# Food Literacy as an Instrument for Health Promotion Among Hospital Workers: The “ABCibi Project”

**Authors:** Samar El Sherbiny, Valeria Bellisario, Elena Lenta, Giacomo Scaioli, Giulia Squillacioti, Anna Rovera, Patrizia Lemma, Cloè Dalla Costa, Roberto Bono

PMC · DOI: 10.3390/nu17091515 · Nutrients · 2025-04-29

## TL;DR

This study shows that a food literacy program improved hospital workers' knowledge about healthy eating through education and canteen changes.

## Contribution

A multifactorial intervention combining education and canteen upgrades effectively enhanced food literacy among hospital workers.

## Key findings

- FL scores improved significantly after the intervention, rising from 6.2 to 6.9.
- Healthcare and administrative workers both showed significant improvements in FL scores.
- Improvements were observed across all age and education groups.

## Abstract

Background: Health literacy (HL) promotes the achievement of skills and information useful to endorse health. Food Literacy (FL) is a subtype of HL related to the knowledge necessary to achieve a healthy diet. Methods: This pilot study aimed to assess and improve FL of hospital workers through a survey before and after an educational intervention consisting of nutrition courses, infographics, and updates to the canteen service. FL was evaluated with a questionnaire, and Kruskal–Wallis, Friedman and Wilcoxon test was performed to assess group differences. Results: Of 897 participants, 375 (T1) completed both surveys, while 522 completed only T0. A pairwise comparison stratified by role, age and education revealed a significant improvement in FL scores in the T1 group. Improvements were observed in the T1 group, with overall scores rising from 6.2 ± 2.7 to 6.9 ± 2.1 (p-value < 0.001). An upgrade was noted in healthcare workers (T0 = 6.5 ± 2.2 vs. T1 = 7 ± 2, p-value < 0.001), administrative workers (T0 = 5.5 ± 2.5 vs. T1 = 6.2 ± 2.4, p-value = 0.008), all age groups (T0 = 6.3 ± 2.4 vs. T1 = 6.8 ± 2, p-value = 0.03, T0 = 6.2 ± 2.3 vs. T1 = 6.7 ± 2.2, p-value = 0.02, T0 = 6.2 ± 2.3 vs. T1 = 7 ± 2, p-value = 0.003), low and high education (T0 = 5.7 ± 2.3 vs. T1 = 6.6 ± 2.1, p-value < 0.001, T0 = 6.6 ± 2.3 vs. T1 = 7.1 ± 2 p-value = 0.03). Conclusions: Our survey highlights the efficacy of a multifactorial intervention in enhancing FL and proves the importance of food health promotion within workplaces.

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** FL (MESH:D005517)

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12073272/full.md

## Figures

1 figure with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12073272/full.md

## References

25 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12073272/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12073272