access is high to a wide range of processed and traditional high-sugar, high-fat snack

foods and beverages.

❖ Obesity has become the most critical menace tohuman health and a severe global public healthproblem.

❖ Obesity is associated with an elevated risk ofseveral major non-communicable diseases,including type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease,stroke, asthma, and several cancers(1).

❖ Studies among university students in developingcountries show high prevalence of overweightand obesity that range from 10%- 59.4%(2).

1Department of Nutrition, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400, Serdang, Selangor; 2Research Centre of Excellence for Nutrition

and Non-Communicable Disease, 3Department of Dietetics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400, Serdang, Selangor 4Malaysian

Research Institute on Aging (MyAging), Universiti Putra Malaysia; 5Department of Resource Management and Consumer Studies, Faculty of Human Ecology, Universiti

Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor

❖ To determine the prevalence and factorsassociated with overweight and obesityamong university students attending publicuniversities in Peninsular Malaysia.

❖ One over three university students were overweight and obese.

❖ The prevalence of overweight and obesity is higher among universitystudents.

❖ Thus, there is a need for a coordinated approach that improvesfinancial and physical access to healthy foods among ruralcommunities, shunning excessive consumption of low-quality calories..

❖ The study was funded by the Malaysian Consumer and Family Economics (MACFEA) minigrant 2016/2017.

❖ We would wish to thank the universities (UUM, UKM, UMP and UTM) staffs and studentswho took part in the survey.

• Cross-sectional

• Public university in Peninsular Malaysia

• 4 zones in Peninsular Malaysia

• Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM)-Northern

• Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP)- Eastern

• Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)- Central

• Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)- Southern

• Randomly selected 427 students

Socioeconomic and demographic status, physical activity level,

financial literacy, financial problem, food security status, and

anthropometric measurement (height, weight).

• Descriptive statistics- all variables (frequency and percentage), chi-square, and logistic regression

Study

Respondents

Questionnaire

Statistics

*indicate significant at p-value <0.05; **indicate significant at p-value <0.001

• The mean age of the respondents was 21.6 years, with an average BMI of 23.4 ± 5.03 kg/m2, and 31.6% were overweightand obese.

• This study found that students originated from rural area (X2=8.061) was significantly associated with overweight andobesity (p<0.05).

• Students originated from rural areas (AOR=1.918, 95% CI: 1.201-3.062) were 1.9 times more likely to be overweight andobese.

• Levels of overweight and obesity are increasing faster in rural areas since rural areas have begun to resemble urban areasas the modern food supply is now available due to the urbanization(4).

• The prevalence of overweight and obesity increase in rural areas due to the ease of accessibility to a wide range ofprocessed and also the traditional high-sugar, high-fat snack foods and beverages (4).

• People, particularly those originating from rural areas with limited purchasing power, are more likely to confront theproblem of food insecurity, most likely stems from poverty or a low-income family (5,6).

• Food insecure individuals reported tend to consume high calorie intake since it cost less than healthy food despite ofhaving low diet quality (7).

• In the developing countries, the burden has doubled as obesity prevalence has risen alongside a persistent burden ofundernutrition(8).

• The co-existence of under-and-overnutrition in rural areas is an emerging public health concern, it is a complex situationwhere under-nutrition, over-nutrition and their consequences such as micronutrient deficiencies, infectious diseases andnon-communicable diseases coexist(9).

• A cohort study stated that there is long-term impact of childhood experience on weight into adulthood(10). Thus, targetedinterventions and policies involving dietary intake should focus in solving this co-existence issues mainly in rural areas.

• Meanwhile further studies need to be done among university students to address the obesogenic environment in thecampus. Simultaneously, health promotion should be promoted in the universities campus to encourage healthy life stylesas proposed by the WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health.

B40

M40

T20

1) WHO, (2018). Retreive from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases

2) Peltzer, K., Pengpid, S., Samuels, T.A., Ozcan, N.K., Mantilla, C., Rahamefy, O.H., Wong, M.L. & Gasparishvili, A. (2014). Prevalence of Overweight/Obesity and Its Associated Factors among University Students from 22

Countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11(7): 7425–7441.

3) Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2017). Household Income and Basic Amenities Survey Report, 2016.

4) Nurwanti, E., Hadi, H., Chang, J.S., Choa, J.C.J., Paramashanti, B.A., Gittelsohn, J., & Bai, C.H. (2019). Rural–Urban Differences in Dietary Behavior and Obesity: Results of the Riskesdas Study in 10–18-Year-Old Indonesian

Children and Adolescents. Nutrients. 11(11): 2813.

5) Thanthida, W. (2010). Food security in thailand: hunger in the midst of plenty. Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

6) Smith, L, El Obeid, A. & Jensen, H. (2000). The geography and causes of food insecurity in developing countries. Agricultural Economics 22: 199-215.

7) Morales, M.E. & Berkowitz, S.A. (2016). The Relationship between Food Insecurity, Dietary Patterns, and Obesity. Curr. Nutr. Rep. 5(1): 54–60

8) Ford, N.D., Patel, S.A. & Narayan, K.M. (2017). Obesity in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Burden, Drivers, and Emerging Challenges. Annu. Rev Public Health. 38:145-164.

9) Senbanjo, I.O., Senbanjo, C.O., Afolabi, W.A. & Olayiwola, O. (2019). Co-existence of maternal overweight and obesity with childhood undernutrition in rural and urban communities of Lagos State, Nigeria. Acta Biomed; 90 (3):

266-274

10) Bentley, T. & Widom, C.S. (2009). A 30-year follow-up of the effects of child abuse and neglect on obesity in adulthood. Obesity. 17(10):1900-5.

Nurulhudha Mohd Jamil1, Norhasmah Sulaiman1,2, Siti Nur’Asyura Adznam3,4, Shamsul Azahari Zainal Badari5

Socio-demographic status

39.8%

60.2%

In Campus

96%

Out Campus

4%

Accommodation

T207%M40

18%

B4075%

Family Income (3)<RM4360 (USD 1061.47)

RM 9619-4360(USD 2341.81-

1061.47)

≥ RM 9620 (USD 2342.06)

Mean age:21.6 years

*p-value < 0.05;** Origin referred to the hometown of the respondents; ***Household Income and Basic Amenities (HIS/BA) survey of 2016

Characteristics Non-obese

n (%)

Overweight and

obesity n (%)

χ2 p-

value*

University

UUM 66 (22.60) 41 (30.37) 4.515 0.211

UMP 79 (27.05) 29 (21.48)

UKM 77 (26.37) 29 (21.48)

UTM 70 (23.97) 36 (26.67)

Gender

Male 116 (39.73) 54 (40.00) 0.003 0.957

Female 176 (60.27) 81 (60.00)

Age

19-21 168 (57.53) 64 (47.41) 3.816 0.051

22-25 124 (42.47) 71 (52.59)

Years of Study

1st 124 (42.47) 46 (34.07) 3.946 0.267

2nd 76 (26.03) 34 (25.19)

3rd 65 (22.26) 39 (28.89)

4th 27 (9.25) 16 (11.85)

Residence

In Campus 284 (97.26) 128 (94.81) 1.629 0.202

Out Campus 8 (2.74) 7 (5.19)

Origin**

Rural 161 (55.14) 94 (69.63) 8.061 0.005*

Urban 131 (44.86) 41 (30.37)

Number of siblings

1-3 97 (33.22) 41 (30.33) 1.629 0.202

≥4 195 (66.78) 7 (5.19)

Household Income***

B40 241 (82.53) 115 (85.19) 0.509 0.775

M40 37 (12.67) 15 (11.11)

T20 14 (4.78) 5 (3.70)

Financial Literacy

Low 147 (50.34) 69 (51.11) 0.022 0.883

High 145 (49.66) 66 (48.89)

Financial Problem

Low 158 (54.11) 65 (48.15) 1.315 0.251

High 134 (45.89) 70 (51.85)

Father education Level

Higher 99 (35.23) 35 (26.92) 2.862 0.239

Secondary 155 (55.16) 82 (63.08)

Primary 27 (9.61) 13 (10.00)

Mother education Level

Higher 78 (27.08) 41 (30.37) 0.701 0.704

Secondary 179 (62.15) 82 (60.74)

Primary 31 (10.76) 12 (8.89)

Physical Activity Level

Low 73 (25.00) 26 (19.26) 1.864 0.394

Moderate 146 (50.00) 75 (55.56)

High 73 (25.00) 34 (25.19)

Food Security Status

Food Secure 122 (41.78) 45 (33.33) 2.766 0.096

Food Insecure 170 (58.22) 90 (66.67)

Variable B Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR)

OR (95% CI) p value*

University

UUM 0.004 1.004 (0.553-1.823) 0.990

UMP -0.285 0.7521 (0.389-1.455) 0.398

UTM -0.477 0.621 (0.331-1.164) 0.137

UKM 1.000 (ref)

Age

19-21 1.000 (ref)

22-25 0.176 1.193 (0.743-1.913) 0.465

Residence

In Campus 1.000 (ref)

Out Campus -0.885 0.413 (0.133-1.280) 0.125

Origin**

Rural 0.651 1.918 (1.201-3.062) 0.006*

Urban 1.000 (ref)

Number of siblings

1-3 1.000 (ref)

≥4 -0.095 0.909 (0.566-1.459) 0.693

Food Security Status

Food Secure 1.000 (ref)

Food Insecure 0.220 1.247 (0.797-1.949) 0.334

Father education

level

Primary -0.186 0.830 (0.379-0.561) 0.642

Secondary 0.155 1.168 (0.561-2.433) 0.679

Higher 1.000 (ref)

*p-value < 0.05;** Origin referred to the hometown of the respondents; adjusted covariates based on university, age, residence, origin, number of siblings, food security status and father education level

Table 1: Association between factors and body weight status

Table 2: Factors associated with body weight status

Underweight13%

Normal56%

Overweight21%

Obese10%

Body Weight Status (%)

1st40%

2nd26%

3rd24%

4th10%

Years of Study (%)

6.320.6

73.1

5.420.8

73.8

Primary Secondary Higher

Father Education LevelMother Education Level

Low51%

High49%

Financial Literacy Scores (%)

52%48%

Financial Problems scores (%)

Low

High

Rural60%

Urban40%

Origin/ Hometown (%)