Boyoung Hur; Injoo Choi; Meeyoung Kim; Jinwook Kwon; Jiyoung Lee; Jihyun Yoon

doi:10.5720/kjcn.2017.22.5.401

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Korean J Community Nutr > Volume 22(5); 2017 > Article

Research Article
Current Status of Parents' Monitoring of and Level of Trust in School Lunch Programs: Boyoung Hur, Injoo Choi, Meeyoung Kim, Jinwook Kwon, Jiyoung Lee, Jihyun Yoon; Korean Journal of Community Nutrition 2017;22(5):401-412.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5720/kjcn.2017.22.5.401
Published online: October 31, 2017

¹Department of Food and Nutrition, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

²Research Institute of Human Ecology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

³Wonjong Elementary School, Bucheon, Korea.

⁴Korean Educational Development Institute, Jincheon, Korea.

Corresponding author: Jihyun Yoon. Department of Food and Nutrition, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea. Tel: (02) 880-8750, Fax: (02) 884-0305, hoonyoon@snu.ac.kr

• Received: August 29, 2017 • Revised: October 27, 2017 • Accepted: October 31, 2017

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

41 Views
0 Download
3 Crossref

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

Abstract

Objectives
The purpose of this study was to investigate the current status of parents' monitoring of school lunch programs and to examine the relationship of parents' school lunch monitoring with their level of trust in school lunch programs.
Methods
During November 2016, a web survey was conducted with 1,283 parents who had participated in monitoring of school lunch programs. A total of 621 parents completed the questionnaires (48.4% response rate) and the responses from 442 parents were analyzed (34.5% analysis rate) for elementary (n=196) and middle/high school parents (n=246), respectively.
Results
Both the elementary and middle/high school parents most wanted to participate in monitoring 1~2 times per month, which was less frequent than their current practice. They showed the highest experience rate in ‘food sanitation’ area in both the prior training and actual practice of school lunch monitoring. They most responded ‘increasing trust in school lunch programs’ as a merit and ‘lack of parents participating in monitoring’ as a problem of school lunch monitoring. The average levels of trust did not differ between elementary and middle/high school parents. Multiple regression analyses showed that elementary school parents' level of satisfaction in the monitored school lunch programs was positively associated with the parents' level of trust in general school lunch programs. Monitoring frequency and parents' age, in addition to level of satisfaction in the monitored school lunch program, were associated with level of trust in general school lunch programs among middle/high school parents.
Conclusions
There was room for change in parents' school lunch monitoring programs to meet parents' needs better. Well-managed school lunch monitoring programs contributing to parents' satisfaction with school lunch programs could increase parents' level of trust in school lunch programs.
Keywords: school lunch; parents' participation; monitoring program; online survey

REFERENCES

1. Bellisle F. Effects of diet on behaviour and cognition in children. Br J Nutr 2004; 92:Suppl 2. S227-S232.
2. Kim SA, Lee BH. Relationships between the nutrient intake status, dietary habits, academic stress and academic achievement in the elementary school children in Bucheon-si. Korean J Nutr 2008; 41(8): 786-796.
3. Ministry of Education and Human Resources. Comprehensive improvement measures of school lunch programs (2007~2011) [internet]. Ministry of Education and Human Resources; 2006; cited 2017 May 31]. Available from: http://library.moe.go.kr/search/DetailView.ax?sid=9&cid=220821.
4. USDA. Team Nutrition: parents [internet]. USDA; 2013; updated 2013 Nov 25]. cited 2017 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/parents/.
5. MacLellan D, Holland A, Taylor J, McKenna M, Hernarndez K. Implementing school nutrition policy: student and parent perspectives. Can J Diet Pract Res 2010; 71(4): 172-177.
6. Ministry of Education and Human Resources, Korean Educational Development Institute. Guide of school lunch programs monitoring parents. Korean Educational Development Institute; 2017 03. Report No. CRM 2017-12.
7. Kim MH, Yoon KO. The survey of materials receiving and monitoring of parents in primary school food service. Korean J Community Living Sci 2007; 18(2): 313-321.
8. Lee SI, Kang PY, Jung HY. Parents' perception and satisfaction of school food materials and supplier: performance in Mokpo, Korea. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr 2015; 44(11): 1741-1749.
9. Baek M, Lee YM, Oh YJ. A study on parents' satisfaction with school foodservice by foodservice monitoring participation. J Korean Diet Assoc 2009; 15(3): 253-261.
10. Kim JE. A study on how the catering service menus made with local food effects of consumer's satisfaction: focused on university students in Jeonju. Korean J Tourism Res 2014; 29(5): 337-355.
11. Cho JH. Effects of service quality on customer's perceived value, customer satisfaction, trust, and behavioral intention in the university cafeteria. J Korea Serv Manage Soc 2015; 16(5): 73-100.
12. Cho HJ. The effects of transactional characteristics on conflict and financial performance between franchisor and franchisee. J Foodserv Manage 2006; 9(2): 189-210.
13. Kim WS, Han HS. Determinants of restaurant customers' loyalty intentions: a mediating effect of relationship quality. J Qual Assur Hosp Tour 2008; 9(3): 219-239.
14. Hynn SS. Predictors of relationship quality and loyalty in the chain restaurant industry. Cornell Hosp Q 2010; 51(2): 251-267.
15. Kim JS, Choi SH. A study on the effects of brand individuality of specialty coffee shops on brand loyalty. Culin Sci Hosp Res 2011; 17(1): 124-141.
16. Bowden-Everson JLJ, Dagger TS, Elliott G. Engaging customers for loyalty in the restaurant industry: the role of satisfaction, trust, and delight. J Foodserv Bus Res 2013; 16(1): 52-75.
17. Lee CH, Yi YJ. Development and application of the publicservice customer satisfaction index (PCSI) model. J Korean Mark Assoc 2012; 27(4): 60-99.
18. Bae HJ, Bae HJ. Survey on the performance practices and the opinions on school foodservice monitoring by dietitians and students' parents in Ulsan area. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr 2009; 38(7): 862-869.
19. Bae YM, Song DH, Ahn HS. Perceptions of traditional Korean foods and satisfaction levels toward school foodservice among middle school students and parents of schools serving traditional Korean menus in Gyeonggi province. J Korean Diet Assoc 2011; 17(2): 118-129.

Table 1

General characteristics of responding parents

Table 2

Parents' practiced and desired frequencies of school lunch monitoring

1) By chi-square test

2) Comparison of practiced frequencies between elementary and middle·high school parents

3) Comparison of desired frequencies between elementary and middle·high school parents

4) Comparison between practiced and desired frequencies among elementary school parents

5) Comparison between practiced and desired frequencies among middle·high school parents

Table 3

Areas of parents' experience in prior training on and actual practice of school lunch monitoring

1) Multiple responses

Table 4

Merits and problems of school lunch monitoring, perceived by parents

1) Multiple responses

Table 5

Parents' perception about school lunch monitoring

1) By independent t-test

2) 5 point scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree)

Table 6

Parents' level of satisfaction in the monitored school lunch programs

1) By independent t-test

2) 5 point scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree)

Table 7

Parent' level of trust in school lunch programs in general

1) By independent t-test

2) 5 point scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree)

Table 8

Variables included in multiple regression analyses

1) 5 point multi-item scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree)

2) Range from 0 to 9; Among receiving, storage, pre-preparation, cooking, food distribution, menu (food), food sanitation, facility sanitation, and personal sanitation

Table 9

Relationship of school lunch monitoring with level of trust in general school lunch programs: results of multiple regression analyses

1) 5 point multi-item scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree)

2) Range from 0 to 9; Among receiving, storage, pre-preparation, cooking, food distribution, menu (food), food sanitation, facility sanitation, and personal sanitation

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

제한적인 등교 상황에서 중고등학생의 신체적·정신적 건강 및 식생활 행태 변화:
민지 손, 은주 윤
Korean Journal of Food and Cookery Science.2023; 39(3): 213. CrossRef
Analysis of the CCP Performance and Barriers of School Foodservice Employees in the Incheon Area
Ji Eun Lee, Jung Hwa Choi
The Korean Journal of Community Living Science.2020; 31(3): 411. CrossRef
Development of Model for 「The Survey on School Foodservice Program」
Hae-Young Lee, Bo-Sook Yi, Jina Cha, Sun-Ok Ham, Moon-Kyung Park, Mi-Nam Lee, Hye-Young Kim, Haeng-Hwa Kang, Jin-Wook Kwon, Yun-Hui Jeong
Korean Journal of Community Nutrition.2019; 24(1): 60. CrossRef

PubReader

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; 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
Citation and abstract for the content below

Current Status of Parents' Monitoring of and Level of Trust in School Lunch Programs

Korean J Community Nutr. 2017;22(5):401-412. Published online October 31, 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5720/kjcn.2017.22.5.401

XML Download

We recommend

Current Status of Parents' Monitoring of and Level of Trust in School Lunch Programs

Table 1

General characteristics of responding parents

Table 2

Parents' practiced and desired frequencies of school lunch monitoring

1) By chi-square test

2) Comparison of practiced frequencies between elementary and middle·high school parents

3) Comparison of desired frequencies between elementary and middle·high school parents

4) Comparison between practiced and desired frequencies among elementary school parents

5) Comparison between practiced and desired frequencies among middle·high school parents

Table 3

Areas of parents' experience in prior training on and actual practice of school lunch monitoring

1) Multiple responses

Table 4

Merits and problems of school lunch monitoring, perceived by parents

1) Multiple responses

Table 5

Parents' perception about school lunch monitoring

1) By independent t-test

2) 5 point scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree)

Table 6

Parents' level of satisfaction in the monitored school lunch programs

1) By independent t-test

2) 5 point scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree)

Table 7

Parent' level of trust in school lunch programs in general

1) By independent t-test

2) 5 point scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree)

Table 8

Variables included in multiple regression analyses

1) 5 point multi-item scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree)

2) Range from 0 to 9; Among receiving, storage, pre-preparation, cooking, food distribution, menu (food), food sanitation, facility sanitation, and personal sanitation

Table 9

Relationship of school lunch monitoring with level of trust in general school lunch programs: results of multiple regression analyses

1) 5 point multi-item scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree)

2) Range from 0 to 9; Among receiving, storage, pre-preparation, cooking, food distribution, menu (food), food sanitation, facility sanitation, and personal sanitation

Table 1 General characteristics of responding parents

Table 2 Parents' practiced and desired frequencies of school lunch monitoring

1) By chi-square test

2) Comparison of practiced frequencies between elementary and middle·high school parents

3) Comparison of desired frequencies between elementary and middle·high school parents

4) Comparison between practiced and desired frequencies among elementary school parents

5) Comparison between practiced and desired frequencies among middle·high school parents

Table 3 Areas of parents' experience in prior training on and actual practice of school lunch monitoring

1) Multiple responses

Table 4 Merits and problems of school lunch monitoring, perceived by parents

1) Multiple responses

Table 5 Parents' perception about school lunch monitoring

1) By independent t-test

2) 5 point scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree)

Table 6 Parents' level of satisfaction in the monitored school lunch programs

1) By independent t-test

2) 5 point scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree)

Table 7 Parent' level of trust in school lunch programs in general

1) By independent t-test

2) 5 point scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree)

Table 8 Variables included in multiple regression analyses

1) 5 point multi-item scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree)

2) Range from 0 to 9; Among receiving, storage, pre-preparation, cooking, food distribution, menu (food), food sanitation, facility sanitation, and personal sanitation

Table 9 Relationship of school lunch monitoring with level of trust in general school lunch programs: results of multiple regression analyses

1) 5 point multi-item scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree)

2) Range from 0 to 9; Among receiving, storage, pre-preparation, cooking, food distribution, menu (food), food sanitation, facility sanitation, and personal sanitation