Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36079897›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2022

The Impact of Modifying Food Service Practices in Secondary Schools Providing a Routine Meal Service on Student's Food Behaviours, Health and Dining Experience: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Edwina Mingay, Melissa Hart, Serene Yoong, Kerrin Palazzi, Ellie D'Arcy, Kirrilly M Pursey, Alexis Hure

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Consolidating the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies to promote vegetable intake in priority settings: An overview of systematic reviews.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Edwina MingaySchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1991-7885
Melissa HartSchool of Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia.
Serene YoongSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0836-017X
Kerrin PalazziHunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, Newcastle, NSW 2305, Australia.
Ellie D'ArcySchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia.
Kirrilly M PurseySchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia.
Alexis HureSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2225-0986
Hunter Medical Research Institute · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AUCalvary Mater Newcastle Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The education sector is recognised as an ideal platform to promote good nutrition and decision making around food and eating. Examining adolescents in this setting is important because of the unique features of adolescence compared to younger childhood. This systematic review and meta-analysis examine interventions in secondary schools that provide a routine meal service and the impact on adolescents’ food behaviours, health and dining experience in this setting. The review was guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Checklist and Cochrane Handbook recommendations. Studies published in English searched in four databases and a hand search yielded 42 interventions in 35 studies. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers. Interventions were classified using the NOURISHING framework, and their impact analysed using meta-analysis, vote-counting synthesis or narrative summary. The meta-analysis showed an improvement in students selecting vegetables (odds ratio (OR): 1.39; 1.12 to 1.23; p = 0.002), fruit serves selected (mean difference (MD): 0.09; 0.09 to 0.09; p < 0.001) and consumed (MD: 0.10; 0.04 to 0.15; p < 0.001), and vegetable serves consumed (MD: 0.06; 0.01 to 0.10; p = 0.024). Vote-counting showed a positive impact for most interventions that measured selection (15 of 25; 41% to 77%; p = 0.002) and consumption (14 of 24; 39% to 76%; p = 0.013) of a meal component. Interventions that integrate improving menu quality, assess palatability, accessibility of healthier options, and student engagement can enhance success. These results should be interpreted with caution as most studies were not methodologically strong and at higher risk of bias. There is a need for higher quality pragmatic trials, strategies to build and measure sustained change, and evaluation of end-user attitudes and perceptions towards intervention components and implementation for greater insight into intervention success and future directions (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020167133).

Indexed as

Food ServicesVegetablesAdolescentChildHealth BehaviorHumansSchoolsStudentsadolescentdining experiencefood behaviourfood serviceinterventionnutritionschool-basedschool meals

Identifiers

PMID36079897
PMCPMC9460342
OpenAlexW4295078574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.