A
Subject: “Assessment of the Engagement of Beni University Academics in Food Hygiene Awareness”
Patrick
Mafikiri
Bakwanamaha
1,2,5✉
EmailPatrick.bakwanamaha@congoinitiative.org
Honoré
Irenge
Mitima
3,5
Dominique
Aganze
Mulume
4,5
Benedictus
Miyisa
Muhiwa
1,2
Ortence
Kazige
Kanyere
4,5
Alpha
Kambale
Kasimengo
6
Lyse
Mukuyano
Mahinanda
5
Martin
Ukweli
Ndozondula
5
Joyce
Eka
Nshombo
4,5
Justine
Asifiwe
Lwaboshi
4,5
Jean-Roger
Byumanine
Ntabaza
3,5
Dyna
Masika
Yalala
7
1
Faculty of Economics and Management
Université Chrétienne Bilingue du Congo Beni
North Kivu
Democratic Republic of Congo
2
Faculty of Agronomic and Environmental Sciences
Université de L’Assomption au Congo in Beni
North Kivu
Democratic Republic of Congo
3
A
Section of Pharmaceutical Techniques, Democratic Republic of Congo
Institut Supérieur des Techniques Médicales (ISTM) Bukavu, République Démocratique du Congo
PO Box 3036
Bukavu
South Kivu
4
A
Faculty of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences
Université Evangélique en Afrique (UEA), Democratic Republic of the Congo
PO Box 3323
Bukavu, Bukavu, South-Kivu
5
Nutrition Contrôle Qualité des aliments, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
Université Evangélique en Afrique (UEA), Democratic Republic of the Congo
PO Box 3323
Bukavu, South-Kivu
6
Pediatrics Section
Institut Supérieur des Techniques Médicales (ISTM)
Beni, North Kivu
Democratic Republic of Congo
7
Faculty of Health Sciences
Université Pédagogique Nationale-Kinshasa (UPN), Democratic Republic of the Congo
PO Box 88 15
Kinshasa Ngaliema
Patrick Mafikiri Bakwanamaha *
1, 2,5
, Honoré Irenge Mitima 3,5, Dominique Aganze Mulume4, 5, Benedictus Miyisa Muhiwa 1,2, Ortence Kazige Kanyere 4,5, Alpha Kambale Kasimengo 6, Lyse Mukuyano Mahinanda 5 ,Martin Ukweli Ndozondula 5, Joyce Eka Nshombo 4,5, Justine Asifiwe Lwaboshi 4,5, Jean-Roger Byumanine Ntabaza 3,5, Dyna Masika Yalala7
1
Faculty of Economics and Management, Université Chrétienne Bilingue du Congo Beni, North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo;
2
Faculty of Agronomic and Environmental Sciences, Université de L'Assomption au Congo in Beni, North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo;
3
Section of Pharmaceutical Techniques, Institut Supérieur des Techniques Médicales (ISTM) Bukavu PO Box 3036, Bukavu, South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, République Démocratique du Congo ;
4
Faculty of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Université Evangélique en Afrique (UEA), PO Box 3323/Bukavu, Bukavu, South-Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo;
5
Nutrition Contrôle Qualité des aliments ; Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Université Evangélique en Afrique (UEA), PO Box 3323, Bukavu, South-Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo;
6
Pediatrics Section, Institut Supérieur des Techniques Médicales (ISTM) Beni, North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo;
7
Faculty of Health Sciences, Université Pédagogique Nationale-Kinshasa (UPN), PO Box 88 15, Kinshasa Ngaliema, Democratic Republic of the Congo;
*Corresponding Autor
Patrick Mafikiri Bakwanamaha
Mail : Patrick.bakwanamaha@congoinitiative.org
A
Abstract
Background
Food hygiene is a crucial determinant of public health in developing contexts like Beni, DRC, where insecurity, poor sanitation, and unregulated street food increase health risks. Academic engagement is essential to strengthen hygiene education and civic responsibility within the community.
Objective
A
This study aims to evaluate the knowledge, participation level, and influencing factors of university academics in Beni regarding food hygiene awareness, highlighting their potential role in public health promotion.Methods
A
A descriptive and exploratory cross-sectional study was conducted among 200 university participants in Beni. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire administered online and in person. Quantitative data were analyzed with RStudio, while qualitative responses underwent thematic analysis. A
A
All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.Results
Findings revealed that 58% of respondents had participated in hygiene awareness activities, with higher engagement among academic (67%) and administrative staff (75%) compared to students (47%). Knowledge levels were mainly average (61%), while all participants recognized the role of academics in promoting hygiene. Key barriers included time limitations, lack of resources, and insufficient institutional support. However, 97% expressed willingness to engage in future initiatives.
Conclusion
Strengthening university-led hygiene initiatives through education, incentives, and partnerships can transform academics into key civic actors supporting public health, resilience, and national development in Beni and similar settings.
Keywords
Food hygiene
academics
awareness
engagement
public health
university
Beni
barriers
motivation
A
A
A
2. Introduction
Public health has become one of the major global development challenges (Kira Fortune, 2018). It is a central pillar in the fight against social, economic, and health inequalities (Sinclair, 2019). Within this framework, food hygiene plays a decisive role due to its direct impact on preventing infectious and nutritional diseases (Odeyemi, 2016). Each year, more than 600 million people worldwide suffer from foodborne illnesses, leading to approximately 420,000 deaths (Mohammad Hashemi, 2023). These figures highlight the critical importance of food safety in promoting collective well-being (Odeyemi, 2016).
In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), particularly in Beni (North Kivu), this issue is even more concerning (PAM, 2024). Armed conflicts, humanitarian crises, and uncontrolled urbanization expose the population to major health risks (WHO, 2025). Limited access to potable water, poor waste management, and weak food hygiene education aggravate the situation (FAO, 2020). Street food consumption, often without sanitary control, remains widespread, increasing the risks of contamination and foodborne illnesses (Kinda, 2020).
Raising awareness about food hygiene thus becomes an urgent necessity that cannot rely solely on governmental or humanitarian institutions (Monica Wandolo, 2018). It requires collective mobilization involving the academic elite—teachers, researchers, and students—in building an enlightened patriotism that serves national development (Muller, 2021).
The participation of academics in public health awareness campaigns reflects their civic and social responsibility (Nzita, 2022). It embodies a form of patriotism rooted in the pursuit of the common good and the defense of public health (Robert Hahn, 2015). As Ntimi Mtawa (2020) emphasizes, higher education should produce not only competent professionals but also socially engaged citizens aware of their transformative role.
As holders of scientific knowledge, academics possess a unique capacity for influence (Sarah Dalglish, 2017). They can guide and mobilize communities toward collective health goals (Emily C. Clark, 2024).
A
In Beni, where health education needs are immense (PAM, 2024), the university community can act as a catalyst for change through local projects, awareness campaigns, and public policy advocacy (Selina Banda, 2023). Their engagement is not merely voluntary—it stems from a patriotic will to contribute to national progress (Muller, 2021).According to Meredith Vanstone (2021), patriotism should not be confined to ideology; it must translate into concrete social action. Likewise, Michael J. O. Pocock (2019) affirms that sustainable development depends on citizens’ active participation, particularly from the intellectual class. The Congolese academic elite thus have a vital role in building a strong and respected Congo, not only through teaching and research but also through community health engagement (Christiane Horwood, 2021).
This role is even more crucial in low- and middle-income countries where institutional resources are limited and civil society must often compensate (Jessica Wegener, 2018). The World Bank estimates that foodborne diseases cost these nations about 110 billion USD annually in productivity losses and healthcare costs (Bank., 2019). Preventive education, especially on food hygiene, remains one of the most effective and affordable public health strategies (Robert Hahn, 2015).
The academic community of Beni, comprising teachers, researchers, and students, forms a hub of intellectual development and social influence (PAM, 2024). Yet, despite this potential, studies reveal limited academic involvement in community health promotion (Nzita, 2022). Ghosh (2020) identifies several barriers to participation, including lack of public health training, resource scarcity, time constraints, and weak institutional recognition of community outreach.
Nevertheless, successful experiences across Africa demonstrate that universities can drive social transformation (Christiane Horwood, 2021). In South Africa, several universities have integrated community service into their programs, allowing students to contribute to local health initiatives (Jessica Wegener, 2018). In Uganda, partnerships between universities and NGOs have led to impactful hygiene and nutrition campaigns (Kevin Serrem, 2021). These examples confirm that structured academic engagement can have lasting effects on health and community development (Jessica Wegener, 2018).
Beyond observing this phenomenon, it is essential to understand the underlying dynamics of academic involvement or its absence in promoting food hygiene (Ghosh, 2020). This involves identifying facilitating and inhibiting factors, assessing academics’ level of knowledge, and developing strategies to strengthen their engagement (Illés CB, 2021).
A
Such a holistic approach, anchored in sustainable development, recognizes that public health is a collective responsibility. Intellectuals, because of their educational and social status, have a moral duty to disseminate good practices, transfer knowledge, and mobilize communities (Banda, 2018). As Monica Wandolo (2018) notes, collective efficiency relies on shared belief in a group’s ability to achieve change—something the academic community can foster.A
Moreover, a participatory and inclusive vision of citizenship regards community engagement as one of the noblest forms of patriotism, demonstrating genuine attachment to the nation and commitment to its progress (Selina Banda, 2023). Democracy requires not only fair institutions but also active and responsible citizens. The university, as a space of learning and innovation, must therefore form such citizens, capable of acting within society for the public good (Wolfram Schulz, 2024).Analyzing the involvement of academics in food hygiene awareness in Beni thus bridges two often separated spheres: academic knowledge and social action. It reconciles theory and practice, intellect and commitment, within a framework of local development and patriotic engagement.
The overall aim of this study is to examine the involvement of university academics in promoting food hygiene by assessing their level of knowledge, their actual engagement, and the factors influencing their participation in awareness activities.
A
Specifically, we want to evaluate the level of knowledge of university academics regarding food hygiene; to analyze the extent of their effective participation in hygiene awareness activities and to identify both the facilitating factors and the obstacles influencing their engagement.3. Study Area and Methodology
3.1. 3.1. Study Area
The study was conducted in the city of Beni, located in the northeastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Known for its major economic role and vibrant commercial activity, particularly in the agri-food sector, Beni is experiencing steady growth in the demand for food products. This dynamic has led to a significant expansion of activities related to the production and marketing of foodstuffs.
However, this development is accompanied by growing concerns regarding the hygienic conditions of food products sold and consumed in Beni. It is within this context that the issue of the involvement of university academics in promoting food hygiene awareness becomes particularly relevant. As key actors in knowledge creation and research, their role in fostering good
hygiene and sanitary practices is essential for ensuring local food safety.
The following figure illustrates the geographical area in which this research was carried out.
A
Fig. 1
Geographical Map of the Study Area
3.2. Methodology
A
This study aimed to examine the involvement of university academics in Beni in promoting food hygiene awareness by assessing their level of knowledge, engagement, and the factors influencing their participation. To achieve this, a rigorous methodological approach was adopted, combining both quantitative and qualitative research techniques. This section provides a detailed description of the methodological framework used, from the design of the questionnaire to the techniques applied for data analysis.3.2.1. Type of Research
Descriptive and exploratory.
It is descriptive in that it seeks to provide an accurate picture of the level of knowledge and involvement of academics in Beni regarding food hygiene. It is exploratory because it aims to identify the barriers and enablers of their engagement, in order to propose recommendations for improving future initiatives.
3.2.2. Target Population and Sampling Method
The target population for this study includes all members of the academic community in the city of Beni, Democratic Republic of Congo. This population consists of:
Teaching and research staff;
Students;
Other university actors involved in academic life or awareness activities (e.g., administrative staff, university club coordinators).
A
Respondents were selected from higher education institutions across the city of Beni. A non-probability purposive sampling method was employed, taking into account the availability, accessibility, and representativeness of participants from various institutions. The objective was to ensure diversity of viewpoints while targeting those capable of providing relevant information on the subject. An estimated sample size of 200 participants was targeted to achieve a balance between diversity (students, lecturers, others) and statistical reliability.3.2.3. Data Collection Tool: Survey Questionnaire
The main data collection instrument used in this study was a structured survey questionnaire entitled “Engagement of Beni University Academics in Food Hygiene Awareness.”
It was designed to gather both quantitative (closed-ended) and qualitative (open-ended) data. The questionnaire consisted of four main sections:
1.
General Information: Identifies the respondent’s profile—academic status, institution, and prior participation in awareness activities.
2.
Knowledge and Perception: Assesses self-perceived knowledge of food hygiene and beliefs about the role of academics in awareness promotion.
3.
Engagement and Participation: Explores the frequency, nature, and intensity of respondents’ involvement in concrete awareness activities.
4.
Suggestions and Recommendations: Collects opinions and proposals to enhance university engagement in food hygiene initiatives.
The questionnaire was distributed electronically via Google Forms, with links shared through WhatsApp, email, and direct in-person administration to maximize response reach.
3.2.4. Data Processing and Analysis
Data analysis followed a mixed-method approach that combined quantitative and qualitative techniques. Data collected via Google Forms were exported in CSV format and analyzed using RStudio.
Quantitative analysis: Responses to closed-ended questions were processed using RStudio for descriptive and comparative statistics.
Qualitative analysis: Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed thematically, both manually and with the assistance of RStudio.
3.2.5. Validity and Reliability
A pre-test of the questionnaire was conducted with 10 participants from different universities in Beni to assess the clarity of questions, the relevance of the items, and the average completion time. Participant feedback led to adjustments to improve wording and reduce ambiguities.
To ensure data reliability, particular attention was paid to:
The neutral and unbiased formulation of questions;
Consistency in questionnaire administration;
Guaranteeing anonymity and confidentiality to encourage honest responses.
3.2.6. Ethical Considerations
This study involved no medical procedures, biological samples, or sensitive personal data. Participation was voluntary, anonymous, and non-invasive. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.
4. Results
4.1. Presentation and Interpretation
In this section, the analysis of collected data reveals a diversity of profiles from various universities in Beni. It highlights different levels of participation in food hygiene awareness activities, depending on academic status (lecturers, students, administrative or technical staff) and institutional affiliation. This provides an insightful overview of the current level of academic engagement in promoting food hygiene.
4.1.1. General Information
Table N°01 : General Information
|
Characteristics
|
Teaching & Research Staff
|
Students
|
Administrative & Technical Staff
|
General
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Affiliated University
|
||||
|
IBTP/Beni
|
0%
|
7%
|
25%
|
6%
|
|
ISC/Beni
|
0%
|
7%
|
0%
|
3%
|
|
ISP/Beni
|
8%
|
0%
|
0%
|
3%
|
|
ISTM/Beni
|
17%
|
0%
|
0%
|
6%
|
|
UAC/Beni
|
17%
|
60%
|
25%
|
39%
|
|
UCBC/Beni
|
42%
|
20%
|
50%
|
32%
|
|
UNANC/Beni
|
0%
|
7%
|
0%
|
3%
|
|
UOS/Beni
|
17%
|
0%
|
0%
|
6%
|
|
Participation in Food Hygiene Awareness Activities
|
||||
|
No
|
33%
|
67%
|
0%
|
45%
|
|
Yes
|
67%
|
33%
|
100%
|
55%
|
| Comments and Interpretation | ||||
| 1. Distribution by Academic Status | ||||
Teaching and Research Staff: Among lecturers and researchers, 67% have already participated in food hygiene awareness activities a relatively high proportion. This reflects a strong engagement of this group, possibly due to their academic role and their position as examples within the university environment.
Students: In contrast, only 33% of students reported having participated in such activities, while 67% have not. This indicates a lower level of engagement, which might stem from academic priorities, lack of information, or limited opportunities for involvement.
Administrative and Technical Staff: Interestingly, 100% of this group indicated participation in food hygiene awareness activities. This may reflect specific institutional initiatives targeting staff or a university policy encouraging their involvement in community-based public health projects.
2. Distribution by University
UAC/Beni (Université de l’Assomption à Beni): This institution stands out with 60% of its students engaged in food hygiene awareness activities the highest participation rate among all universities. This could be attributed to the presence of active student organizations or structured awareness programs within the university.
UCBC/Beni (Université Chrétienne Bilingue du Congo): UCBC also shows strong engagement, particularly among teaching staff, with 42% having participated in related activities. This may suggest the existence of a strong culture of hygiene promotion and community service integrated into the institution’s values.
Other Universities (UOS/Beni, ISP/Beni, UNANC/Beni): These universities present relatively lower participation rates, especially among students, which may point to fewer institutional initiatives or a lack of coordination in awareness campaigns.
3. Overall Participation Rate
Overall, 55% of respondents have participated in food hygiene awareness activities, which is encouraging. However, the remaining 45% non-participation rate, particularly high among students, reveals a gap that needs to be addressed.
The 45% non-participation rate may reflect barriers such as insufficient awareness, lack of time, competing academic priorities, or limited institutional support.
A
In summary, while more than half of the university community in Beni shows involvement in food hygiene promotion, efforts should focus on increasing student participation through improved awareness, institutional incentives, and structured engagement opportunities within universities.4.1.2. Knowledge and Perception
|
Characteristics
|
Academic Staff
|
Students
|
Administrative and Technical Staff
|
General
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Knowledge of Food Hygiene Issues
|
||||
|
Very low
|
17%
|
7%
|
0%
|
10%
|
|
Low
|
8%
|
7%
|
0%
|
6%
|
|
Average
|
58%
|
67%
|
50%
|
61%
|
|
Good
|
0%
|
13%
|
0%
|
6%
|
|
Very good
|
17%
|
7%
|
50%
|
16%
|
|
Perception of the Role of Academics in Food Hygiene Promotion
|
||||
|
Yes
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
Motivations and Barriers
|
Academic Staff
|
Students
|
Other
|
Total
|
|
Health and social motivations for engagement
|
64%
|
14%
|
75%
|
42%
|
|
Role and responsibility of academics in society
|
32%
|
35%
|
0%
|
23%
|
|
Barriers related to financial and time constraints
|
32%
|
14%
|
0%
|
16%
|
|
Lack of information, interest, or specific training
|
24%
|
21%
|
0%
|
15%
|
|
Influence of cultural and environmental context (street food habits, local resistance, environmental conditions)
|
8%
|
14%
|
0%
|
5%
|
| Comments and Interpretation: | ||||
| 1. Knowledge of Food Hygiene Issues | ||||
The results reveal interesting variations across different groups:
Academic staff: 58% of respondents rated their knowledge as average, and 17% as very good. This suggests that most university lecturers and researchers are aware of food hygiene issues, although a significant proportion could still benefit from further training or updated information.
Students: 67% of students assessed their knowledge as average, and 13% as good. This indicates a moderate level of self-perceived awareness among students, highlighting the need for more structured education on food hygiene within academic curricula.
Administrative and technical staff: 50% reported average knowledge, and another 50% rated theirs as very good. This pattern suggests that many staff members have strong practical knowledge, likely derived from their daily involvement in food handling or maintenance activities.
Overall: 61% of all respondents reported average knowledge and 16% very good knowledge. This reflects a generally satisfactory awareness, but also reveals a need for continuous education to strengthen food hygiene knowledge across all categories.
2. Perceived Role of Academics in Food Hygiene Promotion
All respondents (100%) agreed that academics have a role to play in promoting food hygiene within the community. This unanimous response reflects a strong consensus on the social responsibility of universities to contribute to public health awareness. It highlights the recognition of academics as key actors in community sensitization and knowledge transfer, reinforcing the university’s civic mission.
3. Motivations and Barriers to Academic Engagement
The factors motivating or limiting the engagement of academics in food hygiene awareness activities vary by group:
Health and social motivations: The main driver of engagement among academic staff (64%) and administrative/technical staff (75%) relates to public health and community welfare concerns (disease prevention, community well-being). Among students, this motivation is much lower (14%), suggesting less awareness of hygiene’s broader societal implications.
Role and responsibility in society: This factor appears more relevant to students (35%) and academic staff (32%), showing that both groups associate their professional or civic identity with social responsibility. However, this remains secondary compared to direct health motivations.
Financial and time constraints: Both academic staff (32%) and students (14%) cited the lack of financial resources and time as significant barriers to their involvement. These limitations likely reduce their ability to participate actively in outreach and awareness activities.
Lack of information, interest, or training: This barrier affects 24% of academic staff and 21% of students, indicating potential gaps in training and institutional support regarding food hygiene education and public health practices.
Cultural and environmental influences: Although this was a less common barrier overall (5%), it was more pronounced among students (14%), who may be more influenced by local food culture, environmental constraints, or traditional eating habits (e.g., malewa practices).
4.1.3. Engagement and Participation
|
Characteristics
|
Academic Staff
|
Students
|
Administrative and Technical Staff
|
General
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Participation in Food Hygiene Awareness Activities
|
||||
|
No
|
33%
|
53%
|
25%
|
42%
|
|
Yes
|
67%
|
47%
|
75%
|
58%
|
|
Types of Awareness Activities Conducted
|
||||
|
Practical workshops
|
8%
|
7%
|
0%
|
6%
|
|
Seminars and social media campaigns
|
25%
|
20%
|
25%
|
23%
|
|
Social media campaigns
|
17%
|
37%
|
25%
|
28%
|
|
Conferences or seminars
|
33%
|
30%
|
50%
|
34%
|
|
Practical workshops and distribution of informational materials
|
8%
|
0%
|
0%
|
3%
|
|
Conferences and distribution of informational materials
|
8%
|
7%
|
0%
|
6%
|
|
Frequency of Participation in Awareness Activities
|
||||
|
Frequently
|
8%
|
7%
|
25%
|
10%
|
|
Never
|
17%
|
33%
|
0%
|
23%
|
|
Occasionally
|
50%
|
27%
|
50%
|
39%
|
|
Rarely
|
25%
|
33%
|
0%
|
26%
|
|
Very frequently
|
0%
|
0%
|
25%
|
3%
|
|
Obstacles to Participation in Awareness Activities
|
||||
|
Other
|
8%
|
13%
|
0%
|
10%
|
|
Lack of personal interest
|
17%
|
20%
|
25%
|
19%
|
|
Lack of academic recognition
|
17%
|
13%
|
0%
|
13%
|
|
Lack of resources
|
33%
|
13%
|
25%
|
23%
|
|
Lack of time
|
25%
|
33%
|
25%
|
29%
|
|
Lack of time and resources
|
0%
|
7%
|
25%
|
6%
|
| Comments and Interpretation | ||||
Participation in Awareness Activities: Overall, 58% of respondents reported having participated in food hygiene awareness activities, while 42% had never participated. Participation rates were highest among administrative and technical staff (75%), followed by academic staff (67%), and lowest among students (47%). This distribution suggests that professional staff are more likely to be involved in hygiene-related outreach, possibly due to direct institutional initiatives or their functional roles within the university.
Types of Activities Conducted: The most common awareness activities were conferences or seminars (34%), followed by social media campaigns (28%). Practical workshops were relatively rare (6% overall), indicating limited hands-on engagement. Similarly, the distribution of informational materials (3–6%) was infrequently mentioned, highlighting a potential area to strengthen in order to improve the sustainability and visibility of hygiene awareness efforts.
Frequency of Participation: The majority of respondents reported participating occasionally (39%), while 49% (rarely + never) demonstrated limited or no involvement particularly among students.
A
Very frequent participation was marginal (3% overall) but more noticeable among administrative or technical staff (25%). This suggests that awareness initiatives may be sporadic or insufficiently integrated into the academic schedule.Obstacles to Participation: The main barriers to engagement were lack of time (29%), lack of resources (23%), and lack of personal interest (19%). Academic staff primarily cited limited resources (33%) as a key constraint, while students emphasized lack of time (33%). Additionally, lack of academic recognition (13%) was reported, indicating that awareness activities are not sufficiently valued within institutional reward systems. Cultural and motivational factors (10%) were also minor but notable obstacles.
4.1.4. Suggestions and Recommendations
|
Grouped Categories
|
Academic Staff
|
Students
|
Administrative and Technical Staff
|
General
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Actions to Strengthen the Involvement of University Academics
|
||||
|
Awareness activities (conferences, seminars, campaigns, outreach)
|
27%
|
0%
|
48%
|
15%
|
|
Training and academic integration (courses, service learning, education, policies)
|
18%
|
0%
|
40%
|
12%
|
|
Financial support, motivation, and employment (rewards, student jobs, incentives)
|
21%
|
0%
|
32%
|
11%
|
|
Material and environmental resources (drinking water, equipment, infrastructure)
|
9%
|
75%
|
0%
|
14%
|
|
Direct involvement of community educators and sensitization actors
|
25%
|
0%
|
0%
|
8%
|
|
Willingness to Volunteer for Future Projects
|
||||
|
No
|
0%
|
8%
|
0%
|
3%
|
|
Yes
|
100%
|
92%
|
100%
|
97%
|
| Comments and Interpretation | ||||
The data presented in Table 4 highlight the collective perspectives of different academic groups regarding strategies to enhance the engagement of university actors in food hygiene promotion.
1. Suggested Actions to Reinforce Academic Involvement
A
Awareness activities (conferences, seminars, campaigns, outreach): This was the most frequently cited category, particularly by 48% of administrative and technical staff and 27% of academic staff (15% overall). Respondents emphasized that organizing more seminars, public campaigns, and information-sharing sessions would effectively mobilize university stakeholders and improve public understanding of hygiene practices.
Training and academic integration: A significant proportion of respondents, especially 40% of administrative staff and 18% of academic staff, stressed the importance of integrating food hygiene into academic curricula and institutional frameworks. This includes introducing hygiene-related modules, service learning, and education policies. The relatively low general rate (12%) underscores the need to formalize such programs within university structures.
Financial support, motivation, and employment opportunities: About 32% of administrative staff and 21% of academics mentioned that providing incentives — such as recognition, stipends, or the creation of student employment linked to health awareness projects could substantially increase engagement (11% overall). This reflects a perceived need for tangible motivation mechanisms.
Material and environmental resources: For 75% of students, improving environmental and infrastructural conditions (e.g., access to clean water, proper sanitation facilities, and educational materials) is seen as a priority (14% overall). This perspective highlights that effective food hygiene awareness cannot be separated from a supportive physical and institutional environment.
Direct involvement of community actors and sensitizers: Mentioned by 25% of academic staff (8% overall), this approach underscores the importance of partnership-based interventions. Engaging local community health workers and NGOs could bridge the gap between academic knowledge and community needs, ensuring more practical and sustainable outreach.
2. Willingness to Volunteer for Future Projects
A
An overwhelming 97% of participants expressed their willingness to be involved in future food hygiene projects. This includes 100% of academic staff and administrative workers, as well as 92% of students. Only 3% of respondents (mostly students) declined potential participation.This strong willingness to engage indicates a significant untapped potential within the university community. If institutional and structural barriers such as limited resources, lack of recognition, and insufficient training are addressed, universities in Beni could become powerful hubs for community health promotion and food hygiene advocacy.
4.2. Discussion of Results
The analysis of the data concerning participation in food hygiene awareness activities within universities in Beni highlights significant disparities between different categories of respondents (academic staff, students, and administrative/technical personnel) and between institutions. This section discusses the main findings in light of the specific research objectives and existing literature.
Objective 1: To Identify the Level of Participation of University Members in Food Hygiene Awareness Activities
The data show that participation levels vary considerably by status. About 67% of academic staff reported having taken part in awareness activities a notably high level of involvement. This result may be attributed to their exemplary role within the academic community and their stronger awareness of social responsibility. These findings align with those of Monica Wandolo (2018), who emphasized the crucial contribution of academic professionals in promoting good practices related to food safety.
In contrast, only 33% of students have participated in awareness activities, despite representing the largest group. This relatively low engagement may be explained by factors such as academic workload, lack of information, or limited interest in public health issues (Kevin Serrem, 2021). Similarly, Lawal (2023) found that although 54% of Ghanaian students possessed sound knowledge of food safety, most did not actively engage in training or awareness initiatives.
Among administrative and technical staff, participation reached 100%, likely reflecting their direct exposure to hygiene-related risks in their daily work, and a more practical understanding of food safety. This could also stem from institutional policies encouraging these groups’ participation in community health programs (Wandolo, 2018).
A
At the institutional level, UAC/Beni and UCBC/Beni recorded the highest participation rates among students for UAC (60%) and among academic staff for UCBC (42%). This suggests the existence of an institutional culture supportive of public health engagement. Similar patterns were observed by Illés (2021), who reported that student participation in hygiene-related activities depends heavily on the university’s culture and the presence of awareness clubs or community programs.
Objective 2: To Assess the Level of Knowledge and Perception of University Members Regarding Food Hygiene Issues
The evaluation of knowledge revealed a predominance of “average” knowledge levels across all groups: 58% among teachers, 67% among students, and 50% among administrative staff. While 17% of teachers and 50% of administrative staff rated their knowledge as “very good,” only 13% of students considered theirs to be “good.” This suggests the need for more extensive training and curricular integration of food hygiene topics a finding consistent with Lawal (2023), who noted that many students acknowledge the lack of practical training in food safety.
Despite this variability, 100% of respondents across all categories affirmed that university academics have a key role to play in promoting food hygiene. This unanimous perception reflects a strong collective awareness of the social responsibility of universities. It supports the conclusions of Bennett (2019), who argued that academic institutions are central to shaping behavioral change in food safety, particularly in low-income settings.
A
Regarding barriers to engagement, academic staff primarily cited lack of time (25%) and limited resources (33%), which hinder their participation despite favorable attitudes. Students also mentioned lack of information and motivation (21%), revealing a need for better orientation and outreach. Administrative personnel, by contrast, reported no significant constraints possibly explaining their higher involvement rates. These results echo those of Jessica Wegener (2018), who observed that even with positive attitudes, hygienic behaviors remain under-implemented due to structural constraints or limited institutional support.Cultural factors also emerged as a contextual influence. Practices such as “malewa” (informal street food), local conditions, and resistance to behavioral change all affect hygiene perceptions. Although cited by only 5% of respondents, these factors align with Wandolo (2018), who noted that traditional eating habits can be deeply rooted, posing challenges to hygiene promotion even in the face of known health risks.
Objective 3: To Examine the Forms of Engagement, Barriers Encountered, and Strategies to Enhance University Involvement
A
The engagement of academics in food hygiene awareness in Beni primarily takes the form of conferences and seminars (34%), followed by social media campaigns (28%). Practical workshops remain underrepresented (6%), which is concerning given that experiential learning is essential for lasting behavioral change. A
As Lawal (2023) emphasized, food hygiene programs that combine theoretical and hands-on components particularly through community demonstrations yield the most effective outcomes. The lack of practical involvement in Beni thus limits both the impact of outreach and the civic training of university students (Anthony, 2024).Participation frequency also reveals a critical issue: only 10% of university members participate frequently or very frequently, whereas nearly half (49%) do so rarely or never. This irregular engagement suggests a superficial, event-based participation rather than a structured, long-term commitment. Such discontinuity weakens the capacity of university elites to act as civic catalysts, despite their potential intellectual influence (David Campbell, 2017).
The main obstacles lack of time (29%), insufficient resources (23%), and low personal interest (19%) are consistent with Ghosh (2020), who pointed out the absence of institutional policies that formally recognize community engagement. Without academic or civic recognition, outreach efforts remain undervalued (Christiane Horwood, 2021). Yet, in Beni a city facing both security and public health challenges—academic involvement in food hygiene awareness can represent a vital act of civic responsibility, contributing to community resilience and national development.
Encouragingly, 97% of respondents expressed willingness to participate in future projects. This indicates strong latent motivation that could be transformed into effective engagement through incentive policies, collaborative platforms, and institutional follow-up (Kevin Serrem, 2021). As Horwood (2021) and Mulilo (2022) argue, nurturing this sense of patriotic and civic responsibility within the academic elite is essential for national renewal.
Universities, beyond their educational mission, should become centers of active citizenship, where teachers and students engage in social causes such as public hygiene and health. Building a strong and respected Congo begins with a mobilized university community one that not only transmits knowledge but also embodies civic responsibility and commitment to the common good (Nzita, 2022).
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
This study, conducted among university members from several institutions in Beni, reveals a variable but generally promising level of participation in food hygiene awareness activities. Academic staff and administrative personnel show higher engagement than students, although most respondents rated their knowledge as only moderate. The findings demonstrate a strong awareness of the academic role in promoting hygiene, yet also highlight persistent barriers such as lack of time, limited resources, low motivation, and inadequate training opportunities.
Most engagement activities remain informational (seminars, conferences, social media campaigns), while interactive or practical initiatives are limited. Nevertheless, a large majority expressed a desire to become more actively involved in future projects—provided that supportive institutional measures are implemented.
These findings are consistent with studies from other Sub-Saharan African contexts, all underscoring the need for integrated, participatory, and context-sensitive approaches to strengthen university involvement in public health promotion.
Based on the results, several key actions are recommended to enhance university engagement in food hygiene awareness:
1.
Strengthen Food Hygiene Education and Training:
Integrate food hygiene into university curricula (courses, workshops, service-learning modules).
Offer certified training accessible to all academic categories (teachers, students, staff).
Adapt educational content to local realities, considering cultural practices such as malewa (street food).
2.
Encourage Active and Inclusive Participation:
Establish university-based hygiene clubs or committees to stimulate student involvement.
Promote volunteerism through academic and social incentives (certificates, scholarships, student jobs).
Recognize and reward exemplary university-led initiatives in public health.
3.
Support Action Through Resources and Partnerships:
Mobilize material and financial resources (infrastructure, equipment, project funding).
Develop partnerships with external stakeholders NGOs, health authorities, and local leaders.
Strengthen outreach dissemination via social media, community radio, and influential figures.
In conclusion, empowering universities to take an active role in food hygiene promotion represents not only a public health imperative but also a patriotic duty. Through education, engagement, and partnership, the academic community in Beni can become a driving force for healthier, more resilient, and more responsible societies across the Democratic Republic of Congo.
List of Abbreviations
DRC
Democratic Republic of Congo
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization
IBTP
Institut des Bâtiments et Travaux Publics
ISC
Institut Supérieur de Commerce
ISP
Institut Supérieur Pédagogique
ISTM
Institut Supérieur des Techniques Médicales
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
PAM
Programme Alimentaire Mondial
PO Box
Post Office Box
RStudio
Statistical analysis environment
UAC
Université de l’Assomption au Congo
UCBC
Université Chrétienne Bilingue du Congo
UEA
Université Évangélique en Afrique
UNAC
Université Anglicane du Congo
UOS
Université Officielle de Semuliki
USD
United States Dollar
WHO
World Health Organization
OIE
Organisation mondiale de la santé animale
CSV
Comma-Separated Values
A
Acknowledgement
The authors express their sincere gratitude to the individuals who kindly responded to the questionnaire.
A
A
Author Contribution
**Patrick Mafikiri Bakwanamaha:** Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing original draft.**Jean-Roger Byumanine Ntabaza:** Methodology, Writing original draft, Writing review & editing.**Dominique Aganze Mulume:** Data analysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.**Orthence Kazige Kanyere:** Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. **Honoré Irenge Mitima:** Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. **Miyisa Muhiwa Benedictus:** Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. **Ukweli Ndozondula Martin:** Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. **Eka Nshombo Joyce:** Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.**Asifiwe Lwaboshi Justine:** Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. **Kambale Kasimengo Alpha:** Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. **Mukuyano Mahinanda Lyse:** Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. **Dyna Masika Yalala:** Methodology, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Jean-Roger Byumanine Ntabaza
Methodology, Writing original draft, Writing review & editing.
Dominique Aganze Mulume
Data analysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Orthence Kazige Kanyere: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Honoré Irenge Mitima: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Miyisa Muhiwa Benedictus: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Ukweli Ndozondula Martin: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Eka Nshombo Joyce: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Asifiwe Lwaboshi Justine: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Kambale Kasimengo Alpha: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Mukuyano Mahinanda Lyse: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Dyna Masika Yalala: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
A
Funding
No external funding was involved in this research.
A
Data Availability
Data will be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethical Approval
A
This study was approved by the Université Chrétienne Bilingue du Congo, Beni, which reviewed and validated the research protocol. The study did not involve biological samples, medical procedures, or the collection of sensitive personal data. Participation was voluntary, anonymous, and non-invasive. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.Consent to Participate
A
Before beginning the actual survey, we obtained written and informed consent from all participants. This step served as the preparatory phase of our investigation. Participation was voluntary, and we emphasized to participants that they could withdraw at any time, while ensuring the anonymity of those who chose to take part.Consent to Publish
A
Participants provided written informed consent for the anonymous publication of the study findings.Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Declaration of interest
Statement
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
1.
Anthony, A. E. (2024). Exploring civic engagement through student-led initiatives. International Research in Education, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.5296/ire.v12i2.21934
2.
Bank, W. (2019). The safe food imperative: Accelerating progress in low- and middle-income countries. World Bank Publications. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1345-0
3.
Bennett, T. J. (2019). The role of higher education in public health advocacy: A case study of university-community partnerships. Journal of Public Health, 40(4), 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdy123
4.
Christiane Horwood, S. M. (2021). A North–South-South partnership in higher education to develop health research capacity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: The challenge of finding a common language. Health Research Policy and Systems, 19(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-021-00745-8
5.
Emily C. Clark, S. B. (2024). Mobilizing community-driven health promotion through community granting programs: A rapid systematic review. BMC Public Health, 24, 932. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18443-8
6.
Illés, C. B., Dán, A., & Kis, E. (2021). Food safety and sanitation implementation impasse on adolescents in Kenyan high schools. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1304. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031304
7.
Jessica Wegener, D. F. (2018). Education, practical training and professional development for public health practitioners: A scoping review of the literature and insights for sustainable food system capacity-building. Public Health Nutrition, 21(9), 1771–1780. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018000246
8.
Kevin Serrem, C. B. (2021). Food safety and sanitation challenges of public university students in a developing country. Food Science & Nutrition, 9(8), 4287–4297. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2481
9.
Kira Fortune, F. B.-P. (2018). Health promotion and the agenda for sustainable development, WHO Region of the Americas. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 96(9), 621–626. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.204404
10.
Meredith Vanstone, L. G. (2021). Thinking about social power and hierarchy in medical education. Medical Education, 56(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14659
11.
Michael J. O. Pocock, H. E. (2019). Developing the global potential of citizen science: Assessing opportunities that benefit people, society and the environment in East Africa. Journal of Applied Ecology, 56(2), 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13279
12.
Mohammad Hashemi, M. S. (2023). The global burden of viral food-borne diseases: A systematic review. Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, 24(12), 1657–1672. https://doi.org/10.2174/1389201024666230221110313
13.
Muller, K. T. (2021). University involvement in health education: Challenges and opportunities for promoting food safety in community settings. Public Health Reviews, 42(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41182-021-00345-6
14.
Ntimi Mtawa, N. M. (2020). Service-learning as a higher education pedagogy for advancing citizenship, conscientization and civic agency: A capability informed view. Higher Education Pedagogies, 5(1), 110–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2020.1788969
15.
Robert Hahn, B. T. (2015). Education improves public health and promotes health equity. International Journal of Health Services, 45(4), 585–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731415585985
16.
Sarah Dalglish, D. C. (2017). Knowledge and power in policy-making for child survival in Niger. Social Science & Medicine, 179, 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.056
17.
Selina Banda, F. P. (2023). Variability in curriculum development basic skills in higher education institutions. Science and Education, 11(9), 568–574. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-11-9-5
18.
Sinclair, J. R. (2019). Importance of a One Health approach in advancing global health security and the Sustainable Development Goals. Revue Scientifique et Technique (OIE), 38(1), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.38.1.2949
19.
Wolfram Schulz, J. A. (2024). Aspects of students’ civic engagement. In Civic Engagement and Education (pp. 85–122). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65603-3_4
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material