What is eating Gilbert’s grades? Examining the impact of food insecurity and psychological distress on weighted average marks within a sample of Australian university students

ABSTRACT

There is a growing issue of university students not being able to afford or have access to nutritious food. Although research reveals that food insecurity negatively impacts student well-being and engagement, few studies have explored its impact on academic performance. Most of these studies use self-reported measures of academic performance in college samples from the United States. The current study is novel in that it explores food insecurity in an Australian university sample and uses actual academic performance (weighted average marks; WAM) rather than relying on self-reported grades. We also consider the role of psychological distress in the relationship between food insecurity and academic performance. Participants comprised 664 undergraduate students aged 18 to 25 years at a public university in Melbourne, Australia. One-quarter of students (25.5%) were classified as food insecure. Renting, receiving government benefits, having a disability and being older were positively associated with food insecurity and food insecurity was associated with poorer academic performance and increased psychological distress. Psychological distress partially mediated the relationship between WAM and food insecurity, meaning that students experiencing food insecurity are more likely to experience increased psychological distress which then impairs their academic performance. The prevalence of food insecurity in university students suggest that interventions aimed at improving both mental health and access to food could serve to enhance success at university, especially for students who cannot afford or do not have access to nutritious food.

KEYWORDS:

• Food insecurity
• psychological distress
• academic performance
• university students
• weighted average marks

Food security is seen as a basic human right and occurs when individuals have access to food that is safe, healthy, and nutritious enough to meet their needs (Radimer 2002). In contrast, food insecurity is said to exist when ‘the availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or the ability to acquire acceptable food in socially acceptable ways is limited or uncertain’ (Radimer 2002, 862). Globally, around 2.3 billion people experience moderate and extreme forms of food insecurity, which is around 29.3% of the population (Food and Agriculture Organization 2022). In contrast, while most Australians have access to enough food that is nutritious and safe, certain groups are vulnerable to experiencing episodes of food insecurity. These include young people, those who are unemployed, single-parent households, and individuals on a low income (Burns 2004; Foodbank 2021)). In addition, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, culturally and linguistically diverse groups (e.g. refugees), and individuals with disabilities are said to be more susceptible to food insecurity in comparison to the general population (Bowden 2020; Strategic Inter-Governmental Nutrition Alliance of the National Public Health 2001).

Of interest to the current study, hunger seems to be a prevalent issue in post-secondary students internationally. The increasing costs of tuition, living expenses, and little overall increases in wages have been cited as reasons for hunger in college students (Goldrick-Rab 2018). Additionally, part-time or casual work is often used as the sole source of income for students, however, working full-time greatly compromises learning, and the success of completing a degree (Goldrick-Rab 2018). An increasing number of studies have demonstrated that university students experience high rates of food insecurity (Bruening et al. 2017; Chaparro et al. 2009; Coffino et al. 2021; El Zein et al. 2019; Gallegos, Ramsey, and Ong 2014; Hamilton et al. 2020; Hughes et al. 2011). Elevated rates of food insecurity among university students have been reported internationally for countries such as Malaysia (Sulaiman et al. 2021), Canada (Hamilton et al. 2020), Nigeria (Ukegbu et al. 2019), Greece (Theodoridis et al. 2018) and South Africa (Sabi et al. 2020). Furthermore, a systematic review found that the rate of food insecurity on American college campuses was around 43.5% compared to the US average of 13% (Nazmi et al. 2019).

While the rate of food insecurity is not consistently measured within Australia, the most recent estimate of food insecurity in the general population is between 4% to 13% depending on measurement (Bowden 2020). A recent survey also found that within a 12-month period approximately 13% Australians had identified that their household ran out of food and that they could not afford to purchase more (Foodbank 2021). Like the United States, Australian university students have also been found to be vulnerable to food insecurity. In support, the prevalence of food insecurity in Australian university students is more than the most recent national estimate (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015), and varies from 12.5% to 48.0% depending on the method of analysis (Gallegos, Ramsey, and Ong 2014; Hughes et al. 2011; Micevski, Thornton, and Brockington 2014; Whatnall, Hutchesson, and Patterson 2020). Furthermore, the rate of food insecurity is even greater amongst students who are renting, receiving government benefits, and who are on a low income (Gallegos, Ramsey, and Ong 2014; Micevski, Thornton, and Brockington 2014). Identifying as having a disability has also been found to predict food insecurity among university students (Hamilton et al. 2020; Olfert et al. 2021).

Few studies have examined physical health outcomes amongst university students, food insecurity among adults has been linked to increased rates of mental health problems such as depression or anxiety (Hadley and Patil 2008; Maynard et al. 2018; Siefert et al. 2004), high blood pressure (Irving, Njai, and Siegel 2014), insomnia, and obesity (Poling et al. 2017). Individuals who are food insecure are also more likely to rate their health as being fair or poor (Lee 2022; Quine and Morrell 2006; Siefert et al. 2004). Evidence examining mental health outcomes amongst U.S. college students has also determined that food insecurity is linked to increased psychological distress (Hattangadi et al. 2019), poorer psychosocial health (Raskind, Haardörfer, and Berg 2019), and depressed mood (Bruening et al. 2017, 2018; Coffino et al. 2021).

Research has consistently shown that food insecurity negatively impacts the learning and health outcomes of children and adolescents. Jyoti, Frongillo, and Jones (2005) conducted a longitudinal study in a nationally representative sample of 21,260 U.S. children and found that food insecurity in kindergarten was predictive of poorer academic performance in mathematics and reading within the third grade. Similarly, Shankar et al.’s (2017) systematic review found that even marginal food insecurity resulted in behavioural, academic, and emotional problems. Additionally, food insecurity also predicted poorer academic performance in school-aged children and adolescents (Shankar, Chung, and Frank 2017). A lack of access to food in households is also associated with school absenteeism in children (Belachew et al. 2011; Coughenour et al. 2021; Murphy et al. 1998; Tamiru et al. 2016). Students who are food insecure experience greater inattention (Whitaker, Phillips, and Orzol 2006), have problems concentrating during class (Swindle et al. 2021), and have difficulty in social relationships (Jyoti, Frongillo, and Jones 2005) all of which can compromise their learning and performance at school.

Food insecurity may also compromise the academic performance of university students. Several studies have now identified that food insecurity status is associated with poorer academic outcomes such as lower self-reported grade point average (GPA) within universities (Ahmad, Sulaiman, and Sabri 2021; Maroto, Snelling, and Linck 2015; Morris et al. 2016; Raskind, Haardörfer, and Berg 2019). Preliminary evidence suggests that students experiencing food insecurity are more likely to experience academic disruptions or consider dropping out of university (Phillips, McDaniel, and Croft 2018), with one Australian study finding that food insecure students are more likely to report suspending their studies in comparison to their food secure peers (Gallegos, Ramsey, and Ong 2014). Few studies have examined whether food insecurity does indeed lead to impaired academic performance as most research designs have relied on using self-report data for academic outcomes such as GPA. However, there is some evidence to suggest that food security is still associated with poorer academic performance even when actual grades are used (Van Woerden, Hruschka, and Bruening 2019; Weaver et al. 2019).

There is limited research examining the mechanisms behind food insecurity and academic performance among university students although two U.S. studies reported that food insecurity negatively affects undergraduates’ self-reported academic performance through poorer mental health (Martinez et al. 2018; Raskind, Haardörfer, and Berg 2019). That is, food insecurity is associated with greater psychological distress which in turn leads to poorer academic performance. Given the chronic stress that often results from food not being readily available, theorists have proposed that food insecurity acts as a ‘toxic’ stressor (Jyoti, Frongillo, and Jones 2005; Pryor et al. 2016) which can impair academic outcomes (Jyoti, Frongillo, and Jones 2005). In the same vein, a qualitative study found that students who experienced food insecurity reported feelings of embarrassment, sadness, fear, anger, isolation, and jealousy with researchers proposing that these feelings of distress had an impact on the ability to focus on university studies (Meza et al. 2018). On the other hand, other investigators have proposed that the relationship between impaired academic performance and food insecurity is explained by different mechanisms such as poorer concentration, fatigue, and inability to cook and prepare food (Maroto 2013). To the authors’ knowledge, no study has examined the impact of food insecurity on actual grades within a sample of Australian university students. The current research is one of the few studies to provide evidence on the relationship between students’ actual grades and food insecurity status.

The purpose of this study is two-fold: (1) to identify the socio-demographic variables associated with food insecurity, and (2) to examine the relationships among food insecurity, psychological distress, and academic performance as measured by weighted average mark (WAM) within an Australian sample. It was hypothesised that greater food insecurity and psychological distress would be associated with a lower WAM and that higher food insecurity would be associated with higher levels of psychological distress. It was also hypothesised that psychological distress would mediate the relationship between food insecurity and WAM and as such, that the impact of food security would be determined by the level of psychological distress.

Method

Participants

Participants comprised 664 university students completing a transitional (Uni-Link) course (n = 15, 2.3%) or undergraduate degree (n = 649, 97.7%) at one medium-sized university in Melbourne, Australia. Age ranged from 18 to 25 years old, and participation was restricted to young adults as the study is interested in the developmental period of emerging adulthood and challenges associated with this such as food insecurity. The sample of participants was drawn from a range of disciplines (e.g. business, arts, science, law, engineering). Descriptive statistics were calculated for each variable and presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographical information of the participant sample.

Demographic variable	Percentage	n
Gender
Female	56.5	365
Male	43.5	289
Indigenous status
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander	0.5	3
Non-indigenous	98.5	654
Unsure or prefer not to answer	1.1	7
Domestic or international student
Domestic	91.7	609
International	8.3	55
Faculty enrolled
Health, Arts and Design	48.4	314
Business and Law	19.4	126
Science, Engineering and Technology	31.9	207
Unsure	0.3	2
Enrolment
Full-time	94.6	628
Part-time	5.4	36
Employment
Paid work	67.6	449
Not paid work or unemployed	32.4	215
Income
Less than $20,000	75.6	502
$20,000 or more	24.4	162
Government benefits
Youth allowance	34.9	232
Healthcare card	22.0	146
Austudy	2.6	17
Abstudy	0.6	4
Disability benefits	0.5	3
Carers support	0.2	13
Government scholarship	6.6	44
Other government benefit	4.5	30
No government payments	50.3	334
Disability
Identifies as having a disability	13.9	92
No disability	84.5	561
Prefer not to answer	1.7	11
Living situation
At home	56.9	378
Renting	31.8	211
Student accommodation	7.5	50
Homeowner	0.8	5
Homeless	2.1	14
Other	0.9	6

As shown in Table 1, female participants were over-represented in the sample. Most students in the sample were enrolled in a full-time course whereas approximately 8.3% of participants were international students. Two-thirds (67.6%) of students reported that they engaged in some form of paid work, however, three-quarters of students (75.6%) were on a low income of less than $20,000. Furthermore, half of the students (49.7%) were receiving government benefits with Youth allowance (34.9%) being the most common. In terms of living situation, 56.9% of students stated that they either lived at home with parents or relatives and 31.8% were privately renting. A small proportion of students lived in student accommodation (7.5%).

Measures

Psychological distress

Psychological distress was measured using the widely used 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (Kessler et al. 2002); K10. The K10 examines the level of anxiety and prevalence of depressive symptoms over the past four weeks (e.g. ‘In the last four weeks about how often did you feel depressed?’). Participants responded on a 5-point scale from 1 none of the time to 5 all the time. Possible scores range from 10 to 50, with higher scores denoting greater psychological distress. The K10 measure of psychological distress has been shown to have excellent reliability and validity (Sunderland et al. 2011). Internal consistency was excellent within the current sample (Cronbach’s α = .93).

Food insecurity

Food insecurity was measured using an adapted 6-item Current Population Survey Food Security Scale (CPS-FSS) for adults developed by the United States Department of Agriculture (Bickel et al. 2000). The adapted version was used to assess food insecurity throughout students’ studies rather than in the last 12 months. Respondents in the current sample were classified as being food insecure if they responded positively to two or more items on the scale or deemed to be food secure if they affirmed one item or no items. Examples of items include ‘I worried whether my food would run out before I got money to buy more’ and ‘I couldn’t afford to eat balanced/healthy meals’. Possible scores range from 1 to 6 with higher scores denoting greater instances of food insecurity. Internal consistency was good within the current sample (Cronbach’s α = .81). The measure has been widely used in Australian university samples (Gallegos, Ramsey, and Ong 2014; Hughes et al. 2011; Micevski, Thornton, and Brockington 2014; Whatnall, Hutchesson, and Patterson 2020) and has been validated internationally (Temple, 2008).

Weighted Average Marks (WAM)

Actual weighted average marks were linked to survey data. In Australia, universities use WAM as a measure of academic performance. In this study, WAM was calculated by averaging the total for all units in semester one, 2018. Scores range from 0–100 with higher scores corresponding to greater academic performance.

Demographics

Students self-reported demographic information such as age, what larger area of study – faculty they were part of (e.g. Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Faculty of Science and Technology), gender, whether they were international or domestic students, and if they were studying full or part-time. Additionally, students provided information on their income and work status. The Socio-Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011) product was used to classify socioeconomic status based on the residential postcode students provided within the survey.

Procedure

Ethical approval was sought and approved through the university human research ethics committee as part of a larger study that also examined the experiences of TAFE (Technical and Further Education) students. However, TAFE students were excluded, as much of the coursework they complete does not utilise weighted average marks. Students were sent email invitations asking them to complete a study examining their experiences of financial stress, accommodation stress, and food insecurity. As an incentive, participants had an opportunity to win one of four travel vouchers valued at $500 each. The emails were sent to students aged between 18 to 25 years who were enrolled in at least one face-to-face course. Of the sample, 1,105 university students attempted the survey whereas 664 had useable data and WAM. Students read the consent form and agreed to participate in the study. The participants were informed that WAM would be linked to their data for research on financial stress, food insecurity, housing insecurity, and student well-being. Students provided their student identification numbers so WAM could be linked to their data. Participants completed a 30-minute survey covering: their work experiences, financial situation, housing situation, psychological distress, health, and food insecurity, and their perceived impact of work, finances, housing, food, and the perceived impact these factors had on their ability to study at the university. All participants were thanked for their participation and were provided with a list of support services for counselling, financial assistance, and accommodation support. After the recruitment finished the prizes were randomly drawn and given to four students.

Analyses

Data screening and assumptions

Cases were removed if WAM could not be linked to a survey data or if students did not complete all the required measures. The decision to delete missing cases was made based on data missing randomly, Little’s (1988) MCAR = χ²(5) = 9.540, p = .089. The data were screened for the presence of univariate and multivariate outliers. Inspection of boxplots revealed no extreme univariate outliers. With the use of a p < .001 criterion for Mahalanobis distances no outliers were found within the data that required removal. Tolerance for all variables was no lower than 0.3 and VIF was no greater than 3 indicating the assumptions for collinearity appear to be met. In total, 664 cases were used for the analyses.

Sample characteristics and predictors of food insecurity status

A binary logistic regression was conducted to investigate demographical predictors of food insecurity status. The predictors were faculty (discipline area of study), disability status, gender, receiving government benefits, international student status, study mode (part vs full-time study), socio-economic status (low, middle, high), engaging in paid work, income ($20,000 or less vs $20,001 or more) and age within the sample (18 to 25 years). The outcome variable was food security status (secure vs. insecure).

Regression analyses

Regression analyses were conducted controlling for the influence of confounding variables on WAM, and psychological distress. Confounding variables that could potentially affect WAM included: age within the sample (18 to 25 years old), whether students were studying part-time, international student status, living situation (whether students were renting), gender, work, and were entered in both stages of the regression. A regression predicting psychological distress while adjusting for age, studying part-time, international student status, living situation (whether students were renting), gender, and undertaking paid work was conducted. A second regression was conducted with WAM as the dependent variable while controlling for food insecurity, psychological distress, age, studying part-time, international student status, living situation (whether students were renting), gender, and undertaking paid work.

For the mediation analyses, Preacher and Hayes’ (2004) non-parametric bootstrap resampling method was used instead of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) causal steps approach. Bootstrapping is advantageous because it can be used when normality assumptions are violated, and when sample sizes are small or moderate (Preacher and Hayes 2004). The bootstrapping method also yields lower rates of Type 1 errors and is statistically more powerful in comparison to the causal steps approach (Preacher and Hayes 2008). All mediation analyses were conducted using Hayes’ (2019) PROCESS macro version 3.4 for SPSS.

Results

Demographical predictors of food insecurity status

A logistic regression was conducted to examine sociodemographic characteristics associated with food insecurity status. The results are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2. Sociodemographic predictors of food insecurity status.

Variable	Secure % n	Insecure % n	B	Wald	Odds ratio	P-value	95% CI
Faculty
Business and law	81.0 (102)	19.0 (24)	-	4.29	-	.129	-
Health, arts, or design	71.7 (225)	28.3 (89)
Science, engineering, technology	74.4 (154)	25.6 (53)
Gender
Male	74.7 (216)	25.3 (73)	0.00	0.00	1.00	.999	0.64–1.56
Female	74.4 (279)	25.6 (96)
Disability*
Identifies as having a disability	59.8 (55)	40.2 (37)	−0.78	8.35	0.46	.004	0.27–0.78
No disability	76.8 (431)	79.0 (139)
Government benefits
Receiving government benefits	68.2 (225)	31.8 (105)	−0.44	4.09	0.65	.043	0.42–0.99
None	80.8 (270)	19.2 (64)
Socio-economic status
Low	70.2 (66)	29.8 (28)	-	2.47	-	.480	-
Middle	76.6 (187)	23.4 (57)
High	76.4 (204)	23.6 (63)
Renting
Privately renting	56.9 (120)	43.1 (91)	1.11	29.05	3.04	<.001	2.03–4.56
Not currently renting	82.8 (375)	17.2 (78)
International student
Domestic	65.5 (36)	75.4 (459)	−0.24	0.07	0.79	.791	0.14–4.51
International	34.5 (19)	24.6 (150)
Study mode
Part-time	77.8 (28)	22.2 (8)	−0.12	0.07	0.89	.795	0.36–2.19
Full-time	74.4 (467)	25.6 (161)
Paid work
Engaging in paid work	75.5 (339)	24.5 (110)	0.04	0.03	1.04	.863	0.67–1.61
Unemployed or no paid work	72.6 (156)	27.4 (59)
Income
$20,000 or less	73.7 (370)	26.3 (132)	−0.38	2.09	0.68	.148	0.41–1.14
$20,001 or more	77.2 (125)	22.8 (37)
Age	-	-	0.18	9.40	1.19	.002	1.07–1.33

Note: *n = 11 ‘preferred not to answer’ and are excluded from the analysis

As shown in Table 2, having a disability, being on government benefits, and living in a rental property were all associated with experiencing food insecurity. Accordingly, those who were privately renting were around three times more likely to demonstrate food insecurity than those who were not renting. Additionally, those who identified as having a disability were twice as likely to be food insecure than students without a disability. Students receiving government benefits were more likely to experience food insecurity than those not receiving any government benefits. Age (18 to 25 years) was associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing food insecurity with older students within the sample being more likely to experience food insecurity.

Psychological distress mediates the relationship of food insecurity with WAM Controlling for age, gender, study mode, and living situation

A mediation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between food insecurity, psychological distress, and WAM while controlling for age within the sample (18 to 25 years), studying part-time, international student status, and living situation (whether students were renting), gender, and undertaking paid work. A summary of the regression is displayed in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary statistics of regression.

	Mediator					Outcome
	Psychological distress					Weighted average mark
Predictors	B	β	SE	t	p	B	β	SE	t	p
Constant	14.78	-	4.54	3.26	.0012	75.65	-	7.23	10.47	<.0001
Gender	2.00	.11	0.68	2.94	.0034	2.65	.10	1.08	2.45	.0147
International student	−1.39	−.04	1.26	−1.10	.2698	0.33	.01	1.99	0.16	.8693
Part-time study	4.50	.11	1.50	3.00	.0028	−1.28	−.02	2.39	0.53	.5931
Work for profit	−0.49	−.02	0.73	−0.67	.5001	0.48	.02	1.15	0.42	.6783
Age	0.11	.02	0.19	0.60	.5467	−0.29	−.04	0.30	0.98	.3257
Renting	−2.10	−.10	0.78	−2.70	.0072	0.39	.01	1.24	0.31	.7541
Food insecurity	2.19	.37	0.22	9.87	<.0001	−0.77	−.09	0.38	2.05	.0405
Psychological distress	-	-	-	-	-	−0.14	−.09	0.06	2.21	.0275

The model with food insecurity, gender, international student status, enrolment in part-time study, working profit, age, and renting privately included significantly explained 15.60% of the variation in the mediating variable, psychological distress, (R = .40, F (7,656) = 17.32, MSE = 73.99, p < .0001. As shown in Table 3, food insecurity scores (β = .37, p < .0001), renting (β = −.11, p = .0072), part-time study (β = .11, p = .0028), and gender (β = .11, p = .0034), significantly predicted psychological distress scores once all other covariates (international student status, working for profit, and age within the sample) were adjusted for. Women with high food insecurity scores or those who are renting, or studying part-time are more likely to exhibit higher levels of psychological distress.

In addition, food insecurity, psychological distress, gender, international student status, enrolment in part-time studying, working for profit, age within the sample, and renting privately significantly explained 3.33% of the variation in the outcome variable, weighted average mark (WAM), (R = .16, F (8,655) = 2.51, MSE = 185.93, p = .0149). As shown in Table 3, only gender (β = .101, p = .010), food insecurity (β = −.09, p = .041) and psychological distress (β = −.09, p = .033) significantly predicted WAM once all other covariates (international student status, part-time study, working for profit, age within the sample, and renting) were adjusted for. Women obtained higher WAMs relative to men, and food insecurity was negatively associated with WAMs. Psychological distress was also inversely associated with WAM. The standardised coefficients for the relationship between food insecurity, psychological distress, and WAM are displayed in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Standardised coefficients of mediation analysis on the relationship between food insecurity, psychological distress, and WAM in a sample of 664 students.

As shown in Figure 1, the overall effect of food insecurity on weighted average marks is significant and negative. The path (direct effect) from food insecurity to psychological distress was positive and significant (β = .37, p < .001) indicating that students scoring higher on the food insecurity measure experience greater psychological distress than those who score low on the measure. The effect of psychological distress on WAM is significant and negative (β = −.09, p = .033) indicating that higher levels of psychological distress were associated with a lower WAM. The indirect effect (IE) of food insecurity on WAM through psychological distress was tested using non-parametric bootstrapping of 5,000 cases. The bias-corrected 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect, IE = −.03, (95% CI −.0015 to −.0690). As the direct effect of food insecurity on WAM is also significant and negative (β = −.09, p = .041) it can be concluded that psychological distress partially mediates the relationship between food insecurity and WAM.

Discussion

This study examined the relationships among food insecurity, psychological distress, and academic performance in a sample of Australian tertiary students. The study also explored demographical correlates of food insecurity status within the sample. Our study revealed that approximately one-quarter of students within the sample (25.5%) were classified as food insecure which is higher than the Australian national average of 4–13% (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015; Bowden 2020). Our results also show that psychological distress partially mediated the relationship between food insecurity and WAM. Greater instances of food insecurity were associated with greater psychological distress which in turn, resulted in a lower GPA.

The rate of food insecurity (25.5%) was found to be much higher than the national estimate of 4–13% which is consistent with most research examining the experiences of food insecurity among university students (Bruening et al. 2017; Hughes et al. 2011; Micevski, Thornton, and Brockington 2014; Ramsey et al. 2011). The increased cost of living, higher tuition fees, and reduced government support for students have been suggested for why food insecurity is now a common problem among university students (Goldrick-Rab 2018). Goldrick-Rab (2018) also argues that the working situations for students also make them more vulnerable to food insecurity. For example, wages for students have remained stagnant over the years, and part-time work does not generate enough income to protect against food insecurity. However, working full-time while studying is likely to compromise completion at university as well as this takes away time from studying.

Concerning the demographic predictors of food insecurity, renting, receiving government benefits, having a disability, and being older were all associated with greater odds of experiencing food insecurity. Food insecurity status was associated with renting as opposed to living at home is consistent with other research (Blundell et al. 2019; Gallegos, Ramsey, and Ong 2014; Hughes et al. 2011; Micevski, Thornton, and Brockington 2014). It is plausible that students living at home are less likely to experience food insecurity due to the financial support received from their parents, and have fewer expenses associated with renting (Chaparro et al. 2009). Furthermore, similar to previous findings, receiving government benefits was associated with food insecurity (Blundell et al. 2019; Gallegos, Ramsey, and Ong 2014; Hughes et al. 2011; Micevski, Thornton, and Brockington 2014). While students at the time of being surveyed could receive benefits such as Newstart, Youth Allowance, Rent Assistance, and Energy Supplement at 350.50 Australian dollars (AUD) per week for one single person this support has been criticised for being well below the Henderson poverty line at AUD 529.81 per week (Saunders 2018). It is likely students receiving government benefits face difficulty in being able to afford food, and thus are more prone to experiencing food insecurity.

Having a disability was also found to significantly increase the odds of being food insecure. The finding supports other research demonstrating that having a disability is associated with food insecurity (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2019; Hamilton et al. 2020; Olfert et al. 2021; Tarasuk et al. 2013). Social, environmental, financial, and dietary factors may explain why students with disabilities are more susceptible to food insecurity (Jangjou and Evans 2021). For instance, students with disabilities have reported that medical expenses, lack of income, dietary restrictions, and inability to access cooking facilities and pantries increased their vulnerability to food insecurity (Jangjou and Evans 2021). While further analysis is needed, it is likely that reduced opportunities for work, difficulty cooking and preparing food, and dietary restrictions could explain why students with disabilities were more susceptible to food insecurity relative to those who did not identify as having a disability.

Contrary to expectations, income was not associated with food insecurity status which is inconsistent with many other studies that have found low income to be associated with a greater prevalence of food insecurity (Foley et al. 2010; Gallegos, Ramsey, and Ong 2014; Loopstra and Tarasuk 2013). However, given that only information on individual income was collected, it is plausible that household income may be more predictive of food insecurity status than individual income within student samples. Additionally, there was a restricted range for the income which meant there was too little variance to find a correlation. Interestingly, despite only examining 18 to 25-year-old students, age was associated with food insecurity with older undergraduate students being more susceptible to food insecurity. This suggests students in their mid-20s are at greater risk of being food insecure relative to the youngest university students (e.g. those who are 18 or 19 years old). A reasonable explanation is that older students are likely to have less financial support from their parents and therefore have greater difficulty in being able to afford food.

Consistent with previous research, the study found that increased psychological distress was associated with poorer academic performance (Eisenberg, Golberstein, and Hunt 2009; Martinez et al. 2018; Raskind, Haardörfer, and Berg 2019). The findings support previous research showing that students experiencing greater distress or mental health problems tend to have poorer academic achievement (Eisenberg, Golberstein, and Hunt 2009; Stallman 2010). Some studies show that mental health problems lead directly to poorer academic efficacy and lower academic performance (Grøtan, Sund, and Bjerkeset 2019) whereas others demonstrate that depression and anxiety can result in a loss of interest in studying (Eisenberg, Golberstein, and Hunt 2009). Students with depression have been found to have lower GPAs especially when they experience co-existing anxiety (Grøtan, Sund, and Bjerkeset 2019).

In the present study food insecurity was associated with greater levels of psychological distress. These results are similar to numerous other studies indicating that food insecurity is linked to higher levels of subjective distress (Carter et al. 2011; Hattangadi et al. 2019; Pourmotabbed et al. 2020). Longitudinal studies show that food insecurity at an earlier date is later associated with a range of mental health problems such as depressive disorders (McIntyre et al. 2013; Pryor et al. 2016; Siefert et al. 2004), suicidal ideation (McIntyre et al. 2013; Pryor et al. 2016), substance abuse (Pryor et al. 2016) and inattention/hyperactivity (Melchior et al. 2012). Taken together, the longitudinal studies suggest that food insecurity can have a direct impact on mental health. Furthermore, one qualitative study found that university students experiencing food insecurity reported feelings of shame, frustration, and failure due to not being able to access food in socially acceptable ways (Meza et al. 2018). Although the current study did not examine further correlates of psychological distress, our results demonstrate that food insecurity is a stressful experience that can negatively affect the mental well-being of students.

Most notably, the current study found that psychological distress partially mediated the relationship between food insecurity and WAMs using actual marks. Accordingly, food insecurity resulted in higher levels of psychological distress which in turn, leads to lower grades. The outcomes of the current study support earlier research showing that food insecurity acts as a ‘toxic stressor’ leading to a range of negative outcomes such as poorer health and impaired academic performance (Jyoti, Frongillo, and Jones 2005). Furthermore, our findings support previous studies showing that food insecurity is associated with poorer academic performance in university students (Morris et al. 2016; Raskind, Haardörfer, and Berg 2019). The results are also analogous to two other U.S. studies showing that poorer psychosocial wellbeing mediates the relationship between food insecurity, and impaired academic performance (Martinez et al. 2018; Raskind, Haardörfer, and Berg 2019). However, although our results show that psychological distress mediated the relationship between food insecurity status and WAM it is important to note a direct effect of food insecurity on WAM was evident. Psychological distress only partially mediates the relationship between food insecurity and academic performance therefore suggests hunger could have a direct impact on being able to achieve academically.

Strengths and limitations of the current study

A strength of the study is that actual grades were used in analyses, rather than self-reported academic performance. Additionally, the study extended its investigation to an Australian sample whereas most studies have been conducted within U.S. colleges. However, there are some limitations of the current study that warrant mentioning. A limitation is that the study did not include students who dropped out of their course due to instances of food insecurity. Given that food insecure students are more likely to have suspended their studies compared to food secure students (Gallegos, Ramsey, and Ong 2014), it would be worthwhile to examine whether food insecurity contributes to actual attrition at university. The study only measured food insecurity at one-time point at a single university and therefore is not representative of young students across universities. A final limitation is that health outcomes other than psychological distress were not examined. Future research could consider the impact that food insecurity has on physical health indicators within university students after students graduate. As the current study also found a direct effect of food insecurity on WAM it is possible that other variables such as energy, concentration, or cooking ability could mediate the relationship between food insecurity and WAM. Examining physical health and outcomes after students graduate could help to better understand the negative effects of food insecurity on academic achievement.

Implications

There are several implications of the current study. The first implication is that the rate of food insecurity among university students is high not only in the United States but in other countries such as Australia. Universities need to revise their policies to ensure that students have access to food that is affordable and nutritious in meeting their needs. Although Australian universities currently provide scholarships to Indigenous students, and low SES students, additional support could be offered to students experiencing instances of food insecurity. Given our findings, universities and governments may consider revising their policies on disadvantaged students within higher education to also include students who are food insecure. The USDA’s 6-item of food insecurity could be used to help identify which students are experiencing hunger. A key finding is that psychological distress generated from food insecurity partially determines academic success at university. Given this association students with food insecurity could benefit from accessing both psychological services and being provided with nutritional food. Additionally, services should be readily accessible to students with disabilities who are at greater risk of food insecurity. Addressing the issue of food insecurity among students is likely to improve mental health outcomes and academic performance.

Recent evidence has begun to establish the financial burden students face as a result of living and tuition costs (Arkoudis et al. 2018; Goldrick-Rab 2018). Furthermore, the Australian government has recently implemented policies to reduce student reliance on Commonwealth support in covering the costs of university fees, instead proposing that students have greater financial responsibility in paying for their degrees (Department of Education and Training 2017). This seems to reflect the reducing reliance on state funding concerning universities which is prevalent in the United States (Goldrick-Rab 2018). However, the recent changes to government legislation and the increasing costs of housing, food, and education may present a challenge in enabling students to succeed at university. The conclusions drawn from the current study suggest that food accessibility is required for academic success and well-being among university students.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study examined the relationship between food insecurity, psychological distress, and academic performance (WAM). Consistent with international research, the rate of food insecurity was high within the sample. Our findings show that psychological distress partially mediated the relationship between food insecurity and WAM. Students with greater instances of food security were likely to experience higher levels of psychological distress which was shown to impede academic performance. Future research could consider the physical health impacts of food insecurity and the role health variables play concerning academic achievement at university. It is recommended that universities and governments consider providing affordable and healthy food options on campus. Furthermore, a strategy is needed to address the mental health of students. Overall, the results suggest that there may be merit in providing healthy affordable food to students to reduce instances of food insecurity to improve well-being and academic outcomes.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

Research is funded by the Department of Education Research Training Program.

Notes on contributors

Nicole Brownfield

Nicole Brownfield is a Doctor of Philosophy candidate and researcher at Swinburne University of Technology. Her research interests include poverty, cognitive behavioural therapy, student well-being, and student engagement at university.

S. Quinn

S. Quinn is a senior biostatistician. He is experienced in all forms of multilevel mixed modelling and structural equation modelling. He is also engaged in a statistical methodological research stream in assessing goodness-of-fit in binary regression models. A/Prof. Quinn has co-authored in approximately 120 peer-reviewed publications and been successful in attracting funds on 19 NHMRC, ARC and partnership grants as well as many more minor grants.

G. Bates

G. Bates is a Clinical Psychologist and Professor of Clinical Psychology at Swinburne University of Technology. From 2013-2019 Glen led the university strategies on retention, employability and student support as the pro Vice-Chancellor (Student Engagement). Glen has been a practising psychologist for more than 30 years and has published many articles investigating mental health and the role of narrative in psychological research.

M. Thielking

M. Thielking is an internationally renowned researcher in the areas of school psychology and the cross-sector impacts of poverty, childhood trauma and disadvantage on families and individuals. She conducts industry-connected research that has national and international implications for shifting public policy and informing service delivery for vulnerable populations, with a particular research interest in school psychological service delivery, ethical school psychological practice, and understanding how trauma and disadvantage impacts youth outcomes in schools and other youth settings.