safety education was “Lecture” (63.4%), albeit less prevalent than in industrial foodservice settings (77.2%) [6]. while the use of practical education was relatively higher, accounting for 13.0%. Education methods differed significantly by the scale of food service facilities; individualized “Counselling” was more frequently used in the < 100 meals group, whereas those serving ≥ 100 meals group favored “Discussions” and experiential learning (P < 0.001). These results suggest that instructional approaches are being differentiated according to the operational scale of the food service units. Preferences for educational methods were also becoming increasingly diversified. Compared to traditional lectures, which saw a decrease in preference of nearly 40%, other methods, such as “Counselling”, “Practice”, “Video-based education”, “Discussions”, and “Social media”, were preferred. In particular, participants in the < 100 meals group preferred “Counselling” and “Social media”, whereas those in the ≥ 100 meals group favored “Lecture” and “Practice” (P < 0.001). This suggests that educational needs vary according to participant characteristics and food service environments [20, 21]. Approximately 79.6% of participants reported that they applied the contents of safety education to their actual work practices, a finding consistent with those among school food service personnel (78.2%) [7]. Nevertheless, previous studies identified dissatisfaction stemming from discrepancies between educational content and the practical work environment (42.3%), and from formalistic or perfunctory delivery modes (19.8%) [7]. The results highlight the necessity of developing contextualized safety education curriculums that reflect both experiential levels and facility characteristics.
Although the perceived importance of accident prevention was high (mean = 4.78), the actual performance was lower (mean = 4.44), reflecting a documented gap between risk perception and behavioral implementation [21-23]. Among the types of safety accidents, “Slip & burn” were perceived as the most important, whereas “Musculoskeletal disease” received the lowest scores in both perceived importance and performance. These findings appear to be related to the most frequently reported types of safety accidents in previous studies, with “burns” (46.4%) being the most common among industrial food service workers [6] and “slips” (66.2%) among school food service employees [7]. It also highlights issues related to risk factors, suggesting that in work environments where repetitive physical tasks are routine, associated hazards may be easily overlooked [24]. Although stretching and the use of assistive devices are critical behaviors for preventing safety accidents, their actual implementation rates were relatively low. Therefore, linking awareness to performance through targeted education on these behaviors may contribute meaningfully to strengthening practical safety outcomes. Comparisons based on the daily number of meals served presented that both overall importance and performance scores were higher in the < 100 meals group compared to the ≥ 100 meals group. Among the 22 items, statistically significant differences were observed between groups in 14 items for importance and 6 items for performance (P < 0.05 P < 0.01). This difference can be interpreted as reflecting clearer recognition of personnel’ roles and responsibilities in smaller-scale units, leading to relatively higher risk awareness. This finding is consistent with previous reports indicating that safety culture and risk perception may vary according to organizational size [25].
The Borich Needs Assessment revealed that, for all 22 items, importance exceeded performance (P < 0.001), indicating a widespread demand for educational reinforcement. In both groups, the task “If the workbench height is inadequate, an auxiliary support is used to adjust it” yielded the highest priority score, reflecting the need for ergonomic intervention to mitigate musculoskeletal risk. Previous studies have emphasized the role of repetitive and improper postures as critical risk factors in institutional foodservice settings [26].
The dual analysis model, which combines the Borich Needs Assessment and the Locus for Focus model, is useful for providing practical and strategic intervention directions in educational settings, and its validity has been emphasized in previous studies [11, 12, 14, 15]. The integrated results of the two models in this study indicate that, for the < 100 meals group, the highest educational priorities involve preventing musculoskeletal disorder related to equipment use, which reflect increased physical burdens and heightened accident risks stemming from limited automation and staffing constraints [27]. Conversely, in the ≥ 100 meals group, safety regulations concerning cooking equipment—specifically injuries such as cut & winding & stenosis—emerged as top educational priorities. This finding corresponds to the characteristics of the ≥ 100 meals group, where faster cooking speeds and more frequent use of equipment elevate the risks of thermal and mechanical accidents [28]. To effectively address these challenges, comprehensive policy measures at the Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of Korea level are essential. These should include expanding and enhancing training for dedicated safety management personnel, modernizing foodservice facilities through the adoption of advanced safety equipment and automation technologies, developing standardized safety protocols and manuals, and optimizing workforce allocation.
Limitations
This study used a cross-sectional design, analyzing needs at a specific point in time, which limits the ability to reflect changes in safety education needs or long-term effects. Additionally, the use of convenience sampling reduced the representativeness of the study population, and the reliance on self-reported data may have introduced subjective bias from respondents. The samples were limited to army foodservice personnel in Gyeongsangnam-do, Korea, restricting the generalizability of the results to other military branches or civilian industries. Furthermore, external factors, such as the work environment and organizational culture, were not adequately controlled, which may limit the interpretation of the results. Lastly, since this study focused on identifying the priority of educational needs, it did not assess the actual effect of educational programs on accident prevention or the improvement of safety behaviors.
Conclusion
This study is meaningful in that it clearly identifies the priority for safety education among Korean military food service personnel with limited access, by integrating the Borich Needs and the Locus of Control model, and the Locus of Control model, and may provide an empirical basis for establishing detailed provisions to enhance the safety of military foodservice under the recently enacted the Basic Act on Military Food Service [3] in Korea. The findings suggest that safety education programs for military foodservice personnel should be tailored and practice-oriented, taking into account factors such as the size of the foodservice facility, working conditions, and types of accidents. The educational content should consistently include topics related to improving the work environment and preventing musculoskeletal disorders. Specifically, for the < 100 meals group, emphasis should be placed on education aimed at fundamental improvements in the work environment and reducing physical burdens, whereas the ≥ 100 meals group should focus more on detailed safety management during food preparation processes and responses to hazardous situations. Furthermore, intervention studies are needed to assess behavioral changes based on the prioritized educational content and to verify whether customized education effectively reduces accidents in Korean military foodservice facilities.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There are no financial or other issues that might lead to conflict of interest.

FUNDING

None.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Research data is available upon request to the corresponding author.

Fig. 1.
The Locus for Focus model by daily number of meals served. (A) The result of selecting safety education contents priority using the Locus for Focus model in the < 100 meals group. (B) The result of selecting safety education contents priority using the Locus for Focus model in the ≥ 100 meals group.
Difference = Importance – performance.
HH, high importance high discrepancy; LH, low importance high discrepancy; LL, low importance low discrepancy; HL, high importance low discrepancy. 1 = clean the floor of the work place.; 2 = when working, wear the apron and non-slip shoes; 3 = arrange in the work place and in the aisle; 4 = pay attention to the burning when using with hot water, oil, and utensils; 5 = wear protective gloves when using sharp cooking utensils; 6 = keep the knife at hidden place or do not leave it in sink with water; 7 = when using a vegetable cutter or grinder, use an exclusive stick; 8 = precaution when using a rotating machine with a risk of stenosis; 9 = check the floor and surroundings without running in the kitchen; 10 = preventing collisions by securing distance and passage between workers; 11 = when cleaning the gas hood, use the safe ladders, and work in pairs; 12 = when cleaning the trench, install a caution sign and cover it again after cleaning; 13 = do not touch electric facilities with wet hands; 14 = check the electrical connections and facilities; 15 = when frying, cook do not leave their seats to prevent fire caused by overheated oil; 16 = check the operation status of gas breaker frequently; 17 = do stretching exercise before starting and after working; 18 = when moving heavy items, an assistive device or assistance from colleagues should be utilized; 19 = when handling heavy objects, the correct posture and proper techniques are observed; 20 = if the workbench height is inadequate, an auxiliary support is used to adjust it.; 21 = check safety handling method of MSDS applied substance before use; 22 = wear protection thing before treating chemical substances.
kjcn-2025-00185f1.jpg
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics by the daily number of meals served
Variables Items Total (n = 157) < 100 meals group (n = 87) ≥ 100 meals group (n = 70) χ2 or t-value
Sex Male 115 (73.2) 64 (73.6) 51 (72.9) 0.010
Female 42 (26.8) 23 (26.4) 19 (27.1)
Age (year) - 29.5 ± 12.9 29.7 ± 13.0 29.2 ± 12.8 0.239
Work career (year) < 5 126 (80.3) 66 (75.9) 60 (85.7) 2.376
≥ 5 31 (19.7) 21 (24.1) 10 (14.3)
Army hierarchy Army officers 57 (36.3) 31 (35.6) 26 (37.1) 0.038
Army cooks 100 (63.7) 56 (64.4) 44 (62.9)
Number of food service personnel ≤ 5 105 (66.9) 87 (100.0) 18 (25.7) 96.635***
≥ 6 52 (33.1) 0 (0.0) 52 (74.3)

n (%) or Mean ± SD.

Differences between groups were analyzed using the chi-square test or t-test.

***P < 0.001.

Table 2.
Status of safety education by the daily number of meals served
Variables Items Total (n = 157) < 100 meals group (n = 87) ≥ 100 meals group (n = 70) χ2 or t-value
Experience of safety education Yes 153 (97.5) 84 (96.6) 69 (98.6) 0.637
No 4 (2.5) 3 (3.4) 1 (1.4)
Total 157 (100) 87 (55.4) 70 (44.6)
Frequency of safety education1) Once a year 14 (9.1) 4 (4.8) 10 (14.5) 4.484
Once every 6 months 17 (11.1) 9 (10.7) 8 (11.6)
Once every 3 months 29 (19.0) 17 (20.2) 12 (17.4)
≥ Once a month 93 (60.8) 54 (64.3) 39 (56.5)
Total 153 (100) 84 (54.9) 69 (45.1)
Main safety education method1) Lecture 97 (63.4) 51 (60.7) 46 (66.7) 22.458***
Counselling 24 (15.7) 22 (26.2) 2 (2.9)
Discussions 15 (9.8) 5 (6.0) 10 (14.5)
Practice 11 (7.2) 2 (2.4) 9 (13.0)
Video-based education 6 (3.9) 4 (4.8) 2 (2.9)
Total 153 (100) 84 (54.9) 69 (45.1)
Desired safety education method1) Lecture 36 (23.5) 12 (14.3) 24 (34.8) 28.344***
Consulting 36 (23.5) 31 (36.9) 5 (7.2)
Practice 23 (15.0) 7 (8.3) 16 (23.2)
Video-based education 21 (13.7) 13 (15.5) 8 (11.6)
Discussions 19 (12.4) 9 (10.7) 10 (14.5)
Social media 18 (11.8) 12 (14.3) 6 (8.7)
Total 153 (100) 84 (54.9) 69 (45.1)
Performance of safety education contents Yes 125 (79.6) 92 (80.0) 33 (78.6) 0.039
No 32 (20.4) 23 (20.0) 9 (21.4)
Total 157 (100) 115 (73.2) 42 (26.8)

n (%).

Differences between groups were analyzed using the chi-square test.

1)Percentages were calculated based on valid responses (n = 153). Total sample size was 157; 4 missing responses.

***P < 0.001.

Table 3.
Comparison of the importance and performance of safety accident prevention by the daily number of meals served
Types of safety accidents Items Importance1)
 Performance2)
Total (n = 157) < 100 meals group (n = 87) ≥ 100 meals group (n = 70) t-value Rank Total (n = 157) < 100 meals group (n = 87) ≥ 100 meals group (n = 70) t-value Rank
Slip & burn (4) 1. Clean the floor of the work place 4.80 ± 0.44 4.85 ± 0.39 4.73 ± 0.48 1.721 4 4.55 ± 0.60 4.62 ± 0.58 4.46 ± 0.63 1.697 2
2. When working, wear the apron and non-slip shoes 4.82 ± 0.40 4.86 ± 0.38 4.77 ± 0.42 1.398 2 4.55 ± 0.60 4.61 ± 0.58 4.47 ± 0.63 1.426 2
3. Arrange in the work place and in the aisle 4.82 ± 0.40 4.85 ± 0.39 4.77 ± 0.42 1.207 2 4.55 ± 0.61 4.62 ± 0.58 4.46 ± 0.65 1.667 2
4. Pay attention to the burning when using with hot water, oil, and utensils 4.85 ± 0.37 4.89 ± 0.36 4.81 ± 0.39 1.173 1 4.55 ± 0.60 4.63 ± 0.57 4.46 ± 0.63 1.820 2
Subtotal (mean per item) 19.29 ± 1.54 19.44 ± 1.45 19.09 ± 1.65 1.444 - 18.20 ± 2.38 18.48 ± 2.27 17.84 ± 2.49 1.683 -
(4.82 ± 0.38) (4.86 ± 0.36) (4.77 ± 0.41) (4.54 ± 0.59) (4.62 ± 0.57) (4.46 ± 0.62)
Cut & winding & stenosis (4) 5. Wear protective gloves when using sharp cooking utensils 4.82 ± 0.43 4.89 ± 0.36 4.74 ± 0.50 2.002* 2 4.50 ± 0.65 4.60 ± 0.58 4.37 ± 0.70 2.160* 5
6. Keep the knife at hidden place or do not leave it in sink with water 4.82 ± 0.40 4.86 ± 0.38 4.77 ± 0.42 1.398 2 4.50 ± 0.67 4.62 ± 0.60 4.36 ± 0.72 2.453* 5
7. When using a vegetable cutter or grinder, use an exclusive stick 4.78 ± 0.46 4.84 ± 0.40 4.70 ± 0.52 1.841 6 4.39 ± 0.82 4.51 ± 0.71 4.26 ± 0.91 1.917 8
8. Precaution when using a rotating machine with a risk of stenosis 4.82±0.40 4.86±0.38 4.76±0.43 1.597 2 4.55 ± 0.61 4.60 ± 0.58 4.49 ± 0.65 1.136 2
Subtotal (mean per item) 19.24 ± 1.62 19.45 ± 1.47 18.97 ± 1.77 1.809 - 17.94 ± 2.49 18.32 ± 2.32 17.47 ± 2.65 2.112* -
(4.80 ± 0.40) (4.86 ± 0.36) (4.74 ± 0.44) (4.48 ± 0.62) (4.58 ± 0.58) (4.37 ± 0.66)
Collision & falling off (4) 9. Check the floor and surroundings without running in the kitchen 4.82 ± 0.40 4.89 ± 0.36 4.74 ± 0.44 2.189* 2 4.54 ± 0.64 4.61 ± 0.60 4.44 ± 0.67 1.638 3
10. Preventing collisions by securing distance and passage between workers 4.79 ± 0.47 4.87 ± 0.40 4.69 ± 0.53 2.473* 5 4.52 ± 0.65 4.61 ± 0.62 4.41 ± 0.67 1.894 4
11. When cleaning the gas hood, use the safe ladders, and work in pairs 4.76 ± 0.52 4.89 ± 0.39 4.61 ± 0.62 3.186** 8 4.38 ± 0.85 4.53 ± 0.76 4.20 ± 0.93 2.443* 9
12. When cleaning the trench, install a caution sign and cover it again after cleaning 4.73 ± 0.60 4.86 ± 0.41 4.56 ± 0.74 3.107** 11 4.44 ± 0.76 4.60 ± 0.64 4.24 ± 0.86 2.878** 6
Subtotal (mean per item) 19.10 ± 1.85 19.51 ± 1.52 18.60 ± 2.11 3.020** - 17.88 ± 2.61 18.34 ± 2.48 17.30 ± 2.69 2.526* -
(4.77 ± 0.46) (4.88 ± 0.38) (4.65 ± 0.53) (4.46 ± 0.65) (4.59 ± 0.62) (4.32 ± 0.67)
Electric shock & fire (4) 13. Do not touch electric facilities with wet hands 4.81 ± 0.43 4.85 ± 0.42 4.76 ± 0.43 1.366 3 4.57 ± 0.59 4.63 ± 0.59 4.50 ± 0.58 1.398 1
14. Check the electrical connections and facilities 4.80 ± 0.42 4.86 ± 0.38 4.73 ± 0.45 1.987* 4 4.57 ± 0.60 4.63 ± 0.59 4.49 ± 0.61 1.522 1
15. When frying, cook do not leave their seats to prevent fire caused by overheated oil 4.80 ± 0.44 4.87 ± 0.37 4.71 ± 0.52 2.180* 4 4.54 ± 0.62 4.63 ± 0.57 4.43 ± 0.65 2.056* 3
16. Check the operation status of gas breaker frequently 4.80 ± 0.42 4.86 ± 0.38 4.71 ± 0.46 2.177* 4 4.54 ± 0.64 4.60 ± 0.62 4.46 ± 0.65 1.381 3
Subtotal (mean per item) 19.21 ± 1.64 19.45 ± 1.52 18.91 ± 1.74 2.018* - 18.22 ± 2.35 18.49 ± 2.32 17.87 ± 2.38 1.655 -
(4.80 ± 0.41) (4.86 ± 0.38) (4.73 ± 0.44) (4.55 ± 0.58 (4.62 ± 0.58) (4.47 ± 0.59)
Musculoskeletal disease (4) 17. Do stretching exercise before starting and after working 4.67 ± 0.62 4.80 ± 0.48 4.50 ± 0.74 2.988** 12 3.99 ± 0.95 3.87 ± 0.94 4.13 ± 0.96 –1.674 10
18. When moving heavy items, an assistive device or assistance from colleagues should be utilized 4.78 ± 0.45 4.87 ± 0.37 4.66 ± 0.51 2.992** 6 4.38 ± 0.80 4.39 ± 0.84 4.37 ± 0.74 0.151 9
19. When handling heavy objects, the correct posture and proper techniques are observed 4.78 ± 0.49 4.86 ± 0.41 4.67 ± 0.56 2.391* 6 4.41 ± 0.71 4.47 ± 0.71 4.34 ± 0.70 1.131 7
20. If the workbench height is inadequate, an auxiliary support is used to adjust it 4.74 ± 0.51 4.83 ± 0.44 4.63 ± 0.57 2.410* 10 3.97 ± 1.12 3.83 ± 1.17 4.16 ± 1.02 –1.884 11
Subtotal (mean per item) 18.96 ± 1.92 19.37 ± 1.61 18.46 ± 2.17 2.923** - 16.76 ± 3.07 16.56 ± 3.02 17.00 ± 3.15 –0.884 -
(4.74 ± 0.48) (4.84 ± 0.40) (4.61 ± 0.54) (4.18 ± 0.76) (4.14 ± 0.76) (4.25 ± 0.79)
Contact with chemical substance (2) 21. Check safety handling method of MSDS applied substance before use 4.75 ± 0.50 4.83 ± 0.44 4.66 ± 0.56 2.082* 9 4.41 ± 0.78 4.53 ± 0.70 4.26 ± 0.86 2.183* 7
22. Wear protection thing before treating chemical substances 4.77 ± 0.49 4.85 ± 0.42 4.67 ± 0.56 2.230* 7 4.44 ± 0.74 4.54 ± 0.70 4.31 ± 0.79 1.904 6
Subtotal (mean per item) 9.52 ± 0.98 9.68 ± 0.84 9.33 ± 1.11 2.175* - 8.84 ± 1.48 9.07 ± 1.39 8.57 ± 1.57 2.102* -
(4.76 ± 0.49) (4.84 ± 0.42) (4.66 ± 0.56) (4.42 ± 0.74) (4.53 ± 0.69) (4.29 ± 0.79)
Total score (mean per item) 105.32 ± 8.85 106.90 ± 8.04 103.36 ± 9.48 2.486* - 97.84 ± 13.14 99.28 ± 12.36 96.06 ± 13.93 1.512 -
(4.78 ± 0.40) (4.86 ± 0.36) (4.70 ± 0.43) (4.44 ± 0.59) (4.51 ± 0.56) (4.37 ± 0.63)

Mean ± SD.

Differences between groups were analyzed using the chi-square test or t-test.

MSDS, Material Safety Data Sheet.

1)5points Likert scale: 1 (not important at all) to 5 (very important).

2)5points Likert scale: 1 (not performed at all) to 5 (very performed).

*P < 0.05,

**P < 0.01.

Table 4.
Educational priorities for safety accident prevention based on the Borich Needs and the Locus for Focus model by the daily number of meals served
Types of safety accidents Items < 100 meals group (n = 87)
 ≥ 100 meals group (n = 70)
Mean difference1) Paired t-value Borich Needs2) Borich priorities The Locus for Focus model’s priorities Top priorities Mean difference1) Paired t-value Borich Needs2) Borich priorities The Locus for Focus model’s priorities Top priorities
Slip & burn (4) 1. Clean the floor of the work place 0.23 ± 0.54 3.945*** 1.103 21 0.27 ± 0.56 4.036*** 1.303 18
2. When working, wear the apron and non-slip shoes 0.25 ± 0.53 4.425*** 1.219 16 0.30 ± 0.57 4.376*** 1.446 13
3. Arrange in the work place and in the aisle 0.23 ± 0.54 3.945*** 1.108 19 0.31 ± 0.58 4.546*** 1.515 11
4. Pay attention to the burning when using with hot water, oil, and utensils 0.25 ± 0.51 4.618*** 1.226 15 0.36 ± 0.54 4.540*** 1.732 8 HH 4
Cut & winding & stenosis (4) 5. Wear protective gloves when using sharp cooking utensils 0.29 ± 0.53 4.581*** 1.385 9 0.37 ± 0.62 4.432*** 1.790 6 HH 3
6. Keep the knife at hidden place or do not leave it in sink with water 0.24 ± 0.53 4.268*** 1.163 17 0.41 ± 0.65 5.348*** 1.997 3 HH 2
7. When using a vegetable cutter or grinder, use an exclusive stick 0.33 ± 0.66 4.719*** 1.593 6 0.44 ± 0.86 4.298** 2.117 2 HH 1
8. Precaution when using a rotating machine with a risk of stenosis 0.26 ± 0.52 4.777*** 1.274 11 0.27 ± 0.56 4.036*** 1.308 17
Collision & falling off (4) 9. Check the floor and surroundings without running in the kitchen 0.28 ± 0.50 5.161*** 1.330 10 0.28 ± 0.50 4.821*** 1.446 13
10. Preventing collisions by securing distance and passage between workers 0.26 ± 0.52 4.777*** 1.266 13 0.27 ± 0.56 4.036*** 1.300 19
11. When cleaning the gas hood, use the safe ladders, and work in pairs 0.36 ± 0.65 5.140*** 1.696 5 HH 3 0.41 ± 0.94 3.687*** 1.972 4 LH 6
12. When cleaning the trench, install a caution sign and cover it again after cleaning 0.26 ± 0.54 0.409*** 1.250 14 0.31 ± 0.79 3.876*** 1.487 12
Electric shock & fire (4) 13. Do not touch electric facilities with wet hands 0.22 ± 0.49 4.137*** 1.050 20 0.26 ± 0.50 4.288*** 1.237 20
14. Check the electrical connections and facilities 0.23 ± 0.50 4.298*** 1.103 21 0.24 ± 0.55 3.694*** 1.166 22
15. When frying, cook do not leave their seats to prevent fire caused by overheated oil 0.24 ± 0.48 4.677*** 1.159 18 0.29 ± 0.59 4.029*** 1.371 15
16. Check the operation status of gas breaker frequently 0.26 ± 0.54 4.581*** 1.269 12 0.26 ± 0.65 3.298** 1.234 21
Musculoskeletal disease (4) 17. Do stretching exercise before starting and after working 0.93 ± 0.95 9.143*** 4.348 2 LH 5 0.37 ± 0.90 3.439** 1.735 7 LH 8
18. When moving heavy items, an assistive device or assistance from colleagues should be utilized 0.48 ± 0.76 5.922*** 2.308 3 HH 1 0.29 ± 0.62 3.873*** 1.366 16
19. When handling heavy objects, the correct posture and proper techniques are observed 0.39 ± 0.60 6.100*** 1.868 4 HH 2 0.33 ± 0.58 4.716*** 1.571 10 LH 10
20. If the workbench height is inadequate, an auxiliary support is used to adjust it 1.00 ± 1.17 7.963*** 4.740 1 LH 4 0.47 ± 0.93 4.250*** 2.235 1 LH 5
Contact with chemical substance (2) 21. Check safety handling method of MSDS applied substance before use 0.30 ± 0.57 4.865*** 1.420 8 0.40 ± 0.86 3.900*** 1.900 5 LH 7
22. Wear protection thing before treating chemical substances 0.31 ± 0.60 4.851*** 1.480 7 0.36 ± 0.74 4.023*** 1.704 9 LH 9
Mean ± SD 0.35 ± 0.47 6.888*** 0.33 ± 0.53 5.236***

Mean ± SD.

HH, high importance high discrepancy; LH, low importance high discrepancy; MSDS, Material Safety Data Sheet.

000.

1)Importance – performance.

2)((Importance – performance) × mean importance) / total number.

**P < 0.01,

***P < 0.001.

  • 1. Kim JH, Bae SJ. Analysis of perception and satisfaction of military foodservice that are provided according to the ranks of the soldiers. Korean J Community Nutr 2015; 20(1): 53-60. Article
  • 2. Lee D, Bae BY, Choi S. An empirical study on the effect of military foodservice satisfaction on soldiers’ morale. J Soc Korea Ind Syst Eng 2020; 43(3): 228-242. Article
  • 3. Korean Law Information Center. The basic act on military food service [Internet]. Ministry of Government; 2025 [updated 2025 Jul 22; cited 2025 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW//lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=272923&chrClsCd=010202&urlMode=lsInfoP&efYd=20260123&ancYnChk=#0000
  • 4. Jeong BS, Yi SC. A study on the improvement of operating management system for military food service. J Soc Sci Res 2013; 22: 6-39.
  • 5. Cho YJ, Kim HA. Safety accidents and physical fatigue of school foodservice employees. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr 2013; 42(9): 1482-1491. Article
  • 6. So H, Rho JO. Comparative analysis of status of safety accidents and importance-performance analysis (IPA) about precautions of safety accidents by employment type of industry foodservices in Jeonbuk area. J Nutr Health 2017; 50(4): 402-414. ArticlePDF
  • 7. Baek SH. Application of analytical hierarchy process in analyzing the priorities of strategy for improving the army military foodservice. Korean J Community Nutr 2014; 19(1): 51-59. Article
  • 8. Korean Law Information Center. the serious accidents punishment act [Internet]. Ministry of Government; 2021 [updated 2022 Jan 27; cited 2025 Jul 9]. Available from: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/eng/engLsSc.do?menuId=2&section=lawNm&query=Act+on+the+punishment+of+serious+accidents+&x#liBgcolor0
  • 9. Kim JA. A study on quality improvement of military food service through environmental analysis of cook group. J Korean Data Inf Sci Soc 2019; 30(4): 863-871. Article
  • 10. Lee HJ, Choi SA, Rho JO. An educational needs analysis of precautions against safety accidents for school food service employees in the Jeonbuk area using Borich priority formula and the Locus for Focus model. J Nutr Health 2023; 56(5): 554-572. ArticlePDF
  • 11. Yang E, Yoon B. An educational needs analysis of sustainable dietary education for nutrition teachers: an application of the IPA, Borich Needs Assessment and the Locus for Focus model. Korean J Community Nutr 2024; 29(5): 372-381. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 12. Shin S, Hong E, Do J, Lee M. An analysis of the educational needs priorities for clinical nurse educators: utilizing the Borich Needs Assessment and the Locus for Focus model. J Korean Acad Soc Nurs Educ 2023; 29(4): 405-414. ArticlePDF
  • 13. Borich GD. A needs assessment model for conducting follow-up studies. J Teach Educ 1980; 31(3): 39-42. ArticlePDF
  • 14. Seok HW, Uhm JY. Educational needs of school health teachers caring for students with type 1 diabetes: an analysis using the Borich Needs Assessment and the Locus for Focus models. J Korean Acad Soc Nurs Educ 2024; 30(4): 347-360. ArticlePDF
  • 15. Kim Y, Nam J. A comparative study on ESG perception by generation: using Borich’s Needs and the Locus for Focus model. J Korean Career•Entrep Bus Assoc 2023; 7(3): 107-121. Article
  • 16. Cha H, Jin S. Analysis of educational needs for teaching competence of field instructors in the field of health and welfare. J Vocat Educ Res 2022; 41(4): 67-90. Article
  • 17. Baek SH, Kim YS. Investigation of military foodservice operation. Korean J Food Nutr 2010; 23(4): 615-622.
  • 18. Korean Law Information Center. Food sanitation act [Internet]. Ministry of Government; 2024 [updated 2024 Jan 02; cited 2025 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/eng/engLsSc.do?menuId=2&section=lawNm&query=Act+on+the+punishment+of+serious+accidents+&x#liBgcolor2
  • 19. Young I, Waddell LA, Wilhelm BJ, Greig J. A systematic review and meta-regression of single group, pre-post studies evaluating food safety education and training interventions for food handlers. Food Res Int 2020; 128: 108711.ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Kolb DA. Experiential learning : experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall; 1984.
  • 21. Park SH, Kwak TK, Chang HJ. Evaluation of the food safety training for food handlers in restaurant operations. Nutr Res Pract 2010; 4(1): 58-68. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 22. Samaradiwakara R.P.G., Senevirathne K.S.B., Manzino A.R.M.. Food safety knowledge, attitude and behavior of employees in star grade hotels: Western Province, Sri Lanka. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2024; 15(17): 12695.
  • 23. Zanin LM, da Cunha DT, de Rosso VV, Capriles VD, Stedefeldt E. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of food handlers in food safety: an integrative review. Food Res Int 2017; 100(Pt 1): 53-62. ArticlePubMed
  • 24. Abebaw T, Destaw B, Yenealem DG, Tesfaye AH, Melaku C, Mamaye Y, et al. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: prevalence, associated factors, and impact on quality of life among kitchen workers in hospitality industry, Bahir Dar City, Northwest Ethiopia, 2023. Front Public Health 2024; 12: 1358867.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 25. Silbey SS. Taming prometheus: talk about safety and culture. Annu Rev Sociol 2009; 35: 341-369. Article
  • 26. Lee J, Kim Y. Occupational musculoskeletal disease and stress levels of restaurant cooks in Gangwon province. Culin Sci Hosp Res 2017; 23(2): 1-10. Article
  • 27. Lee S, Kim K, Kim E, Kim J, Kim D. Job stress and musculoskeletal disorder in Seoul city's school foodservice employees. Korean J Occup Health Nurs 2014; 23(4): 245-253. Article
  • 28. Song YW, Kee D, Kim W. Questionnaire survey of accidents occurred in catering kitchens for identification of risk factors and preventing measures. J Ergon Soc Korea 2018; 37(4): 511-522.

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • Cite
        CITE
        export Copy Download
        Close
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        Safety education status and needs priorities of Korean military food service personnel using the Borich Needs Assessment and the Locus for Focus model: a cross-sectional study
        Korean J Community Nutr. 2025;30(4):261-273.   Published online August 29, 2025
        DOI: https://doi.org/10.5720/kjcn.2025.00185
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      We recommend
      Safety education status and needs priorities of Korean military food service personnel using the Borich Needs Assessment and the Locus for Focus model: a cross-sectional study
      Image
      Fig. 1. The Locus for Focus model by daily number of meals served. (A) The result of selecting safety education contents priority using the Locus for Focus model in the < 100 meals group. (B) The result of selecting safety education contents priority using the Locus for Focus model in the ≥ 100 meals group.Difference = Importance – performance.HH, high importance high discrepancy; LH, low importance high discrepancy; LL, low importance low discrepancy; HL, high importance low discrepancy. 1 = clean the floor of the work place.; 2 = when working, wear the apron and non-slip shoes; 3 = arrange in the work place and in the aisle; 4 = pay attention to the burning when using with hot water, oil, and utensils; 5 = wear protective gloves when using sharp cooking utensils; 6 = keep the knife at hidden place or do not leave it in sink with water; 7 = when using a vegetable cutter or grinder, use an exclusive stick; 8 = precaution when using a rotating machine with a risk of stenosis; 9 = check the floor and surroundings without running in the kitchen; 10 = preventing collisions by securing distance and passage between workers; 11 = when cleaning the gas hood, use the safe ladders, and work in pairs; 12 = when cleaning the trench, install a caution sign and cover it again after cleaning; 13 = do not touch electric facilities with wet hands; 14 = check the electrical connections and facilities; 15 = when frying, cook do not leave their seats to prevent fire caused by overheated oil; 16 = check the operation status of gas breaker frequently; 17 = do stretching exercise before starting and after working; 18 = when moving heavy items, an assistive device or assistance from colleagues should be utilized; 19 = when handling heavy objects, the correct posture and proper techniques are observed; 20 = if the workbench height is inadequate, an auxiliary support is used to adjust it.; 21 = check safety handling method of MSDS applied substance before use; 22 = wear protection thing before treating chemical substances.

      Fig. 1.

      Safety education status and needs priorities of Korean military food service personnel using the Borich Needs Assessment and the Locus for Focus model: a cross-sectional study
      Variables Items Total (n = 157) < 100 meals group (n = 87) ≥ 100 meals group (n = 70) χ2 or t-value
      Sex Male 115 (73.2) 64 (73.6) 51 (72.9) 0.010
      Female 42 (26.8) 23 (26.4) 19 (27.1)
      Age (year) - 29.5 ± 12.9 29.7 ± 13.0 29.2 ± 12.8 0.239
      Work career (year) < 5 126 (80.3) 66 (75.9) 60 (85.7) 2.376
      ≥ 5 31 (19.7) 21 (24.1) 10 (14.3)
      Army hierarchy Army officers 57 (36.3) 31 (35.6) 26 (37.1) 0.038
      Army cooks 100 (63.7) 56 (64.4) 44 (62.9)
      Number of food service personnel ≤ 5 105 (66.9) 87 (100.0) 18 (25.7) 96.635***
      ≥ 6 52 (33.1) 0 (0.0) 52 (74.3)
      Variables Items Total (n = 157) < 100 meals group (n = 87) ≥ 100 meals group (n = 70) χ2 or t-value
      Experience of safety education Yes 153 (97.5) 84 (96.6) 69 (98.6) 0.637
      No 4 (2.5) 3 (3.4) 1 (1.4)
      Total 157 (100) 87 (55.4) 70 (44.6)
      Frequency of safety education1) Once a year 14 (9.1) 4 (4.8) 10 (14.5) 4.484
      Once every 6 months 17 (11.1) 9 (10.7) 8 (11.6)
      Once every 3 months 29 (19.0) 17 (20.2) 12 (17.4)
      ≥ Once a month 93 (60.8) 54 (64.3) 39 (56.5)
      Total 153 (100) 84 (54.9) 69 (45.1)
      Main safety education method1) Lecture 97 (63.4) 51 (60.7) 46 (66.7) 22.458***
      Counselling 24 (15.7) 22 (26.2) 2 (2.9)
      Discussions 15 (9.8) 5 (6.0) 10 (14.5)
      Practice 11 (7.2) 2 (2.4) 9 (13.0)
      Video-based education 6 (3.9) 4 (4.8) 2 (2.9)
      Total 153 (100) 84 (54.9) 69 (45.1)
      Desired safety education method1) Lecture 36 (23.5) 12 (14.3) 24 (34.8) 28.344***
      Consulting 36 (23.5) 31 (36.9) 5 (7.2)
      Practice 23 (15.0) 7 (8.3) 16 (23.2)
      Video-based education 21 (13.7) 13 (15.5) 8 (11.6)
      Discussions 19 (12.4) 9 (10.7) 10 (14.5)
      Social media 18 (11.8) 12 (14.3) 6 (8.7)
      Total 153 (100) 84 (54.9) 69 (45.1)
      Performance of safety education contents Yes 125 (79.6) 92 (80.0) 33 (78.6) 0.039
      No 32 (20.4) 23 (20.0) 9 (21.4)
      Total 157 (100) 115 (73.2) 42 (26.8)
      Types of safety accidents Items Importance1)
      		 Performance2)
      Total (n = 157) < 100 meals group (n = 87) ≥ 100 meals group (n = 70) t-value Rank Total (n = 157) < 100 meals group (n = 87) ≥ 100 meals group (n = 70) t-value Rank
      Slip & burn (4) 1. Clean the floor of the work place 4.80 ± 0.44 4.85 ± 0.39 4.73 ± 0.48 1.721 4 4.55 ± 0.60 4.62 ± 0.58 4.46 ± 0.63 1.697 2
      2. When working, wear the apron and non-slip shoes 4.82 ± 0.40 4.86 ± 0.38 4.77 ± 0.42 1.398 2 4.55 ± 0.60 4.61 ± 0.58 4.47 ± 0.63 1.426 2
      3. Arrange in the work place and in the aisle 4.82 ± 0.40 4.85 ± 0.39 4.77 ± 0.42 1.207 2 4.55 ± 0.61 4.62 ± 0.58 4.46 ± 0.65 1.667 2
      4. Pay attention to the burning when using with hot water, oil, and utensils 4.85 ± 0.37 4.89 ± 0.36 4.81 ± 0.39 1.173 1 4.55 ± 0.60 4.63 ± 0.57 4.46 ± 0.63 1.820 2
      Subtotal (mean per item) 19.29 ± 1.54 19.44 ± 1.45 19.09 ± 1.65 1.444 - 18.20 ± 2.38 18.48 ± 2.27 17.84 ± 2.49 1.683 -
      (4.82 ± 0.38) (4.86 ± 0.36) (4.77 ± 0.41) (4.54 ± 0.59) (4.62 ± 0.57) (4.46 ± 0.62)
      Cut & winding & stenosis (4) 5. Wear protective gloves when using sharp cooking utensils 4.82 ± 0.43 4.89 ± 0.36 4.74 ± 0.50 2.002* 2 4.50 ± 0.65 4.60 ± 0.58 4.37 ± 0.70 2.160* 5
      6. Keep the knife at hidden place or do not leave it in sink with water 4.82 ± 0.40 4.86 ± 0.38 4.77 ± 0.42 1.398 2 4.50 ± 0.67 4.62 ± 0.60 4.36 ± 0.72 2.453* 5
      7. When using a vegetable cutter or grinder, use an exclusive stick 4.78 ± 0.46 4.84 ± 0.40 4.70 ± 0.52 1.841 6 4.39 ± 0.82 4.51 ± 0.71 4.26 ± 0.91 1.917 8
      8. Precaution when using a rotating machine with a risk of stenosis 4.82±0.40 4.86±0.38 4.76±0.43 1.597 2 4.55 ± 0.61 4.60 ± 0.58 4.49 ± 0.65 1.136 2
      Subtotal (mean per item) 19.24 ± 1.62 19.45 ± 1.47 18.97 ± 1.77 1.809 - 17.94 ± 2.49 18.32 ± 2.32 17.47 ± 2.65 2.112* -
      (4.80 ± 0.40) (4.86 ± 0.36) (4.74 ± 0.44) (4.48 ± 0.62) (4.58 ± 0.58) (4.37 ± 0.66)
      Collision & falling off (4) 9. Check the floor and surroundings without running in the kitchen 4.82 ± 0.40 4.89 ± 0.36 4.74 ± 0.44 2.189* 2 4.54 ± 0.64 4.61 ± 0.60 4.44 ± 0.67 1.638 3
      10. Preventing collisions by securing distance and passage between workers 4.79 ± 0.47 4.87 ± 0.40 4.69 ± 0.53 2.473* 5 4.52 ± 0.65 4.61 ± 0.62 4.41 ± 0.67 1.894 4
      11. When cleaning the gas hood, use the safe ladders, and work in pairs 4.76 ± 0.52 4.89 ± 0.39 4.61 ± 0.62 3.186** 8 4.38 ± 0.85 4.53 ± 0.76 4.20 ± 0.93 2.443* 9
      12. When cleaning the trench, install a caution sign and cover it again after cleaning 4.73 ± 0.60 4.86 ± 0.41 4.56 ± 0.74 3.107** 11 4.44 ± 0.76 4.60 ± 0.64 4.24 ± 0.86 2.878** 6
      Subtotal (mean per item) 19.10 ± 1.85 19.51 ± 1.52 18.60 ± 2.11 3.020** - 17.88 ± 2.61 18.34 ± 2.48 17.30 ± 2.69 2.526* -
      (4.77 ± 0.46) (4.88 ± 0.38) (4.65 ± 0.53) (4.46 ± 0.65) (4.59 ± 0.62) (4.32 ± 0.67)
      Electric shock & fire (4) 13. Do not touch electric facilities with wet hands 4.81 ± 0.43 4.85 ± 0.42 4.76 ± 0.43 1.366 3 4.57 ± 0.59 4.63 ± 0.59 4.50 ± 0.58 1.398 1
      14. Check the electrical connections and facilities 4.80 ± 0.42 4.86 ± 0.38 4.73 ± 0.45 1.987* 4 4.57 ± 0.60 4.63 ± 0.59 4.49 ± 0.61 1.522 1
      15. When frying, cook do not leave their seats to prevent fire caused by overheated oil 4.80 ± 0.44 4.87 ± 0.37 4.71 ± 0.52 2.180* 4 4.54 ± 0.62 4.63 ± 0.57 4.43 ± 0.65 2.056* 3
      16. Check the operation status of gas breaker frequently 4.80 ± 0.42 4.86 ± 0.38 4.71 ± 0.46 2.177* 4 4.54 ± 0.64 4.60 ± 0.62 4.46 ± 0.65 1.381 3
      Subtotal (mean per item) 19.21 ± 1.64 19.45 ± 1.52 18.91 ± 1.74 2.018* - 18.22 ± 2.35 18.49 ± 2.32 17.87 ± 2.38 1.655 -
      (4.80 ± 0.41) (4.86 ± 0.38) (4.73 ± 0.44) (4.55 ± 0.58 (4.62 ± 0.58) (4.47 ± 0.59)
      Musculoskeletal disease (4) 17. Do stretching exercise before starting and after working 4.67 ± 0.62 4.80 ± 0.48 4.50 ± 0.74 2.988** 12 3.99 ± 0.95 3.87 ± 0.94 4.13 ± 0.96 –1.674 10
      18. When moving heavy items, an assistive device or assistance from colleagues should be utilized 4.78 ± 0.45 4.87 ± 0.37 4.66 ± 0.51 2.992** 6 4.38 ± 0.80 4.39 ± 0.84 4.37 ± 0.74 0.151 9
      19. When handling heavy objects, the correct posture and proper techniques are observed 4.78 ± 0.49 4.86 ± 0.41 4.67 ± 0.56 2.391* 6 4.41 ± 0.71 4.47 ± 0.71 4.34 ± 0.70 1.131 7
      20. If the workbench height is inadequate, an auxiliary support is used to adjust it 4.74 ± 0.51 4.83 ± 0.44 4.63 ± 0.57 2.410* 10 3.97 ± 1.12 3.83 ± 1.17 4.16 ± 1.02 –1.884 11
      Subtotal (mean per item) 18.96 ± 1.92 19.37 ± 1.61 18.46 ± 2.17 2.923** - 16.76 ± 3.07 16.56 ± 3.02 17.00 ± 3.15 –0.884 -
      (4.74 ± 0.48) (4.84 ± 0.40) (4.61 ± 0.54) (4.18 ± 0.76) (4.14 ± 0.76) (4.25 ± 0.79)
      Contact with chemical substance (2) 21. Check safety handling method of MSDS applied substance before use 4.75 ± 0.50 4.83 ± 0.44 4.66 ± 0.56 2.082* 9 4.41 ± 0.78 4.53 ± 0.70 4.26 ± 0.86 2.183* 7
      22. Wear protection thing before treating chemical substances 4.77 ± 0.49 4.85 ± 0.42 4.67 ± 0.56 2.230* 7 4.44 ± 0.74 4.54 ± 0.70 4.31 ± 0.79 1.904 6
      Subtotal (mean per item) 9.52 ± 0.98 9.68 ± 0.84 9.33 ± 1.11 2.175* - 8.84 ± 1.48 9.07 ± 1.39 8.57 ± 1.57 2.102* -
      (4.76 ± 0.49) (4.84 ± 0.42) (4.66 ± 0.56) (4.42 ± 0.74) (4.53 ± 0.69) (4.29 ± 0.79)
      Total score (mean per item) 105.32 ± 8.85 106.90 ± 8.04 103.36 ± 9.48 2.486* - 97.84 ± 13.14 99.28 ± 12.36 96.06 ± 13.93 1.512 -
      (4.78 ± 0.40) (4.86 ± 0.36) (4.70 ± 0.43) (4.44 ± 0.59) (4.51 ± 0.56) (4.37 ± 0.63)
      Types of safety accidents Items < 100 meals group (n = 87)
      		 ≥ 100 meals group (n = 70)
      Mean difference1) Paired t-value Borich Needs2) Borich priorities The Locus for Focus model’s priorities Top priorities Mean difference1) Paired t-value Borich Needs2) Borich priorities The Locus for Focus model’s priorities Top priorities
      Slip & burn (4) 1. Clean the floor of the work place 0.23 ± 0.54 3.945*** 1.103 21 0.27 ± 0.56 4.036*** 1.303 18
      2. When working, wear the apron and non-slip shoes 0.25 ± 0.53 4.425*** 1.219 16 0.30 ± 0.57 4.376*** 1.446 13
      3. Arrange in the work place and in the aisle 0.23 ± 0.54 3.945*** 1.108 19 0.31 ± 0.58 4.546*** 1.515 11
      4. Pay attention to the burning when using with hot water, oil, and utensils 0.25 ± 0.51 4.618*** 1.226 15 0.36 ± 0.54 4.540*** 1.732 8 HH 4
      Cut & winding & stenosis (4) 5. Wear protective gloves when using sharp cooking utensils 0.29 ± 0.53 4.581*** 1.385 9 0.37 ± 0.62 4.432*** 1.790 6 HH 3
      6. Keep the knife at hidden place or do not leave it in sink with water 0.24 ± 0.53 4.268*** 1.163 17 0.41 ± 0.65 5.348*** 1.997 3 HH 2
      7. When using a vegetable cutter or grinder, use an exclusive stick 0.33 ± 0.66 4.719*** 1.593 6 0.44 ± 0.86 4.298** 2.117 2 HH 1
      8. Precaution when using a rotating machine with a risk of stenosis 0.26 ± 0.52 4.777*** 1.274 11 0.27 ± 0.56 4.036*** 1.308 17
      Collision & falling off (4) 9. Check the floor and surroundings without running in the kitchen 0.28 ± 0.50 5.161*** 1.330 10 0.28 ± 0.50 4.821*** 1.446 13
      10. Preventing collisions by securing distance and passage between workers 0.26 ± 0.52 4.777*** 1.266 13 0.27 ± 0.56 4.036*** 1.300 19
      11. When cleaning the gas hood, use the safe ladders, and work in pairs 0.36 ± 0.65 5.140*** 1.696 5 HH 3 0.41 ± 0.94 3.687*** 1.972 4 LH 6
      12. When cleaning the trench, install a caution sign and cover it again after cleaning 0.26 ± 0.54 0.409*** 1.250 14 0.31 ± 0.79 3.876*** 1.487 12
      Electric shock & fire (4) 13. Do not touch electric facilities with wet hands 0.22 ± 0.49 4.137*** 1.050 20 0.26 ± 0.50 4.288*** 1.237 20
      14. Check the electrical connections and facilities 0.23 ± 0.50 4.298*** 1.103 21 0.24 ± 0.55 3.694*** 1.166 22
      15. When frying, cook do not leave their seats to prevent fire caused by overheated oil 0.24 ± 0.48 4.677*** 1.159 18 0.29 ± 0.59 4.029*** 1.371 15
      16. Check the operation status of gas breaker frequently 0.26 ± 0.54 4.581*** 1.269 12 0.26 ± 0.65 3.298** 1.234 21
      Musculoskeletal disease (4) 17. Do stretching exercise before starting and after working 0.93 ± 0.95 9.143*** 4.348 2 LH 5 0.37 ± 0.90 3.439** 1.735 7 LH 8
      18. When moving heavy items, an assistive device or assistance from colleagues should be utilized 0.48 ± 0.76 5.922*** 2.308 3 HH 1 0.29 ± 0.62 3.873*** 1.366 16
      19. When handling heavy objects, the correct posture and proper techniques are observed 0.39 ± 0.60 6.100*** 1.868 4 HH 2 0.33 ± 0.58 4.716*** 1.571 10 LH 10
      20. If the workbench height is inadequate, an auxiliary support is used to adjust it 1.00 ± 1.17 7.963*** 4.740 1 LH 4 0.47 ± 0.93 4.250*** 2.235 1 LH 5
      Contact with chemical substance (2) 21. Check safety handling method of MSDS applied substance before use 0.30 ± 0.57 4.865*** 1.420 8 0.40 ± 0.86 3.900*** 1.900 5 LH 7
      22. Wear protection thing before treating chemical substances 0.31 ± 0.60 4.851*** 1.480 7 0.36 ± 0.74 4.023*** 1.704 9 LH 9
      Mean ± SD 0.35 ± 0.47 6.888*** 0.33 ± 0.53 5.236***
      Table 1. Demographic characteristics by the daily number of meals served

      n (%) or Mean ± SD.

      Differences between groups were analyzed using the chi-square test or t-test.

      P < 0.001.

      Table 2. Status of safety education by the daily number of meals served

      n (%).

      Differences between groups were analyzed using the chi-square test.

      Percentages were calculated based on valid responses (n = 153). Total sample size was 157; 4 missing responses.

      P < 0.001.

      Table 3. Comparison of the importance and performance of safety accident prevention by the daily number of meals served

      Mean ± SD.

      Differences between groups were analyzed using the chi-square test or t-test.

      MSDS, Material Safety Data Sheet.

      5points Likert scale: 1 (not important at all) to 5 (very important).

      5points Likert scale: 1 (not performed at all) to 5 (very performed).

      P < 0.05,

      P < 0.01.

      Table 4. Educational priorities for safety accident prevention based on the Borich Needs and the Locus for Focus model by the daily number of meals served

      Mean ± SD.

      HH, high importance high discrepancy; LH, low importance high discrepancy; MSDS, Material Safety Data Sheet.

      000.

      Importance – performance.

      ((Importance – performance) × mean importance) / total number.

      P < 0.01,

      P < 0.001.

      Table 1.

      Table 2.

      Table 3.

      Table 4.

      Korean J Community Nutr : Korean Journal of Community Nutrition
      © The Korean Society of Community Nutrition.
      Close layer
      TOP