Prevalence and Correlates of Dietary Supplement Use Among Italian University Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Résumé fourni par la source

Background/Objectives: Dietary supplement (DS) use is a growing trend among university students, often influenced by non-institutional information. This study investigated the lifetime prevalence, behavioural correlates, and self-reported adverse effects of DS use according to EU regulatory definitions, evaluating how consumption frequency and product diversity relate to safety outcomes and student receptivity toward educational initiatives. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 2001 students at the University of Catania. Multivariable logistic regression models were utilized to identify factors associated with lifetime DS use and favourability toward informative meetings. Results: The lifetime prevalence of DS use was 55.7%. The strongest correlate of use was self-rated knowledge, with comparable odds among moderately (OR = 4.02; 95% CI: 3.17–5.10) and well/completely informed participants (OR = 4.70; 95% CI: 3.44–6.42). Increased odds of consumption were also associated with information from health professionals (OR = 2.19; 95% CI: 1.59–3.02), friends (OR = 1.91; 95% CI: 1.37–2.65), and enrollment in scientific fields (OR = 1.70; 95% CI: 1.23–2.35). Overall, 34.6% of users reported at least one symptom temporally associated with supplement intake. Despite these reports, 74.3% of the sample welcomed institutional meetings, with favourability among users significantly associated with daily supplement intake (OR = 1.97; 95% CI: 1.23–3.14) and smoking status (OR = 1.77; 95% CI: 1.24–2.54). Conclusions: The results highlight a gap between high self-rated knowledge and the frequency of self-reported side effects. The strong student interest in formal guidance underscores the need for universities to integrate evidence-based nutritional and supplement-safety education into their curricula to ensure safe supplementation practices.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.