↓ Skip to main content

School Feeding and Girls’ Enrollment: The Effects of Alternative Implementation Modalities in Low-Income Settings in Sub-Saharan Africa

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, May 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
School Feeding and Girls’ Enrollment: The Effects of Alternative Implementation Modalities in Low-Income Settings in Sub-Saharan Africa
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00076
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aulo Gelli

Abstract

School feeding interventions are implemented in nearly every country in the world, with the potential to support the education, health and nutrition of school children. In terms of impact on school participation, there is little evidence to show that different school feeding modalities have different effect sizes. To examine the influence of different school feeding modalities on primary school enrollment, particularly for girls, in 32 countries across sub-Saharan Africa. An observational study involving a meta-analysis of published data was developed to examine program effect. Schools were divided according to the type and length of the program: those with existing programs, those that had had school feeding for less than 1 year, and a counterfactual including schools without a program but that were going to initiate school feeding within the survey year. The intervention consisted of two different types of school feeding: onsite meals alone or onsite meals plus take-home rations. Changes in enrollment, both total and disaggregated by grade and gender, over a 1-year period, were used to assess effects of school feeding. To control for pre-program characteristics in the beneficiary population, data on covariates were also examined before the school feeding intervention began and after one year of implementation. Using this design a comparison of enrollment levels was made between the types of treatment schools and controls schools during the period school feeding was first introduced. Standard multiple regression models were used to analyze program effect. School feeding programs were found to have statistically significant increases in enrollment, with effect size of about 10%. The changes on enrollment varied by modality of school feeding provision and by gender, with onsite meals appearing to have stronger effects in the first year of treatment in the lower primary grades, and onsite combined with take-home rations also being effective post-year 1, particularly for girls that were receiving the extra take-home rations. School feeding programs had a positive impact on school enrollment. The operational nature of the survey data used in the meta-analysis, however, limits the robustness of the design and validity of the findings. Nevertheless, this analysis is the first to study possible links between enrollment and length of program duration using multivariable models, examining whether programs reach a saturation point or steady state beyond which school feeding may in fact have no further benefits on school enrollment. Further research is required to examine this issue in more detail.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 70 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 28%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 17 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 12 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 8%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 21 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 28 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,606,527
of 23,213,531 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#632
of 10,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,722
of 267,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#5
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,213,531 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 267,434 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.