Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36759797›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

A qualitative process evaluation of universal free school meal provision in two London secondary schools.

Patricia E Jessiman, Victoria R Carlisle, Katie Breheny, Rona Campbell, Russell Jago, Marcus Robinson, Steve Strong, Judi Kidger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Food insecurity in children and young people in Scotland.The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society · 2024
    Review
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Patricia E JessimanDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Tricia.Jessiman@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5805-2415
Victoria R CarlisleDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Katie BrehenyDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Rona CampbellDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Russell JagoDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Marcus RobinsonLondon Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, Hammersmith , UK.
Steve StrongPublic co-applicant, PHIRST Insight, Hampshire, UK.
Judi KidgerDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
University of Bristol · GBInsight Healthcare · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

National Institute of Health Research PHIRST/NIHR131567
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the UK, one in five households with children experienced food insecurity in 2022, defined as a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food. Free school meals are a public health intervention aimed at reducing food insecurity amongst children. The provision of universal free school meals (UFSM) to secondary school-aged children is a novel and untested intervention in the UK. This study is a process evaluation of a pilot of UFSM in two secondary schools in England. The aim was to understand the feasibility, acceptability, cost implications and lessons for the implementation of UFSM.

methods20 parents, 28 students and 8 school staff from two intervention schools participated in online qualitative interviews, as well as 4 staff from non-intervention schools. The Framework Method of thematic analysis was applied. These data were supplemented with student-led observations of school meal times, and school lunch uptake-data and cost information provided by the local authority delivering the pilot.

resultsUFSM in secondary schools is a feasible and acceptable intervention, with coherent goals of increased access to a healthy meal, reduced food insecurity and better nutrition. All participants perceived these goals were met. Acceptability was further enhanced by the perception that UFSM were supporting a greater proportion of low-income families than the national, targeted Free School Meal scheme, as well as being easier to implement. Potential barriers to implementation include limited school kitchen and dining infrastructure, meal quality and choice, and increased queuing times. Participants' concerns that UFSM may benefit middle- and high- income families not in need were not as prevalent as the perception that UFSM was an effective way to support all families with secondary-aged children experiencing food insecurity.

conclusionThis small-scale pilot study suggests that UFSM in secondary schools is feasible and acceptable, but more evidence is required from larger studies on the impact on long-term health, psychosocial and educational outcomes. Future, larger studies should also include detailed economic evaluations so this approach can be compared with other possible interventions.

Indexed as

Food ServicesMealsAgedChildHumansLondonLunchPilot ProjectsSchoolsAdolescenceFood insecurityNutritionProcess evaluationQualitativeSchoolSchool Meals

Identifiers

PMID36759797
PMCPMC9910769
OpenAlexW4319722934

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.