Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37590384›Full record

ArticleHealth promotion international2023

Health, wellbeing and nutritional impacts after 2 years of free school meals in New Zealand.

Pippa McKelvie-Sebileau, Boyd Swinburn, Rachael Glassey, David Tipene-Leach, Sarah Gerritsen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health promotion international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.2field-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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Global parent perspectives on school food service internationally: A mixed papers narrative review.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Systems-Based Dialogue With Secondary School Students to Explore School Food Environments That Promote Healthy People and Planet.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. PolicyPublic health nutrition · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Evaluation of school food policies for secondary schools in Europe: Results for health, acceptance, and affordability from a scoping review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. A Pilot Evaluation of WELLfed, a Community-Based Adult Education Intervention.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pippa McKelvie-SebileauSchool of Population Health, Waipapa Taumata Rau-University of Auckland, Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-4337-7321
Boyd SwinburnSchool of Population Health, Waipapa Taumata Rau-University of Auckland, Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau, New Zealand.
Rachael GlasseyMāori Research and Innovation Centre, Te Pūkenga Eastern Institute of Technology, Ahuriri, Napier, New Zealand.
David Tipene-LeachMāori Research and Innovation Centre, Te Pūkenga Eastern Institute of Technology, Ahuriri, Napier, New Zealand.
Sarah GerritsenSchool of Population Health, Waipapa Taumata Rau-University of Auckland, Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-8365-5023
Eastern Institute of Technology · NZUniversity of Auckland · NZ

Funding

Better Start National Science Challenge, Cure KidsUniversity of Auckland
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2020, a government-funded healthy school lunch program was introduced in a quarter of New Zealand schools, selected due to high levels of socio-economic barriers. This study assesses the impact of the introduction of the school lunch program from family (whānau), student and school principal perspectives. Across four schools, we conducted five focus groups (two with secondary students and three with family members) and four school principal interviews. Participating schools represented a range of contexts: primary and secondary, schools with cooks in on-site kitchens and schools receiving meals delivered by external caterers. Thematic analysis was used to develop themes describing the health, wellbeing and nutritional impact of the program. Family participants were 82% Indigenous Māori and self-identified as having 'borderline' (73.5%) or no financial security (8.8%). Seven positive impact themes were identified: improved food security, enhanced equity, increased appreciation of healthy foods for students, enhanced mana (wellbeing) for all, reduced financial hardship/stress for families, opportunities for nutritional learning and recognition that appreciation and uptake happen over time. Four negative impact themes were identified: low uptake that created food waste, perception that healthy food is not palatable for students, lack of knowledge of the program and loss of agency for students. This is the largest intervention in nutrition and food security for children implemented in New Zealand since the 1930's. The first 2 years have offered wellbeing and financial benefits for students and families, particularly when school environments promote uptake. More involvement of students and family members in the program planning is essential.

Indexed as

Child HealthMaori PeopleMealsSchool Health ServicesChildHealth StatusHumansNew ZealandNutritional StatusRefuse DisposalSchoolsfood securityNew Zealandnutrition policyschool lunchesschool meal program

Identifiers

PMID37590384
PMCPMC10434982
OpenAlexW4385964365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.