Skip to main content
Public Health Nutrition logoLink to Public Health Nutrition
. 2020 Oct 14;24(14):4642–4662. doi: 10.1017/S1368980020004024

Characteristics of successful primary school-based experiential nutrition programmes: a systematic literature review

Karen Charlton 1,2,*, Teagan Comerford 1, Natika Deavin 1, Karen Walton 1
PMCID: PMC10195355  PMID: 33050980

Abstract

Objective:

Diet and nutrition in childhood has been associated with the risk of chronic disease later in life. The aim of this review was to identify key characteristics of successful experiential nutrition interventions aimed to change nutrition-related cognitive and behavioural outcomes in primary schoolchildren.

Design:

A systematic literature review was undertaken using search terms (‘food security’, ‘school’, ‘nutrition’ and ‘program’) applied to five scientific databases (CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Medline and Academic Search complete), with outcomes defined as nutrition-related knowledge, attitudes and/or dietary behaviours.

Participants:

Primary school-aged children exposed to interventions conducted, at least partially, on school grounds.

Results:

A total of 3800 articles were identified from the initial search and manual searching, of which sixty-seven articles were eligible for inclusion. Forty-two articles met the criteria of being successful, defined as achieving significant differences in outcomes of interest, accompanied by a demonstrated reach. Interventions included school gardens (n 9), food provision (n 5), taste testing (n 8), cooking classes (n 10) and multicomponent programmes (n 10). Nutrition education (when combined with taste testing), cooking-related activities and gardening interventions increased children’s willingness to taste unfamiliar foods including new fruits and vegetables, improved their cooking and food preparation skills and increased nutritional knowledge.

Conclusions:

This review provides evidence that nutrition education programmes in primary schoolchildren that are experiential in nature are most likely to be successful if they include multiple strategies, have parental involvement and focus specifically on vegetable intake.

Keywords: Primary school, Nutrition intervention, Experiential, Dietary behaviour, Knowledge, Experiential learning, Successful


Diet and nutrition in early childhood has been associated with the risk of chronic disease later in life(1). Therefore, it is important that healthy dietary behaviours are established in young children as these are likely to track through adolescence into adulthood(2). In the past decade, primary school-aged children have been identified as having poor quality diets which are typically high in fat and sugar, whilst being inadequate in wholegrains, fruit and vegetables (FV)(3). Poor quality diets can be attributed to many factors including lack of access to healthy options, individual taste preferences and lack of food literacy by both parents and children(4). This emphasises a need for programmes to target these modifiable factors.

The Ottawa Charter recommends that in order to be successful, health promotion interventions require supportive environments. This socioecological approach to improving health-related behaviours highlights the inter-relatedness of people, health and the communities in which they live(5). Settings-based approaches that focus on creating supportive environments have been shown to be effective in influencing health-related behaviour change. Schools provide a logical setting in which to promote healthy eating behaviours as they have been shown to be particularly influential on children’s eating patterns(68). A recent review of twenty-seven school-based interventions reported moderate, but significant, effects on fruit intake; however, there is less evidence for beneficial effects on increasing vegetable intake(4). It has been identified that most health behaviours and eating habits are established before the age of 15 years(9); therefore, it is important that public health interventions target children in their earlier years to maximise their chances of developing lifelong positive health outcomes.

Experiential learning is defined as ‘learning from life experience’, rather than using didactic or theoretically based teaching methods that assess outcomes based on cognitive skills and academic knowledge(10). A systematic literature review was conducted to investigate the evidence to date on experiential nutrition interventions aimed at primary school-aged children and to identify the key characteristics of successful programmes that influenced nutrition-related cognitive and behavioural outcomes (nutrition-related knowledge, preferences and attitudes; self-efficacy; and dietary intake) in this age group.

Methods

The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017072822)(11), and the findings were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines(12).

Search strategy

The bibliographic databases that were searched included CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Medline and Academic Search. The search was performed up to 30 June 2020. Search terms included: ‘Food insecurity’ OR ‘Food security’ OR ‘Health knowledge’ OR ‘Health literacy’ OR ‘Health education’ OR ‘Health attitudes’ OR ‘Health behavio#r’ OR ‘Health practices’ OR ‘Food knowledge’ OR Attitudes OR practices OR knowledge AND School* AND Nutrition* OR Food OR Healthy eating AND Program OR Project OR initiative. Search terms were adapted according to individual database requirements. In addition, citations and reference list searches were also conducted. An example of the search strategy is shown in Supplementary Table 1. Although food security was listed in the original PROSPERO protocol registration, lack of quantifiable and comparable measures of food security meant that this outcome was not included in the final review.

Eligibility criteria

Citations were collated into EndNote version X9(13), and duplicates removed. Abstracts were reviewed by researchers (T.C. and N.D.) against inclusion criteria to determine eligibility of studies. The full-text articles of all potentially relevant citations were accessed and reviewed. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or adjudication by other members of the research team (K.C. and K.W.). Criteria for inclusion were experiential-based nutrition interventions conducted in primary school settings, including children aged 5–12 years, and reporting in English language.

Studies were excluded if: (1) the programme intervention was paired with a physical activity component (only outcomes related to nutrition interventions were targeted); (2) not predominantly experiential in nature, meaning that effects may have been attributable to other non-experiential aspects of the intervention; (3) outcomes reported not relevant to the research question; (4) did not report baseline and post-intervention measures; (5) theoretical/educational nutrition intervention (except in the case of being accompanied and supported by an experiential component); (6) not, at least partially, conducted in the grounds of a primary school setting and (7) intervention was designed for medical conditions, such as diabetes or obesity. Eligible study designs included randomised controlled trials (RCT), cluster RCT, quasi-experimental design and cohort studies.

Intervention types

Interventions were limited to experiential programmes in primary school settings that targeted beneficial changes in nutrition knowledge, preferences, attitudes, self-efficacy and dietary intake. Interventions included: School gardens; food provision; taste testing; cooking lessons; multi-component or other, relevant and interventions.

Outcomes

Health-related outcomes targeted in this review included dietary intake, nutrition-related knowledge, preferences or attitudes and self-efficacy. Measures for dietary intake were those reported in grams or servings per day from self or parental reports obtained through dietary recall, food diaries and/or FFQ. Measures of knowledge included response-scale questionnaires, tests on food-related knowledge or recognition of healthy food items. Measures for attitudes, preferences and self-efficacy were response scale questionnaires.

Interventions were deemed to be successful if they reported significant changes in one or more of the outcomes of interest and demonstrated reach (sample size of at least 100 and some degree of generalisability). Studies that were classified as being successful were scrutinised for key characteristics of the intervention that contributed to their success, and this information is presented in order to inform recommendations for future programmes. This data extraction was performed independently by two researchers (T.C. and K.C.) who then reached consensus.

Data extraction

Data collection methods followed the Cochrane review methodology(14). Data were tabulated in a summary of findings (Table 1), according to the type of experiential activity.

Table 1.

Summary of findings: studies on experiential nutrition interventions in primary schools

Author/year; country; funding Sample Intervention duration Intervention Control group Relevant outcomes Statistical significance/95 % CI/effect size GRADE rating(15)
School gardens
 Randomised controlled trials
  Davis et al., 2016(41); California, USA; National Institute of Health grant Grade 3–5, n 304 12 weeks LA Sprouts programme – 90 min/week of gardening, NE and cooking Y Increased identification of vegetables
Nutrition and gardening knowledge
More likely to garden at home
P = 0·001
P = 0·003
P = 0·003
High
  Hutchinson et al., 2015(49); York, UK; National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research Grade 3–4, n 777 18 months RHS led school gardening intervention Y
Teacher-led gardening intervention
Teacher-led group was more likely than the RHS-led group to report that they ‘ate lots fruit’.
The RHS-led group was associated with a greater increase in the number of vegetables recognised
NS
P = 0·031
High
 Quasi-experimental design
  Duncan et al., 2015(42); Coventry, UK; Tanita healthy weight trust Grade 2–3, n 77 12 weeks School gardening programme
2 × 30 min garden-based classes (including tasting) per week and supporting curricula education
Y Improvements in intentions & attitudes in relation to FV behaviour P < 0·001
P < 0·01
Low
  Kararo et al., 2016(43); Indiana, US; State Department of Health Grade 3, n 222 6–10 weeks 1 h/week school garden lessons, including preparing and tasting FV n Higher healthy food choice self-efficacy and higher family post-programme fruit and vegetable consumption P < 0·05
P < 0·05
Low
  Lineberger and Zajicek, 2000(44); Texas, US; Interdisciplinary research initiative programme Grade 3 and 5, n 111 Not reported Garden Activity Guide – 34 activities including outdoor garden or indoor grow laboratory n Increase in student’s vegetable preference and snack preference P = 0·03
P = 0·009
Low
  Leuven et al., 2018(45); The Netherlands; Financial support from intervention primary schools Grade 4–6, n 215 1 academic year 17 × 1 h lessons (1 classroom, 15 gardening and 1 harvesting and cooking) Y Increases in student vegetable knowledge (ability to recognise)
Self-reported preferences for vegetables (remained high at 1-year follow-up)
P < 0·001
NS
Low
  McAleese and Rankin, 2007(46); Idaho, USA; funding not reported Grade 6, n 95 12 weeks (1) 12-week classroom NE
(2) 12-week classroom NE accompanied with garden experience.
Y (2) Fruit servings increased 1·13/d
(2) Vegetable servings increased 1·44/d
(2) Combined FV servings increased from 1·93–4·5 servings/d.
(2) Increased vitamin C and fibre intakes
P < 0·001
P < 0·001
P = 0·016
P = 0·001
Low
  Parmer et al., 2009(47); Alabama, USA; funding not reported Grade 2, n 115 students 28 weeks (1) NE and Gardening, 1 h per fortnight NE with 1 h of gardening per fortnight
(2) NE, received 1 h NE per fortnight
Y (1) and (2) Increases in food group knowledge, FV identification & willingness to try FV.
(2) More likely to choose and consume vegetable in a lunchroom setting.
NS
P < 0·001
P = 0·005
P < 0·01
t = 3·19
Low
  Ratcliffe et al., 2011(48); Massachusetts, USA; Tufts Institute of the Environment Tufts College, tufts centre for children and the delores liebman fellowship Grade 6, n 320 students 13 weeks Garden sessions. 1 h × week and usual health science curricula education Y
Received same health science education.
Increased number of vegetables correctly identified.
Increased willingness to taste vegetables
Increased preference for vegetables
Higher variety of vegetables tasted.
P = 0·002
NS
P = 0·029
P < 0·001
Low
Food provision
 Randomised controlled trials
  He et al., 2009(51); Ontario, Canada; Ontario’s Action Plan for Healthy Eating and Active Living, the Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion Grade 5–8, n 1277 21 weeks (1) FFVS 3 FV snacks per week and enhanced NE
(2) FFVS 3 FV snacks per week and usual grade level nutrition curriculum.
Y
No FFVS and usual grade level nutrition curriculum
(1) and (2) appeared to have slightly higher FV preference scores than the control group.
Post-intervention (1) and (2) increased total fruit and vegetable intake (0·6 and 0·5 serving/d, respectively).
(1) Students consumed more fruit and vegetables at school than students in the Control group (0·49 serving/d)
NS
NS
P < 0·05
High
  Murphy et al., 2011(53); Wales, UK; Welsh assembly government Grade 5 and 6, n 4350 Intervention duration not reported.
4-month and 12-month follow-up.
Free daily breakfast programme. 5 × week. Y Increased positive attitudes towards eating breakfast
Increased consumption of healthy food items at breakfast
No difference in the healthy/unhealthy food items consumed during the rest of the day.
+0·74, 95 % CI 0·05, 1·43
P < 0·01
+0·23, 95 % CI 0·09, 0·37
High
  Tak et al., 2008(52); Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport and Holland Produce Promotion in Zoetermeer Grade 4, n 771 Intervention duration not reported.
Follow-up at 1 year and 2 years.
Provision of FV twice a week during a fruit break and extra NE Y Significant increase in knowledge of the recommendations of fruit intake for boys.
Significant increase in fruit intake.
No effect for vegetable intake
P < 0·05
P < 0·05
High
 Quasi-Experimental
  Sharma et al., 2016(50); Texas, USA; Texas Department of Agriculture and Feeding Texas Grade 1, n 717 16 weeks BB intervention, involving distribution of 50–60 servings of fresh food (donated from local food banks) sent home to families. Weekly, healthy recipe tastings featuring food from take-home kits and health education lessons in schools (including parents). Y
Received health education lessons with no BB.
Increased in consumption of fruits and vegetables.
Reduction in the amount of added sugars consumed
Increase in fibre intakes (at mid-point but not end point)
P = 0·046
P = 0·049
P = 0·014
P = 0·034
Low
 Cohort Study
  Kastorini et al., 2016(54); Athens, Greece; DIATROFI programme funded by Stavros Niarchos Foundation Grade 1–12, n 3941 Median duration 7 months Provision of free daily meal and promotion of healthy nutrition for students and their families n Increase for girls by 0·8 % for adoption of Mediterranean diet pattern.
Higher consumption of all food groups in students with lower food insecurity.
Increases for consumption of Milk/yoghurt by 17 %, vegetables by 17 %, fruits by 18 % and whole-grain products by 88 %.
P < 0·05
P < 0·05
Low
Cooking lessons
 Randomised controlled trials
  Cunningham-Sabo and Lahse, 2013(69); Colorado, USA; National Research Initiative Grant from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Grade 4, n 257 students 10 weeks CWK programme – 3 × 2 h cooking lessons, 3 × 1 h FV tasting sessions and 1 × 1 h NE class Y CWK intervention significantly improved student’s vegetable preference.
Fruit preference increased.
Improvement in attitudes towards cooking and self-efficacy for CWK treatment group.
P = 0·001
NS
P = 0·029
P < 0·001
High
 Quasi-Experimental
  Bisset et al., 2008(63); Montreal, USA; Doctorate research bursary Grade 5 and 6, n 388 Students exposed to programme for 6 years Little Cooks programme – 8 workshops involving food preparation and tasting Y Increased knowledge of nutritional value of food and cooking.
Increased knowledge of nutrition content, cooking procedures and food transformation.
No change in knowledge of food guide, local food produce and international cuisine
P < 0·001
P < 0·05
Low
  Bai et al., 2018(72); South Korea; Not reported Grade 2, n 71 4 weeks Weekly 40-min session including classroom lecture and hands-on cooking activities with two vegetables introduced in each session Y Significant improvement in vegetable consumption, intention, attitude, preference and self-efficacy compared with control. P ≤ 0·01 for self-efficacy and P ≤ 0·001 for others Low
  Caraher et al., 2013(68); London, UK; Worshipful Company of Cooks and supported by Academy of Culinary Arts Grade 4 and 5, n 169 1 year ‘Cooks adopt a School’ Program, involving 3× cooking sessions throughout one school year hosted by a professional chef. Y Increases in vegetable consumption.
Increase was in students cooking confidence
P = 0·002
P = 0·000
Low
  Chen et al., 2014(65); California, USA; USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative seed grant project. Grade K-2, n 1204 3 months A multicultural, multi-component intervention involving classroom food demonstrations (1× month) and tasting and an at-home cooking component with take home food kits. Y Students reported significantly higher preferences for all seven vegetables featured in food demonstrations and cooking.
Student’s frequency of consuming 3 featured vegetables also increased between pre- and post-intervention.
Increased students’ involvement in food preparation at home.
P < 0·001 for five vegetables,
P < 0·05 for two vegetables.
P = 0·008 (jicama)
P = 0·017 (bell pepper) and
P = 0·001 (asparagus)
P = 0·008
Low
  Cunningham-Sabo and Lohse, 2014(71); Santa-Fe, USA; not reported Grade 4, n 961 Not reported (1) CWK-CT: Cooking with Kids curriculum including cooking and taste lessons and
(2) CWK-T: CWK curriculum with no cooking, only taste lessons.
Y In the CWK-CT group, the improvements in FV preference were significantly greater in males than females.
Vegetable preference improved for both CWK-CT and CWK-T groups compared with control.
Cooking self-efficacy was improved in students who participated in the CWK-CT intervention.
(P = 0·03)
(P < 0·05)
NS
Low
  Jarpe-Ratner et al., 2016(66); Chicago, USA; ConAgra Foods Grade 3–8, n 271 10 weeks 2 h × week cooking and NE course led by a trained chef-instructor N Nutrition knowledge of students increased.
Participants increased their intake of fruit & vegetables.
Increases in students cooking self-efficacy
No reduction in amount of chips and soda consumed.
P < 0·05
P < 0·001
P < 0·005
P < 0·001
Low
  Liquori et al., 1998(67); New York, USA; Part federal and private funding by Cooperative Agreement, Central Harlem Community of New York City. Grade K-6, n 590 1 academic year (1) CS + FEL: CookShop programme plus food and environment lessons.
(2) CS: n = CookShop only.
(3) FEL: food and environment lessons only
Y Students who participated in the CS or CS + FEL programme reported higher mean food preference scores.
Both CS and FEL had a positive effect on food knowledge.
The CS intervention appeared to have a larger effect on food knowledge than the FEL intervention for children in grades 4–6.
The CS also increased self-efficacy in cooking in older children.
Effect: 17·77
P < 0·001
effect: 7·69
P < 0·05
effect: 0·94
Low
  Quinn, Horacek and Castle, 2003(70); New York State, USA; not reported Grade 5, n 126 1 academic year CookShop cooking lessons. Y Intervention increased identification and tasting of fruit and vegetables.
Intervention group consumed more fibre, folic acid and fruit, milk and decreased intake of added foods.
(P < 0·05)
(P < 0·05)
Low
  Zahr and Sibeko, 2017(64); Vancouver, CA; CAPSTONE project for the University of Massachusetts MPH in Nutrition programme and did not receive any funding of financial incentives. Grade 4–5, n 100 Intervention duration not reported
Follow-up 3 weeks
Project CHEF project involving cooking and tasting foods. 2·5 h × 4–5 sessions Y Increased familiarity and preference for healthy foods and self-reported cooking skills.
19 % increased trying new foods,
13 % increase in willingness to try new foods.
73 % of parents saw increases in their child’s cooking skills,
43·4 % of children asked to make a recipe at home,
45·1 % asked to buy specific ingredients
P = 0·009 broccoli
P = 0·000 swiss chard
P = 0·038 carrots
P = 0·001 quinoa
Low
Taste testing
 Randomised controlled trials
  Gold et al., 2017(59); North Dakota, USA; funding not reported Grade: 3, n 662 7 weeks 7 × interactive lessons involved in the GWWFV programme. (1) GWWFV + TT or (2) GWWFV + No TT
Both intervention groups also participated in federal FFVSP
Y
Did not receive GWWFV or taste testing but did receive FFVSP.
Both groups with access to the FFVSP consumed more fruits and vegetables.
GWWFV + TT group consumed more fruits and vegetables compared with GWWFV and no TT.
GWWFV + TT group also had a greater reduction in the consumption of potato chips and French fries.
P < 0·01
P < 0·0001
P < 0·05
P < 0·05
High
  LaChausse, 2017(61); California, USA; US Department of Agriculture SNAP-ED programme, through the California Department of Public Health Grade 4–6, n 275 3 months Harvest of the Month (HOM) programme, involving tasting produce, presentations, newsletters, recipes. Y
Participated in non-nutrition-related class (e.g. arts and craft)
Increased FV preference.
No effects on FV consumption or other nutritional related behaviours, knowledge or efficacy.
P = 0·04 High
  Morrill et al., 2016(60); Utah, USA; Food Dudes programme was supported by grants from the US Department of Agriculture Grade 1–5, n 2292 4·5 months
6-month follow-up
Food Dudes is a multi-component nutrition intervention based on role-modelling, repetitive tastings and rewards for FV consumption.
(1) Students received the Food Dudes programme and were rewarded tangible prizes from teachers for consuming all FV provided for tasting.
(2) Students received the Food Dudes programme but were verbally praised by teachers for consuming all FV provided in tasting.
Y Food Dudes schools consumed more FV than control schools after phase I (serving Food Dudes targeted foods), with larger differences in prize schools than praise schools.
After phase II (serving naturalistic cafeteria food), Food Dudes schools consumed 46 % more fruit and vegetables than control schools, with no difference between prize and praise schools.
At 6-month follow-up, only prize schools consumed more fruit and vegetables than control schools.
92 % difference (prize)
50 % difference (praise)
NS
NS
0·12 cups, 42·9 % difference
High
 Quasi-Experimental
  Battjes-Fries et al., 2014(55); Wageningen, The Netherlands; Ministry of Economic Affairs of the Netherlands Grade 3–6, n 1183 One academic year 4-week and 6-month follow-up 10–12 nutrition lessons from the Taste Lessons programme. Lessons incorporated cooking, tasting, experiment and excursion to a farm Y At first and second follow-up, the intervention groups showed a significantly higher increase in knowledge of unfamiliar foods, food identification and healthy eating.
An increase was found in the number of foods known and tasted, intention to taste and healthy eating behaviours.
P < 0·05
P < 0·05
Low
  Day et al., 2008(56); Vancouver, CA; Action Schools! BC – Healthy Eating programme was funded by British Columbia Ministries of Health and Education, in partnership with Legacies Now Society. Grade: 4–5, n 444 12 weeks Action Schools! – 2 weekly healthy eating activities (45 min duration) + 1 monthly tasting activity Y Fruit and vegetables tasted increased by 5 %.
No change in attitude to eating, willingness to try, variety, neophobia or knowledge of FV in disease prevention.
P < 0·05 Low
  Lakkakula et al., 2010(58); Louisiana, USA; funding not reported Grade 4 and 5, n 360 10 weeks Wellness Partnership for Kids programme. A cafeteria-based tasting programme paired with school wellness curriculum.
Children were provided 4 vegetables with their school lunch 1 d/week
n Students who reported ‘not liking’ the vegetables after the first tasting increased their liking for three out of the four vegetables by the 10th tasting (improvements were not seen until the 8th tasting). P = 0·05 Low
  Lakkakula et al., 2011(57); Louisiana, USA; funding not reported Grade 1, 3 and 5, n 379 8 weeks
Follow-up tastings were conducted at 4 and 10 months
Building Preferences for FV program. Students were offered a taste of 4 fruits 2 × week for weeks 1–4 and 4 vegetables 2 × week for weeks 5–8. n Students who indicated they ‘did not like’ after first tasting improved their liking for all items after the programme.
On average, it required two tastes of fruit and five tastes of vegetable to observe a change in liking score.
All improvements in liking were maintained at the two subsequent follow-ups.
P = 0·00 (8 items)
P = 0·01 (2 items)
Low
  Perry et al., 1998(62); Minnesota, USA; Grant provided by National Cancer Institute Grade 4–5, n 424 8 weeks
1-month follow-up
5-a-d Power Plus intervention – 16 × 45-min classroom sessions (2 × week) including snack preparation and taste testing.
The intervention also included food service changes, parental education/involvement and industry support.
n There was a significant increase in fruit consumption (0·62 serving/d difference between treatment and control) and combined FV consumption.
Increases in lunchtime vegetable consumption in girls, daily fruit consumption and the proportion of total daily energy content attributable to FV.
P = 0·00
P = 0·00
Low
Multi-component interventions
 Randomised controlled trials
  Lakshman et al., 2010(75); Cambridgeshire, England; Health Enterprise East, NHS innovations hub for east England assisted in producing the card game and corresponding curriculum. Grade 5 and 6, n 2519 9 weeks Students participated in the card Game ‘Top Grub’ with nutritional information and traffic light quality rating for various foods were accompanied by specialised education curriculum to compliment card game. Y Mean nutrition knowledge score was higher in intervention group compared with control.
Children in the intervention schools indicated that they ‘are currently eating a healthy diet’ (39·6 %) or ‘would try to eat a healthy diet’ (35·7 %) more often than control schools.
95 % CI 0·05, 2·16; P = 0·042
P < 0·001
High
  Sahota et al., 2019(82); North England; Nestlé UK Healthy Kids Programme Grade 3–6; n 358 17 months The PhunkyFoods Programme is composed of intervention functions that impact on all three of the essential conditions for behaviour change, capability, opportunity and motivation. Y Significantly higher healthy balanced diet knowledge scores compared with control pupils in Year 4.
At 18 months, the mean percentage of vegetables liked was higher in intervention group.
Similarly, percentage of fruits liked was also higher
Mean difference 5·1 (95 % CI 0·1–10·1, P = 0·05).
(intervention 53·9 % v. 43·0 % control).
(intervention 76·9 % v. 67·2 % control).
High
 Quasi-Experimental
  Bissell et al., 2018(77); USA Grades 2 and 3 and then 3 and 4; n 102 2 years A health intervention programme with visual presentation on topics relating to food advertising, nutrition, and fast-food options. Discussions held in class and each child given a folder with the presentation information provided as a handout, along with related games and additional activities to complete at home with their parents or on their own. n Significant positive increase in nutritional knowledge, attitudes towards healthy eating and exercise, food preferences and eating behaviour. P < 0·001 for all outcomes Very low
  Jayne 2019(78); New Jersey, USA; RobertWood Johnson Foundation Grade 3, n 194 1 h Incorporating edutainment (Jump with Jill) into both a NE campaign and its evaluation; learning through play. n All aggregate responses for nutrition knowledge, attitudes and intention became significantly more positive following intervention P = 0·05 Very low
  Jung et al., 2019(79); New York, USA; not reported K to Grade 6
K-2nd graders (n) = 646
3rd–5th Graders – 826
1 year The Healthy Highway© Program: an interactive, imaginative, content-based programme that teaches and reinforces essential health-related topics to K-5 students on healthy foods and basic nutrition with a road safety analogue. Includes cafeteria activities. Y Statistically significant more students improved their healthy eating literacy by including ‘healthy (green light) and unhealthy (red light)’ foods among their daily food choices. P < 0·05 Very low
  Kim et al., 2020(80); Seoul, South Korea; Joint Research Project and Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea. Grade 3, n 95
Grade 5, n 107
12 weeks Mediator model including gardening, nutritional education and cooking activities utilising harvested foods from garden. n Significant increase in dietary self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, gardening knowledge, nutrition knowledge, vegetable preference, and vegetable consumption.
Significant decrease in food neophobia
P < 0·001
P < 0·05
Very low
  Poelman et al., 2019(81); Sydney, Asutralia; Hort innovations, Sydney, Australia 8–12 year olds, n 299 Five 1-h teacher led interventions Vegetable Education Resource to Increase Children’s Acceptance and Liking (VERTICAL), an experiential learning programme on vegetables, combining elements from sensory education and scientific insights into children’s development of vegetable acceptance, such as exposure and role modelling. Y Increased knowledge about: vegetables and the senses; ability to verbalise sensations; vegetable acceptance; and willingness to try vegetables.
No effect on food neophobia
P = 0·002
P < 0·001
P = 0·007
P = 0·05
Very low
  Yoder et al., 2014(76); Wisconsin, USA; Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection Grade 3–5, n 1117 1 academic year Farm-to-school programme including Harvest of the Month, school garden, tasting and classroom lessons. n Higher willingness to try FV.
Knowledge of nutrition and agriculture.
No effect on overall dietary patterns.
Small increase in FV consumption from baseline amoung those with lower intakes.
(P < 0·001)
(P < 0·001)
NS
Very low
  Evans et al., 2012(73); Texas, USA; SHK was funded by Michael and Susan Dell Foundation Grade 6–7, n 246 5 months The SHK intervention involving six components:
(1). In-class lessons;
(2). After-school gardening programme;
(3). Farm-to-school (local food provided in cafeteria); (4). Farmers’ visits to school;
(5). Taste testing;
(6). Field trips to farms.
Student exposure varied between and within schools. Exposure was determined by student reported questionnaires.
Y At post-test students who were exposed to two or more components of the intervention reported increases in preference for FV, FV per day, self-efficacy, nutrition knowledge and a lower preference for unhealthy food.
Interventions which saw the greatest improvements were farmers’ visits, taste testing and cafeteria components.
NS, se 0·12
P = 0·0134, se 0·38
P = 0·0091, se 0·74
P = 0·0095, se 0·22
P = 0·0089, se 0·40
Very low
  Prelip et al., 2012(74); California, USA; The California Dairy Council provided in-class materials and 5-a-d-powerplay education curricula Grades 3–5, n 399 One-academic year (1) Intervention + Network Los Angeles Unified Schools District programme, included schools’ visits from chefs and farmers, theatrical performances, physical activity, art and HOM introducing new fruits and vegetables including taste testing. Accompanied with teacher training (1·5 h) with NE for students and parents.
(2) Intervention Same as Intervention+ without parent NE programme.
Y
Received NE based upon curriculum requirements of respective schools.
The Intervention+ produced improvements in consumption of vegetables, nutrition knowledge, student attitudes and beliefs towards consumption of vegetables and teacher influence on students’ attitudes towards FV NS
P < 0·05
P < 0·01
P < 0·05
Very low

RHS, Royal Horticulture Society; FV, fruit and vegetable; NE, nutrition education; FFVS, FV snack programme; BB, Brighter Bites; CWK, Cooking with Kids; GWWFV, Go Wild with Fruits and Vegetables; TT, taste testing; FFVSP, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program; SHK, Sprouting Healthy Kids; LA, Los Angeles.

Assessment of methodological quality

The GRADE criteria were used to assess quality of evidence(15). Only RCT and cluster-RCT study designs could be assigned a high-quality rating, while quasi-experimental and cohort studies were assigned a low or very low rating. Discrepancies in quality allocation were resolved by consensus between members of the research team (T.C., K.C. and K.W.). The strength of evidence of studies was evaluated using the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Levels of Evidence Manual.

Results

Study selection

The database search identified 3908 articles, with an additional six studies being included through manual searching of citations and grey literature. After refinement by title, 1361 articles were further investigated by reviewing their abstracts, thereafter, leaving 211 relevant articles for which full texts were extracted. Sixty-seven articles were identified to be relevant regarding experiential nutrition interventions and reported on the outcomes of interest. Of those, forty-two were determined as being successful and were reviewed in-depth (Fig. 1). Of the successful interventions, eleven were cluster-randomised trials (National Health and Medical Research Council’s level II), thirty quasi-experimental design trials, including pre-post studies (level III-2) and one cohort study (level III-2), as shown in Table 1. Twenty-five studies that were considered to be unsuccessful, with reasons for this classification, are summarised in Supplementary Table 2 (1640).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses flow diagram for systematic literature reviews

Experiential interventions and characteristics

Studies were dated from 1998 to 2020 and were conducted in Australia, UK, USA, Netherlands, Canada, South Korea and Greece. Study populations varied from 77 to 2519. Successful interventions included school gardens (n 9)(4149), food provision (n 5)(5054), taste testing (n 8)(5562), cooking lessons (n 10)(6372) and other multiple component interventions which included additional activities (n 10)(7382) such as farmer visits, Harvest of the Month Program or a nutrition education card game. Cognitive-based outcomes included food and nutrition-related knowledge, preferences, attitudes and self-efficacy. Behavioural outcomes included student or parent-reported dietary intakes of FV, wholegrains, dairy products, total fibre, added sugars, total fat and vitamin C. Of the school gardening programmes, nine of twenty identified studies were determined as successful, with the interventions typically lasting for 10–15 weeks(4148). Gardening interventions were the most intensive in relation to time and experiences, provided that they were often accompanied with harvesting, cooking and tasting of the produce grown(41,42,4548), in addition to tailored classroom nutrition education. The two highest quality studies (RCT) for which the evidence was strongest were a 12-week Little Sprouts programme (n 304)(41) and an 18-month Royal Horticulture Society-led programme (n 777)(42). LA Sprouts is a 12-week gardening, nutrition and cooking intervention comprising 90 min/week that improved knowledge of nutrition and likelihood to garden at home, while the UK Royal Horticulture Society-led programme was successful at increasing knowledge of vegetables in the groups randomised to receive instruction from external professionals rather than those led by teachers. The remaining seven studies were of low quality and mostly demonstrated improvements in preferences for FV and willingness to try new ones, with only three studies measuring actual consumption of these foods(43,46,47).

All eleven of the gardening studies that were deemed as being unsuccessful, because of not achieving significant changes in the outcomes of interest (n 8) or having small sample sizes or lacking generalisability (n 3), were quasi-experimental and rated as either low (n 4) or very low (n 7) quality (see online supplementary material, Supplemental Table 2). Characteristics of these studies are informative and presented briefly here. A pilot project(16) implemented in an inner city neighbourhood of Johannesburg, South Africa that is home to a large community of migrants did not improve students’ dietary diversity or nutritional status over a 1-year period, as high year-round yield of produce was not attained. Two key learnings from the project were: (1) a need to change school culture by incorporating the garden as a catalyst for whole of school development; a fundamental concept of the WHO health promoting school model that has shown to be modestly successful(83); and (2) long-term engagement with the garden to ensure sustainability, with a recommended minimum of 3 years in order to impart skills, mentor across multiple growing seasons and have time to adequately integrate a garden into the culture of the school.

The Australian Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program consists of a minimum of a 45-min garden class and a 1·5-h kitchen class every week as an ongoing part of the school curriculum. Garden and kitchen classes are supervised by specialist staff with prior qualifications and experience in horticulture and hospitality, respectively, who are assisted by the classroom teacher. Surprisingly, in a non-randomised comparison of six schools receiving the programme and six control schools, neither child well-being (assessed through self-reported, health-related quality-of-life questionnaires) nor school performance differed between intervention and control schools. However, recruitment bias was evident in that five of the six control schools that agreed to participate had started their own edible gardens by commencement of the study. Thus, many of the children in the control schools also participated in gardening (and some cooking) activities, although for substantially fewer hours and in a less structured way than in the intervention schools.

A pilot of the LA Sprouts programme examined its influence on dietary intake, obesity risk and nutrition-related behavioral and psychosocial parameters in predominately Latino elementary students in Los Angeles(40). A weekly 45-min interactive gardening lesson was taught by a bilingual Latina-certified master gardener. The exploratory nature of the non-randomised controlled intervention was limited by the small number of participants, mostly of Latino origin, and low generalisability of the study findings. Significant results were found only for subgroups, not all participants. Despite efforts to emphasise a parental component, classes offered to parents of LA Sprouts participants were poorly attended. A later suitably powered, larger RCT study did report the programme to be effective(41).

Two studies, both from Canada, investigated the effectiveness of introducing the EarthBox® water efficient, container gardening system into primary schools(18,20) in combination with a vegetable and fruit snack programme. These container gardens can be used to grow vegetables, herbs and berries in the classroom setting. An 18-month study conducted in a rural First Nations elementary school found that although preference scores for vegetables improved 7 months following inception of the intervention, these had decreased to near baseline levels by 18 months(20). Children did not increase their home consumption of any produce they were exposed to at school, but instead the results indicated that foods most liked and disliked by children were also those most often and least often consumed by children at home, respectively. Similarly, there was a decline in vegetable preference in another 2-year programme(18).

A lack of an intervention effect on vegetable preference or consumption patterns identified in many of the unsuccessful studies raises a question regarding the necessary dose of a school intervention, and the type of school intervention required to yield enduring change. These studies suggest that school interventions to improve children’s diet quality through gardening also need to focus on influencing the home and community food environments, and increasing vegetable preferences more than fruit preferences as the latter is more difficult to shift in young children.

Of the thirteen studies investigating food provision programmes, defined as food or meals provided to children on school grounds for consumption either at school or at home, five were deemed successful (three high quality and two low quality). These were interventions that included a 16-week take-home food distribution co-op(50), a 21-week free FV snack programme(51), a 12-month school breakfast programme(53), a 12-month free meal provision during the school day(54) and a 2-year free provision of fruit or ready-to-eat vegetables (cherry tomatoes and baby carrots) twice a week during a classroom fruit break(52). Food provision interventions were also frequently paired with relevant and comprehensive classroom nutrition education(5052,54). The Brighter Bites programme was particularly successful in achieving increased intakes of FV consumption by sending home fresh food to families(50), along with recipes, and involvement of parents in health education sessions. Programmes that provided snacks or meals on school grounds influenced change in dietary behaviours whilst at school(5154), but their effect on overall diet quality is unknown. Of the three unsuccessful studies of food provision, a high-quality RCT from New Zealand found that after providing free fruit daily for one term, fruit intakes fell below baseline levels at 6 weeks of follow-up(29), indicating lack of sustained changes in dietary behaviours over time. In another RCT of moderate quality conducted in New Zealand, a free daily school breakfast programme decreased short-term hunger but did not impact on children’s overall school performance or attendance.(28)

Of eleven studies reporting on taste testing interventions, eight were found to be successful (three high and five low quality), with frequency varying between weekly(55,5760,62) and monthly(56,61). Five of these interventions also included a classroom nutrition education component(55,56,59,61,62). Of the studies that measured food consumption as an outcome,(5962) three reported significant improvements associated with exposure to foods through tasting. The Food Dudes programme(60) provided prizes as incentives and incorporated targeted foods in the school cafeteria which improved student food choices. Studies found that repeated tastings were required to impact on liking for foods, especially for vegetables. A large study from the Netherlands (n 877) that included five tasting sessions failed to change willingness to taste unfamiliar vegetables and consumption of target foods(31).

Ten(6372) of the eleven studies on cooking lesson interventions resulted in successful outcomes for self-efficacy and confidence in cooking skills. Cooking programme duration varied between three lessons(68), four lessons(65,72), five lessons(67,70), eight lessons(63) and ten lessons(64,66,69,71), with three also including classroom nutrition education(67,6972). Notably, the four studies that measured food consumption(65,66,68,70) reported improvements in dietary intake following participation in cooking classes. A single study deemed not to be successful was very low quality, conducted in only twenty-three students and provided only post-test data(37).

Ten(7382) of the eleven multicomponent activities were successful. The Australian Vegetable Education Resource to Increase Children’s Acceptance and Liking (VERTICAL) programme combined elements such as exposure to vegetables as well as role modelling. In only five 1-h sessions, children’s willingness to try new vegetables significantly increased(81). Specialised education curricula designed to be accompanied with fun activities such as the ‘Top Grub’, card game(75). Over 9 weeks, children from intervention schools in this RCT had higher mean nutrition knowledge scores and were more likely to be currently eating a healthy diet compared with those children in control schools. The edutainment factor was also shown to be effective in a single 1-h programme (Jump with Jill programme) that incorporated an active, participatory game, which applied learning through play approach. Themed or novelty approaches have been found to be effective in primary schoolchildren. The Healthy Highway© Program is an interactive, imaginative, content-based programme that teaches and reinforces essential health-related topics to K-5 students on healthy foods and basic nutrition with a road safety analogue. In a study that exended this theme to the school cafeteria, and coded food choices as ‘healthy (green light) or unhealthy (red light)’, healthy choices improved(79). The UK PhunkyFoods Programme allowed schools to choose which elements of the programme they wanted to deliver as part of the school curriculum, and this flexibility was perceived by teachers to be a strong programme attribute(82). Activities could be offered within the classroom or as a club, e.g. breakfast, after-school or lunch club, and resources included a wide selection of online, interactive cross-curricular healthy eating lesson plans and a resource box comprising food models, food mats, food cards, DVD and books to facilitate teaching staff in programme delivery.

In summary, key components of experiential strategies that are useful to increase children’s vegetable and fruit intake, as well as help children to develop healthy eating habits include: improving the availability of FV at school, at home, and in the community; repeated taste testing opportunities for children; family involvement in activities that promote healthy eating at home; explaining to parents the importance of role modelling good nutrition and engaging children in hands-on activities with their peers such as growing and harvesting vegetables and fruit, and cooking.

Discussion

This systematic literature review qualitatively investigated the effects of experiential nutrition programmes on primary school-aged children in relation to cognitive and behavioural outcomes. It further identified key characteristics of successful programmes that achieved significant changes in the outcomes of interest and also provided a robust evaluation thereof. Such information is useful to guide future public health interventions in this setting. Characteristics of successful experiential nutrition interventions included: (1) frequent exposure that include multiple experiences, accompanied by relevant and comprehensive classroom nutrition education; (2) incorporation of parental involvement and take-home activities; (3) presentation in a context that was relevant and appropriate; (4) multicomponent interventions that are conducted on school grounds and (3) involvement of external personnel, such as expert educators, teacher training and volunteers. Involvement of food service providers to increase exposure, availability and accessibility of healthy food options was also beneficial, whilst adequate provision of funding and resources for implementation of the programmes is paramount. Successful interventions guided by a behavioural change theory tended to be the most impactful in terms of creating changes in both the school environment and children’s behaviours.

It has been established that experiential learning accompanied with cross-curricula interventions is most beneficial and effective at producing knowledge and behaviour change in young children(84). In relation to the behavioural changes investigated in this review, garden-based learning strategies appeared to be the most influential strategies that related to dietary outcomes, particularly increased vegetable consumption(4248), which has proven difficult to achieve with other interventions(4,52). Gardening, unlike other experiential nutrition learning styles, has been intensively investigated in recent years(85). Food gardens have gained recognition as not only do they teach children about growing their own foods, but evidence also suggests that when children are involved in the process of growing fruits and vegetables, they are more likely to taste and consume them(39,86). Potential reasons for the success of the garden-based programmes may include: (1) increased accessibility to healthful foods; (2) increased exposure of children to the practice of growing foods, as these interventions are typically more time intense than others and (3) the broad range of experiences offered including planting, gardening and harvesting through to cooking and tasting opportunities. Garden-based interventions have also been shown to increase children’s willingness to try new foods and their ability to cook and prepare foods(87). The studies also significantly improved the ability of children to identify different FV, as well as other nutritional-related knowledge(4149). Our findings are supportive of the recommendations of the Community Preventive Services Task Force, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(88), that indicate that food garden interventions, in combination with nutrition education, are effective in increasing vegetable intake in youth.

Interestingly, of the cognitive-based outcomes investigated in this review, cooking-based activities tended to have the most significant changes on student self-efficacy through food preparation skills(64,66,68,69) as well as improvements in their food knowledge and preferences(63,6567,6971). Cooking programmes offer children a unique hands-on experience that can provide lifelong skills(89). These benefits are coherent with similar research on culinary interventions in other settings(90,91).

Food provision programmes have been associated with increasing the consumption of healthy foods and generating positive attitudes towards eating breakfast(92). The studies included in this review found significant improvements in dietary intakes of healthy foods(53) including FV(50,51,54), wholegrains(50,54), fibre(50) and dairy foods(54). All nutrition interventions that included tasting of FV increased overall short-term FV intakes, in addition to food knowledge and preferences. However, as with food provision interventions, results were difficult to demonstrate over the longer term because most studies did not include follow-up post-intervention. Studies which incorporated tasting activities impacted food knowledge through increasing students’ ability to correctly identify certain FV. Interestingly, successful studies identified that increased exposure may lead to more significant results, as reported by one study where it took eight to ten encounters before scholars reported that they ‘liked’ the particular food item(58). Food-related attitudes, choice and intake in children are largely driven by taste preferences. A review by Barends et al. (93) reported that repeated exposure to vegetables in the first 3 years of life increased acceptance of the target vegetable, whereas exposure to variety was found to be particularly effective in increasing acceptance of a new vegetable. Studies included in the current review support this strategy in older children attending primary school.

Nutrition interventions aimed at improving healthy behaviours need to focus on changing the environment and societal norms(94). When developing nutrition programmes within primary school settings, interventions need to target the multiple facets of the environment. This requires consideration in providing as many experiences as possible in relation to skills development of growing, cooking and tasting foods. Through increasing exposure and accessibility to healthy foods, the more likely it will be to meaningfully impact health knowledge and behaviour. Some successful interventions, particularly food provision and tasting programmes, achieved this through incorporating a cafeteria component and involved food service providers(50,6062,67,73,74) which assisted in increasing the exposure, availability and accessibility of healthier options.

Another frequently employed strategy used within experiential interventions was the inclusion of parental involvement and education. Parental involvement in school-based programmes can strengthen the home food environment and reiterate the healthy eating messages and habits being demonstrated at school. Involvement of parents, carers and family members has been identified as an important strategy in changing food-related behaviours in primary school-aged children(95), but there is limited information on how best to engage parents(96). Studies in the current review which incorporated parental involvement included activities such as take-home produce and recipes to cook and share(42,43,45,50,61,62,6466), additional homework activities or challenges(59), parent education sessions(50,62,67,70,74) or parental volunteering in programme supervision(53,63,67).

A common implementation strategy used by many of the studies included in this review was the use of external educators(41,49,53,54,59,61,6365,6771,73) (including nutritionists/dietitians, chefs, horticulturalists and university researchers/students) or in-depth teacher training(43,44,48,55,56,67,70,74) to assist in the effective delivery of the programmes. It has previously been demonstrated that intervention success is dependent upon a number of factors, with high levels of teacher self-efficacy and prior knowledge related to the intervention being among the most important(97). While the use of external educators and experts is important for ensuring information accuracy and student engagement, this may not be feasible due to funding requirements. Similarly, longer-term interventions with a high degree of implementation are more effective at achieving knowledge and behaviour change of schoolchildren, but upscaling of programmes may not be practical(98).

This review did not include programmes that were totally conducted off school grounds, such as farm visits(99,100) because it was the aim of the review to identify successful programmes that could be run by all primary schools, regardless of proximity to food production sites, or urban/rural location. In the USA, farm visits are a primary mode of experiential school-based nutrition learning provided through the federally funded USDA Farm to School grant programme(101). There is high uptake of this programme(102), with participation rates of 42 % in some school districts and extensive evaluation thereof(76,103107). The definition of USDA Farm to School programmes includes garden education, local procurement for school foods and experiential learning activities in agriculture, food, health or nutrition. Our search criteria did identify some programmes that included Harvest of the Month activities and farm visits, but only if they were included as a component of a larger programme, some of which was held on school grounds(108114). Likewise, the review did not include programmes conducted out of school hours, many of which have been evaluated as being effective for behaviour change(115,116).

The US nationwide Coordinated Approach to Child Health (CATCH) programme(117), first developed in the late 1980s and funded by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, was not included in the current review because it is paired with a physical activity component, and thus did not meet the eligibility criteria. CATCH has been proven to prevent childhood obesity and is supported by 25 years of operation, with 120 academic papers indicating as much as 11 % decrease in overweight and obesity(118122). CATCH creates behaviour change by enabling children to identify healthy foods and by increasing the amount of moderate to vigorous physical activity children engage in each day. Today, CATCH serves children in 10 000 schools and communities across the USA, from pre-K to Grade 8, as well as in after-school settings.

The main limitation that needs to be considered in the interpretation of the findings of this review is the generally low quality of the cited studies. The studies varied extensively in quality; with only eleven of the forty-two cited studies analysed in the review receiving a high-quality GRADE rating, all of which were RCT. School-based programmes are often very challenging to randomise, and it is often not ethically appropriate to do so(123).

The short study duration of many included programmes is an additional limitation. Battjes-Fries(124) suggests that interventions should last at least 1 year in order to result in meaningful behaviour change. The food provision programmes and food tasting studies all had large sample sizes; however, most of the gardening and cooking studies had smaller sample sizes due to the intensive nature of the interventions. The interventions also lacked continued follow-up to evaluate longer-term results.

Another limitation is the variety of different instruments used to measure outcomes, making comparison between the cited studies difficult. Food provision intervention groups were commonly measured using the validated eighteen-item food security scale(125), while dietary behaviour change was generally assessed using 24-h-recalls or FFQ. Food tasting programmes largely used non-validated research instruments, which were most often designed by those running the intervention, possibly resulting in misclassification or other biases. A lack of studies from low- and middle-income countries limits generalisability to these settings. Lastly, identification of key characterstics of the interventions deemed to be successful was subjective in nature; therefore, observer bias cannot be ruled out.

Despite these limitations, this review highlights the benefits of experiential interventions and provides direction for future programmes. Vegetable intake was found to be the most difficult of dietary behaviours to change but, collectively, the cited articles suggested that experiential hands-on activities such as gardening, cooking sessions and nutrition education combined with increased exposure to tasting vegetables were the most effective strategies.

A number of key recommendations have resulted from the findings of this review:

  • Use behavioural change theory to guide interventions, as these are most impactful in terms of creating changes in both the environment and children’s behaviours;

  • Link experiential learning opportunities to specific curriculum topics and integrate with classroom-based learning, rather being provided in isolation;

  • Include a focus on influencing the home and community food environment as well as providing exposure to experiential learning opportunities during school hours;

  • Incorporate family involvement and take-home activities to encourage healthy eating at home and provide role modelling of good nutrition practices;

  • Involve food service providers at schools to increase exposure, availability and accessibility of healthy food options;

  • When developing a school garden programme, ensure long-term commitment of at least 3 years, to allow sufficient time to impart skills, mentor across multiple growing seasons and to adequately integrate the garden into the culture of the school;

  • Ensure adequate resources are available for maintenance of food gardens, including weeding, watering and harvesting, particularly during school holidays;

  • Provide repeated opportunities to taste foods to encourage acceptability by children, especially for vegetables;

  • Where possible, include cooking-based activities as these are the most effective interventions that impact student self-efficacy, as well as improve their food knowledge and preferences;

  • Engage specialist staff, trained in horticulture and cooking to deliver interventions rather than expect classroom teachers to add gardening or food preparation to their skillset.

Conclusion

This systematic literature review has identified that experiential nutrition programmes are able to improve primary schoolchildren’s nutrition knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and dietary behaviours. Experiential interventions which included multiple experiences and exposures were able to show increases in children’s willingness to taste unfamiliar foods, their cooking and food preparation skills, as well as increased preference, knowledge and consumption of healthier foods. Vegetable intake appeared to be the most difficult behaviour to change but was most successfully addressed with food gardening approaches. Key characteristics of successful interventions were identified as parental involvement and take-home activities, sessions taught by external experts, as well as incorporation of food service providers to increase exposure, availability and accessibility of healthy foods within the school environment. Longer-term interventions are required to investigate sustainable behaviour change in improving dietary intakes in primary schoolchildren. Feasibility of larger scale programme dissemination and teacher training is also a worthwhile investigation for future research.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements: Ezinne Igwe is thanked for her editorial assistance. Financial support: No funding was obtained for this work. Conflict of interest: There are no conflicts of interest. Authorship: K.C. and K.W. conceptualised the research proposal. N.D. conducted the preliminary search and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. T.C. repeated and updated the search, conducted quality rating and contributed to drafting of the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Ethics of human subject participation: This study was a review of published studies and therefore did not require approval by an ethics committee.

Supplementary material

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980020004024.

S1368980020004024sup.zip (57.2KB, zip)

click here to view supplementary material

References

  • 1. WHO (2003) Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Disease. Geneva: World Health Organisation. [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Kelder SHPCL, Klepp KI & Lytle LL (1994) Longitudinal tracking of adolescent smoking, physical activity, and food choice behaviors. Am J Public Health 84, 1121–1126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Florence MD, Asbridge M & Veugelers PJ (2008) Diet quality and academic performance. J Sch Health 78, 209–215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Evans CELCMS, Cleghorn CL, Greenwood DC et al. (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of school-based interventions to improve daily fruit and vegetable intake in children aged 5–12 years. Am J Clin Nutr 96, 889–901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. WHO (1986) The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion Ottawa: World Health Organisation. [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Envision (2015) The benefits of experiential learning. https://www.envisionexperience.com/blog/the-benefits-of-experiential-learning (accessed April 2019).
  • 7. Jaenke RLCCE, Morgan PJ, Lubans DR et al. (2012) The impact of a school garden and cooking program on boys’ and girls’ fruit and vegetable preferences, taste rating, and intake. Health Educ Behav 39, 131–141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. NSW Department of Health (2003) NSW Department of Health Annual Report 2002–03. North Sydney: NSW Department of Health. [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Dinubile NA (1993) Youth fitness – problems and solutions. Prev Med 22, 589–594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Kolb DA (2014) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson FT Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 11. National Institute for Health Research (2017) PROSPERO, International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. New York: National Institute for Health Research. [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339, 332. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Thomson R (2018) Endnote X9. US. https://endnote.com/ (accessed September 2020).
  • 14. Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K et al. (2011) Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. London: Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group. https://methods.cochrane.org/qi/supplemental-handbook-guidance (accessed September 2020). [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Hill RR (2016) How to GRADE the quality of the evidence. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group. Version 3.0 December 2016; available at http://cccrg.cochrane.org/author-resources (accessed September 2020).
  • 16. Macnab AJ, Stewart D, Gagnon FA et al. (2014) School food gardens: fertile ground for education. Health Educ 114, 281–292. [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Hermann JR, Parker SP, Brown BJ et al. (2006) After-school gardening improves children’s reported vegetable intake and physical activity. J Nutr Educ Behav 38, 201–202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Hanbazaza MA, Triador L, Ball GD et al. (2015) The impact of school gardening on Cree children’s knowledge and attitudes toward vegetables and fruit. Can J Diet Pract Res 76, 133–139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. O’Brien SA & Shoemaker CA (2006) An after-school gardening club to promote fruit and vegetable consumption among fourth grade students: the assessment of social cognitive theory constructs. Hort Technol 16, 24–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Triador L, Farmer A, Maximova K et al. (2015) A school gardening and healthy snack program increased Aboriginal First Nations children’s preferences toward vegetables and fruit. J Nutr Educ Behav 47, 176–180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Woo T & Lee K-H (2013) Effects of sensory education based on classroom activities for lower grade school children. Nutr Res Pract 7, 336–341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Bartfeld JS & Ahn H-M (2011) The School Breakfast Program strengthens household food security among low-income households with elementary school children. J Nutr 141, 470–475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Robinson-O’Brien R, Burgess-Champoux T, Haines J et al. (2010) Associations between school meals offered through the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program and fruit and vegetable intake among ethnically diverse, low-income children. J Sch Health 80, 487–492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Fletcher JM & Frisvold DE (2017) The relationship between the school breakfast program and food insecurity. J Consumer Aff 51, 481–500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Jaenke RL, Collins CE, Morgan PJ et al. (2012) The impact of a school garden and cooking program on boys’ and girls’ fruit and vegetable preferences, taste rating, and intake. Health Educ Behav 39, 131–141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Morris JL & Zidenberg-Cherr S (2002) Garden-enhanced nutrition curriculum improves fourth-grade school children’s knowledge of nutrition and preferences for some vegetables. J Acad Nutr Diet 102, 91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Berry DS, Amory R, Clark T et al. (2018) Longitudinal assessment of children participating in a school-based supplemental nutrition program. Texas Public Health J 70, 9–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Mhurchu CN, Gorton D, Turley M et al. (2013) Effects of a free school breakfast programme on children’s attendance, academic achievement and short-term hunger: results from a stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial. J Epidemiol Community Health 67, 257–264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Ashfield-Watt PA, Stewart EA & Scheffer JA (2009) A pilot study of the effect of providing daily free fruit to primary-school children in Auckland, New Zealand. Public Health Nutr 12, 693–701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Ensaff H, Crawford R, Russell J et al. (2017) Preparing and sharing food: a quantitative analysis of a primary school-based food intervention. J Public Health 39, 567–573. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Battjes-Fries MC, Haveman-Nies A, Zeinstra GG et al. (2017) Effectiveness of taste lessons with and without additional experiential learning activities on children’s willingness to taste vegetables. Appetite 109, 201–208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Lehto R, Määttä S, Lehto E et al. (2014) The PRO GREENS intervention in Finnish schoolchildren – the degree of implementation affects both mediators and the intake of fruits and vegetables. Br J Nutr 112, 1185–1194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Evans CE, Ransley JK, Christian MS et al. (2013) A cluster-randomised controlled trial of a school-based fruit and vegetable intervention: project tomato. Public Health Nutr 16, 1073–1081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Harake E, Diab M, Kharroubi S et al. (2018) Impact of a pilot school-based nutrition intervention on dietary knowledge, attitudes, behavior and nutritional status of syrian refugee children in the Bekaa, Lebanon. Nutrients 10, 913. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Block K, Gibbs L, Staiger PK et al. (2012) Growing community: the impact of the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program on the social and learning environment in primary schools. Health Educ Behav 39, 419–432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Sarti A, Dijkstra C, Nury E et al. (2017) ‘I eat the vegetables because I have grown them with my own hands’: children’s perspectives on school gardening and vegetable consumption. Child Soc 31, 429–440. [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Brill MF & Shaykis F (2015) Urban after-school partnership teaches cooking and my plate nutrition. J Youth Dev 10, 59–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Rodgers YE & Milewska M (2007) Food assistance through the school system. J Child Poverty 13, 75–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Carlsson L, Williams PL, Hayes-Conroy JS et al. (2016) School gardens: cultivating food security in Nova Scotia public schools? Can J Diet Pract Res 77, 119–124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Gatto NM, Ventura EE, Cook LT et al. (2012) LA Sprouts: a garden-based nutrition intervention pilot program influences motivation and preferences for fruits and vegetables in Latino youth. J Acad Nutr Diet 112, 913–920. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Davis JN, Martinez LC, Spruijt-Metz D et al. (2016) LA Sprouts: a 12-week gardening, nutrition, and cooking randomized control trial improves determinants of dietary behaviors. J Nutr Educ Behav 48, 2–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Duncan MJ, Eyre E, Bryant E et al. (2015) The impact of a school-based gardening intervention on intentions and behaviour related to fruit and vegetable consumption in children. J Health Psychol 20, 765–773. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Kararo MJO, Kathryn SK & Neil A (2016) Eat your way to better health: evaluating a garden-based nutrition program for youth. Hort Technol 26, 663–668. [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Lineberger SE & Zajicek JM (2000) School gardens: can a hands-on teaching tool affect students’ attitudes and behaviors regarding fruit and vegetables? Hort Technol 10, 593–597. [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Leuven JRFWR, Annerie HMDAG & Leuven RSEW (2018) School gardening increases knowledge of primary school children on edible plants and preference for vegetables. Food Sci Nutr 6, 1960–1967. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. McAleese JD & Rankin LL (2007) Garden-based nutrition education affects fruit and vegetable consumption in sixth-grade adolescents. J Am Diet Assoc 107, 662–665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Parmer SMS-GJ, Shannon D & Struempler B (2009) School gardens: an experiential learning approach for a nutrition education program to increase fruit and vegetable knowledge, preference, and consumption among second-grade students. J Nutr Educ Behav 41, 212–217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Ratcliffe MMMKA, Rogers BL & Goldberg JP (2011) The effects of school garden experiences on middle school-aged students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors associated with vegetable consumption. Health Promot Pract 12, 36–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Hutchinson J, Christian MS, Evans CEL et al. (2015) Evaluation of the impact of school gardening interventions on children’s knowledge of and attitudes towards fruit and vegetables. A cluster randomised controlled trial. Appetite 91, 405–414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Sharma SV, Markham C, Chow J et al. (2016) Evaluating a school-based fruit and vegetable co-op in low-income children: a quasi-experimental study. Prev Med 91, 8–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. He MBC, Sangster Bouck M, St Onge R et al. (2009) Impact evaluation of the northern fruit and vegetable pilot programme – a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Public Health Nutr 12, 2199–2208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Tak NI, te Velde SJ & Brug J (2009) Long-term effects of the Dutch Schoolgruiten Project – promoting fruit and vegetable consumption among primary-school children. Public Health Nutr 12, 1213–1223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Murphy SMG, Tapper K, Lynch R et al. (2011) Free healthy breakfasts in primary schools: a cluster randomised controlled trial of a policy intervention in Wales, UK. Public Health Nutr 14, 219–226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Kastorini CM, Lykou A, Yannakoulia M et al. (2016) The influence of a school-based intervention programme regarding adherence to a healthy diet in children and adolescents from disadvantaged areas in Greece: The DIATROFI study. J Epidemiol Community Health 70, 671–677. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Battjes-Fries MCE, Haveman-Nies A, Renes RJ et al. (2015) Effect of the Dutch school-based education programme ‘Taste Lessons’ on behavioural determinants of taste acceptance and healthy eating: a quasi-experimental study. Public Health Nutr 18, 2231–2241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Day ME, Strange KS, McKay HA et al. (2008) Action schools! BC--Healthy Eating: effects of a whole-school model to modifying eating behaviours of elementary school children. Can J Public Health 99, 328–331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Lakkakula AGJP, Wong WP, Zanovec M et al. (2011) A cafeteria-based tasting program increased liking of fruits and vegetables by lower, middle and upper elementary school-age children. Appetite 57, 299–302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Lakkakula AGJ, Zanovec M, Pierce S et al. (2010) Repeated taste exposure increases liking for vegetables by low-income elementary school children. Appetite 55, 226–231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Gold A, Larson M, Tucker J et al. (2017) Classroom nutrition education combined with fruit and vegetable taste testing improves children’s dietary intake. J Sch Health 87, 106–113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Morrill BA, Madden GJ, Wengreen HJ et al. (2016) A randomized controlled trial of the food dudes program: tangible rewards are more effective than social rewards for increasing short- and long-term fruit and vegetable consumption. J Acad Nutr Diet 116, 618–629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Lachausse RG (2017) A clustered randomized controlled trial to determine impacts of the Harvest of the Month program. Health Educ Res 32, 375–383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Perry CL, Bishop DB, Taylor G et al. (1998) Changing fruit and vegetable consumption among children: the 5-a-d power plus program in St. Paul, Minnesota. Am J Public Health 88, 603–609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Bisset SLPL, Daniel M & Paquette M (2008) Assessing the impact of the primary school-based nutrition intervention petits cuistots – parents en réseaux. Can J Public Health 99, 107–113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Zahr R & Sibeko L (2017) Influence of a school-based cooking course on students’ food preferences, cooking skills, and confidence. Can J Diet Pract Res 78, 37–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Chen Q, Goto K, Wolff C et al. (2014) Cooking up diversity. Impact of a multicomponent, multicultural, experiential intervention on food and cooking behaviors among elementary-school students from low-income ethnically diverse families. Appetite 80, 114–122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Jarpe-Ratner E, Folkens S, Sharma S et al. (2016) An experiential cooking and nutrition education program increases cooking self-efficacy and vegetable consumption in children in grades 3–8. J Nutr Educ Behav 48, 697–705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Liquori TKPD, Contento IR & Castle J (1998) The cookshop program: outcome evaluation of a nutrition education program linking lunchroom food experiences with classroom cooking experiences. J Nutr Educ 30, 302–313. [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Caraher MSA, Wu M & Lloyd S (2013) When chefs adopt a school? An evaluation of a cooking intervention in English primary schools. Appetite 62, 50–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Cunningham-Sabo L & Lohse B (2013) Cooking with kids positively affects fourth graders’ vegetable preferences and attitudes and self-efficacy for food and cooking. Child Obes 9, 549–556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Quinn LJHTM & Castle J (2003) The impact of COOKSHOP on the dietary habits and attitudes of fifth graders. Top Clin Nutr 18, 42–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Cunningham-Sabo L & Lohse B (2014) Impact of a school-based cooking curriculum for fourth-grade students on attitudes and behaviors is influenced by gender and prior cooking experience. J Nutr Educ Behav 46, 110–120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Bai Y, Kim Y-H, Han Y-H et al. (2018) Impact of a school-based culinary nutrition education program on vegetable consumption behavior, intention, and personal factors among Korean second-graders. Nutr Res Pract 12, 527–534. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Evans ARN, Rutledge R, Medina J et al. (2012) Exposure to multiple components of a garden-based intervention for middle school students increases fruit and vegetable consumption. Health Promot Pract 13, 608–616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Prelip MKJ, Thai CL, Erausquin JT et al. (2012) Evaluation of a school-based multicomponent nutrition education program to improve young children’s fruit and vegetable consumption. J Nutr Educ Behav 44, 310–318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Lakshman RRS, Stephen JOKK & Forouhi NG (2010) A novel school-based intervention to improve nutrition knowledge in children: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health 10, 123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Yoder ABB, Liebhart JL, McCarty DJ et al. (2014) Farm to elementary school programming increases access to fruits and vegetables and increases their consumption among those with low intake. J Nutr Educ Behav 46, 341–349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Bissell K, Baker K, Pember SE et al. (2019) Changing the face of health education via health interventions: social ecological perspectives on new media technologies and elementary nutrition education. Health Community 34, 1575–1584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Jayne J (2019) Incorporation of edutainment into intervention and evaluation: the jump with jill (JWJ) program. Front Public Health 7, 163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Jung T, Huang J, Eagan L et al. (2019) Influence of school-based nutrition education program on healthy eating literacy and healthy food choice among primary school children. Int J Health Promot Educ 57, 67–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Kim S-O & Park S-A (2020) Garden-based integrated intervention for improving children’s eating behavior for vegetables. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17, 1257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81. Poelman AAM, Cochet-Broch M, Cox DN et al. (2019) Vegetable education program positively affects factors associated with vegetable consumption among australian primary (elementary) schoolchildren. J Nutr Educ Behav 51, 492–492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82. Sahota P, Christian M, Day R et al. (2019) The feasibility and acceptability of a primary school-based programme targeting diet and physical activity: the PhunkyFoods Programme. Pilot Feasibility Stud 5, 152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83. Langford R, Bonell C, Jones H et al. (2015) The World Health Organization’s health promoting schools framework: a cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 15, 130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84. Dudley DA, Cotton WG & Peralta LR (2015) Teaching approaches and strategies that promote healthy eating in primary school children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phy 12, 28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85. Schneider S, Pharr J & Bungum T (2017) Impact of school garden participation on the health behaviors of children. Health Behav Policy Rev 4, 46–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 86. Langellotto GAGA (2012) Gardening increases vegetable consumption in school-aged children: a meta-analytical synthesis. Hort Technol 22, 430–445. [Google Scholar]
  • 87. Block KGL, Staiger PK, Gold L et al. (2012) Growing community: the impact of the stephanie alexander kitchen garden program on the social and learning environment in primary schools. Health Educ Behav 39, 419–432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88. Savoie-Roskos MR, Wengreen H & Durward C (2017) Increasing fruit and vegetable intake among children and youth through gardening-based interventions: a systematic review. J Acad Nutr Diet 117, 240–250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89. Fordyce-Voorham S (2011) Identification of essential food skills for skill-based healthful eating programs in secondary schools. J Nutr Educ Behav 43, 116–122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90. Hasan B, Thompson WG, Almasri J et al. (2019) The effect of culinary interventions (cooking classes) on dietary intake and behavioral change: a systematic review and evidence map. BMC Nutr 5, 29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91. Prescott MP, Lohse B, Mitchell DC et al. (2019) Child assessments of vegetable preferences and cooking self-efficacy show predictive validity with targeted diet quality measures. BMC Nutr 5, 21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92. Bartfeld JMF (2017) Food insecurity among households with children: the role of the state economic and policy context. Soc Serv Rev 91, 691–732. [Google Scholar]
  • 93. Barends C, Weenen H, Warren J et al. (2019) A systematic review of practices to promote vegetable acceptance in the first 3 years of life. Appetite 137, 174–197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94. Dobbs R, Sawers C, Thompson F et al. (2014) Overcoming Obesity: An Initial Economic Analysis. McKinsey and Company: McKinsey Global Institute. [Google Scholar]
  • 95. Nixon CA, Moore HJ, Douthwaite W et al. (2012) Identifying effective behavioural models and behaviour change strategies underpinning preschool- and school-based obesity prevention interventions aimed at 4–6-year-olds: a systematic review. Obes Rev 13, 106–117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96. Hingle MD, O’Connor TM, Dave JM et al. (2010) Parental involvement in interventions to improve child dietary intake: a systematic review. Prev Med 51, 103–111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97. Kien C, Grillich L, Nussbaumer-Streit B et al. (2018) Pathways leading to success and non-success: a process evaluation of a cluster randomized physical activity health promotion program applying fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. BMC Public Health 18, 1386. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98. Lehto R, Määttä S, Lehto E et al. (2014) The PRO GREENS intervention in Finnish schoolchildren – the degree of implementation affects both mediators and the intake of fruits and vegetables. Br J Nutr 112, 1185–1194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99. Moss A, Smith S, Null D et al. (2013) Farm to school and nutrition education: Positively affecting elementary school-aged children’s nutrition knowledge and consumption behavior. Child Obes 9, 51–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100. Bevan S, Vitale T & Wengreen H (2012) Farm field trips provide sensory-based experiences with fresh, local produce. J Nutr Educ Behav 44, 278–279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101. USDA (2016) United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Farm to School Program: Fact sheet: Research Shows Farm to School Works. Washington DC: US Department of Agriculture; available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/f2s/FactSheet_Research_Shows_F2S_Works.pdf (accessed March 2020).
  • 102. USDA (2015) Farm to school works! https://farmtoschoolcensus.fns.usda.gov/ (accessed April 2020).
  • 103. Joshi A, Azuma AM & Feenstra G (2008) Do farm-to-school programs make a difference? Findings and future research needs. J Hunger Environ Nutr 3, 229–246. [Google Scholar]
  • 104. Taylor J & Johnson R (2013) Farm to school as a strategy to increase children’s fruit and vegetable consumption in the United States: research and recommendations. Nutr Bull 38, 70–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 105. Yoder ABB, Foecke LL & Schoeller DA (2015) Factors affecting fruit and vegetable school lunch waste in Wisconsin elementary schools participating in Farm to School programmes. Public Health Nutr 18, 2855–2863. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106. Jones SJ, Childers C, Weaver AT et al. (2015) SC farm-to-school programs encourages children to consume vegetables. J Hunger Environ Nutr 10, 511–525. [Google Scholar]
  • 107. Kropp JD, Abarca-Orozco SJ, Israel GD et al. (2018) A plate waste evaluation of the farm to school program. J Nutr Educ Behav 50, 332–339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108. Hyland R, Stacy R, Adamson A et al. (2006) Nutrition-related health promotion through an after-school project: the responses of children and their families. Soc Sci Med 62, 758–768. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109. Choudhry S, McClinton-Powell L, Solomon M et al. (2011) Power-up: a collaborative after-school program to prevent obesity in African American children. Prog Community Health Partnersh: Res Educ Action 5, 363. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110. Poston SA, Shoemaker CA & Dzewaltowski DA (2005) A comparison of a gardening and nutrition program with a standard nutrition program in an out-of-school setting. Hort Technol 15, 463–467. [Google Scholar]
  • 111. Koch S, Waliczek TM & Zajicek JM (2006) The effect of a summer garden program on the nutritional knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of children. Hort Technol 16, 620–625. [Google Scholar]
  • 112. Chu YL, Farmer A, Fung C et al. (2013) Involvement in home meal preparation is associated with food preference and self-efficacy among Canadian children. Public Health Nutr 16, 108–112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113. Heim S, Stang J & Ireland M (2009) A garden pilot project enhances fruit and vegetable consumption among children. J Am Diet Assoc 109, 1220–1226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114. Smith SC & Kalina L (2004) Evaluation of the kids’ shop smart® tour. Can J Diet Pract Res 65, 10–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115. Cradock AL, Barrett JL, Giles CM et al. (2016) Promoting physical activity with the out of School Nutrition and physical activity (OSNAP) initiative: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. JAMA Pediatr 170, 155–162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116. Annesi JJ, Smith AE, Walsh SM et al. (2016) Effects of an after-school care-administered physical activity and nutrition protocol on BMI, fitness levels, and targeted psychological factors in 5–8-year-olds. Transl Behav Med 6, 347–357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117. CATCH (2020) Community Health Programs | Health Education Curriculum. Houston, TX: CATCH Global Foundation; available at https://catchinfo.org/about/ (accessed April 2020).
  • 118. Luepker RV, Perry CL, McKinlay SM et al. (1996) Outcomes of a field trial to improve children’s dietary patterns and physical activity: the child and adolescent trial for cardiovascular health (CATCH). JAMA 275, 768–776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119. Nader PR, Stone EJ, Lytle LA et al. (1999) Three-year maintenance of improved diet and physical activity: the CATCH cohort. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 153, 695–704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120. Coleman KJ, Tiller CL, Sanchez J et al. (2005) Prevention of the epidemic increase in child risk of overweight in low-income schools: the El Paso coordinated approach to child health. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 159, 217–224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121. Hoelscher DM, Kelder SH, Pérez A et al. (2010) Changes in the regional prevalence of child obesity in 4th, 8th, and 11th grade students in Texas from 2000–2002 to 2004–2005. Obesity 18, 1360–1368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122. Hoelscher DM, Springer AE, Ranjit N et al. (2010) Reductions in child obesity among disadvantaged school children with community involvement: the Travis County CATCH Trial. Obesity 18, S36-S44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123. Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Campbell M et al. (2003) Research designs for studies evaluating the effectiveness of change and improvement strategies. Qual Saf Health Care 12, 47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124. Battjes-Fries MCE, Haveman-Nies A, van Dongen EJI et al. (2016) Effectiveness of taste lessons with and without additional experiential learning activities on children’s psychosocial determinants of vegetables consumption. Appetite 105, 519–526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125. Gulliford MC, Nunes C & Rocke B (2006) The 18 household food security survey items provide valid food security classifications for adults and children in the Caribbean. BMC Public Health 6, 26–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980020004024.

S1368980020004024sup.zip (57.2KB, zip)

click here to view supplementary material


Articles from Public Health Nutrition are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

RESOURCES