↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of alternative school feeding models on nutrition, education, agriculture and other social outcomes in Ghana: rationale, randomised design and baseline data

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
383 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of alternative school feeding models on nutrition, education, agriculture and other social outcomes in Ghana: rationale, randomised design and baseline data
Published in
Trials, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-1116-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aulo Gelli, Edoardo Masset, Gloria Folson, Anthoni Kusi, Daniel K. Arhinful, Felix Asante, Irene Ayi, Kwabena M. Bosompem, Kristie Watkins, Lutuf Abdul-Rahman, Rosanna Agble, Getrude Ananse-Baden, Daniel Mumuni, Elisabetta Aurino, Meena Fernandes, Lesley Drake

Abstract

'Home-grown' school feeding programmes are complex interventions with the potential to link the increased demand for school feeding goods and services to community-based stakeholders, including smallholder farmers and women's groups. There is limited rigorous evidence, however, that this is the case in practice. This evaluation will examine explicitly, and from a holistic perspective, the simultaneous impact of a national school meals programme on micronutrient status, alongside outcomes in nutrition, education and agriculture domains. The 3-year study involves a cluster-randomised control trial designed around the scale-up of the national school feeding programme, including 116 primary schools in 58 districts in Ghana. The randomly assigned interventions are: 1) a school feeding programme group, including schools and communities where the standard government programme is implemented; 2) 'home-grown' school feeding, including schools and communities where the standard programme is implemented alongside an innovative pilot project aimed at enhancing nutrition and agriculture; and 3) a control group, including schools and households from communities where the intervention will be delayed by at least 3 years, preferably without informing schools and households. Primary outcomes include child health and nutritional status, school participation and learning, and smallholder farmer income. Intermediate outcomes along the agriculture and nutrition pathways will also be measured. The evaluation will follow a mixed-method approach, including child-, household-, school- and community-level surveys as well as focus group discussions with project stakeholders. The baseline survey was completed in August 2013 and the endline survey is planned for November 2015. The tests of balance show significant differences in the means of a number of outcome and control variables across the intervention groups. Important differences across groups include marketed surplus, livestock income, per capita food consumption and intake, school attendance, and anthropometric status in the 2-5 and 5-15 years age groups. In addition, approximately 19 % of children in the target age group received some form of free school meals at baseline. Designing and implementing the evaluation of complex interventions is in itself a complex undertaking, involving a multi-disciplinary research team working in close collaboration with programme- and policy-level stakeholders. Managing the complexity from an analytical and operational perspective is an important challenge. The analysis of the baseline data indicates that the random allocation process did not achieve statistically comparable treatment groups. Differences in outcomes and control variables across groups will be controlled for when estimating treatment effects. ISRCTN66918874 (registered on 5 March 2015).

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 383 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Unknown 380 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 59 15%
Researcher 39 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 9%
Student > Bachelor 33 9%
Student > Postgraduate 22 6%
Other 75 20%
Unknown 121 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 48 13%
Social Sciences 46 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 41 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 7%
Psychology 15 4%
Other 66 17%
Unknown 139 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,212,628
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#45
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,807
of 405,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#14
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 405,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.