Search results

Few states or local school districts mandate a minimum time for lunch. With increasing pressure on schools to maximize instructional time, many US students have witnessed continued reductions in the time allotted to lunch periods and, thus, less time to choose from an increasing number of food options. This study aims to investigate middle and high school students’ preferences regarding the time available for school lunches and whether the amount of time would affect their food choice preferences.

This study investigated students’ self-reported lunchtime constraints and food choice preferences through a paper-and-pencil survey. The categorical and ratio responses were analyzed using ordinal logistic regression.

Students responded that they rarely had enough time to eat school lunch and that the lunch line waiting time strongly or very strongly influenced their food choices. For the students for whom time available for lunch and time in the lunch line influenced what they ate, they were more likely to prefer limited food choices in several categories of the school lunch menu.

Foodservice professionals who wish to actively promote better nutrition might consider practical ways to reduce the foodservice wait time for students. While making healthier default options (e.g. a fruit or fresh vegetable side) could increase service convenience, time required for students to make informed meal choices should not be compromised.

Because lunch line waiting time is related to students’ food choices, schools need to review the number and types of food choices offered in terms of whether they encourage students to make more healthful choices. This study offers a unique perspective on the relationship between time and individual food choices in the school lunch environment and how this relationship affects the quality of children’s diets and their eating behaviors.

Across the United States (US), COVID-19 vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties compared to urban counties, exacerbating rural health inequities. While rural communities fall short of the public health goal to vaccinate all who are eligible, most rural residents have chosen to vaccinate for COVID-19. The aim of this study was to better understand rural New Mexicans' attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines.

We conducted and analyzed 51 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with adults living in rural New Mexican counties, covering a range of topics related to the pandemic, including vaccines. These interviews were conducted in the Summer of 2021 after the vaccines were widely available to all adults over the age of 18 and youth between the ages of 12–17, but not yet available for children under 12 years.

Two major perspectives were identified: (1) the idea that COVID-19 vaccinations are a tool that individuals can use to achieve freedom and protection and (2) the view which regarded vaccines as an infringement of personal rights and one's autonomy of health. For people who viewed the vaccine as a tool for freedom, several themes emerged, including (1) a preference for vaccine manufacturers, specifically a preference for Pfizer, and (2) frustrations related to vaccine access, specifically, older adults expressed frustrations with the difficulty of scheduling vaccination appointments. However, most participants felt as though they had enough vaccination resources. For people who viewed vaccines (and vaccine mandates) as limiting their freedom, additional themes emerged: (1) overarching distrust of government and the perception that vaccines were an extension of government and (2) distrust in the vaccines themselves, including a perceived lack of research on the vaccines and a perception that the vaccine was developed in too short of a period. Some of the people who hold these beliefs are also vaccinated. We draw from social psychology theories to better understand how people who hold a rural identity come to establish different beliefs and practices compared to larger metropolitan regions. While political identity is a contributor, of our participants, the group who were most likely to report not being vaccinated were the “independent” or “unaffiliated voters.” Our findings can help craft culturally responsive vaccine initiatives for rural communities.