Skip to main content
. 2024 Aug 9;7(8):e2424082. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.24082

Table 3. GRADE Assessment for Certainty of Evidence by Outcome.

Studies, No. Design Sources Risk of biasa Inconsistencyb Indirectnessb Imprecisionb Publication biasc Magnitude of effectd Influence of all plausible confoundinge Dose-response gradientf Summary of findings Certaintyg
Lunch participation rates
3 NRSI Gordanier et al,9 2019; Pokorney et al,10 2019; Schneider et al,11 2021 Not serious Not serious Serious; US population not fully represented as data are only from 3 states Not serious Not detected No No No Implementation of universal free meals at lunch was associated with increased lunch participation Moderate
Breakfast participation rates
1 NRSI Schneider et al,11 2021 Not serious Very serious; only 1 study Serious; US population not fully represented as data are only from 1 state Not serious Not detected No No No Implementation of universal free meals at breakfast was associated with increased breakfast participation Very low
Attendance
2 NRSI Bartfeld et al,8 2019; Gordanier et al,9 2019 Not serious Serious; results were consistent in direction, but only 2 studies Serious; US population not fully represented as data are only from 2 states Not serious Not detected No No No Attendance rates did not change or were modestly improved in schools with universal free meals compared to schools without universal meals Low
Anthropometrics
1 NRSI Localio et al,12 2024 Not serious Very serious; only 1 study Serious; US population not fully represented as data are only from 1 state Not serious Not detected No No No Implementation of universal free school meals was associated with reduced prevalence of obese students, and increased prevalence of normal students Very low
Disciplinary Action
1 NRSI Domina et al,13 2024 Not serious Very serious; only 1 study Serious; US population not fully represented as data are only from 1 state Not serious Not detected No No No Implementation of universal free school meals was associated with reduced number of suspensions Very low

Abbreviations: GRADE, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; NRSI, nonrandomized study of interventions.

a

Downgrading domain. Response options: not serious, serious, very serious, or extremely serious.

b

Downgrading domain. Response options: not serious, serious, or very serious.

c

Downgrading domain. Response options: undetected or strongly detected.

d

Upgrading domain. Response options: no, large, or very large.

e

Upgrading domain. Response options: no, would reduce demonstrated effect, or would suggest spurious effect.

f

Upgrading domain. Response options: no or yes.

g

GRADE rating options: high, moderate, low, very low.