From leadership research to district action: Assessment of School Food Policy Influencing Nutritional Behaviour of Adolescents from the Perspective of School Stakeholders in Ibadan, Oyo State

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide. Proposed district actions are separate from the original authors’ findings and recommendations. Independent peer review of this guide is not asserted.

Read source Search paper agent CC BY 4.0

Evidence and transfer

Education-related source: verify which participants, institutions and outcomes were actually studied before district adoption. Source publication type: research-article. License and identity checks do not establish study quality or causality.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the source license:

Abstract School food policy (SFP) that promotes nutritional behaviour is a national priority. Despite the role of school principals, teachers, and food service staff (FSS) in implementing SFP, their contribution to the current state of school food policy remains unexplored. The study aims to explore the perspective of these stakeholders on the effectiveness of SFP, barriers, and future recommendations for effective implementation. A qualitative study using 24 key informants interviews including principals (n = 6), teachers (n = 12), and FSS (n = 6) was conducted. From the list of private secondary schools, six schools were randomly selected. Principals, teachers, and FSS were selected through purposive sampling. A thematic approach was adopted for the data analysis. Interview data were categorised into three broad themes: (1) availability of school food policy, (2) barriers to enforcement, and (3) recommendations. Most participants stated that policy implementation is not enforced. The barriers are non-prioritised funding, resistance to change, and time constraints. The recommendations include regular training, activity manual development, seasonal food promotion, nutrition education, and leadership support. The study provides a deeper understanding of the role of key stakeholders in the current state of the effectiveness of SFP implementation. The inclusion of stakeholders is essential for a successful school food policy. Keywords: school food policy, nutritional behaviour, key informant, principal, teacher, food service staff

Study methods

This qualitative study utilised a thematic analysis. From June to August 2022, 24 in-depth interviews were conducted with key informants among three subgroups, as shown in Table 1. Stratified purposive sampling was used to select the study areas. Five research assistants who were graduates with qualitative research experience, two from the field of public health and three from the Department of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, were recruited for the study. The Research Assistants further received a two-day training. The research team was instructed to use a training manual that was designed specifically for the training activity. The training included the basics of the research principles, the importance of objectivity and unbias, the research objectives, and lastly, how to implement KII and FGD sessions. Purposive sampling was used in recruiting key informants from six private English-speaking secondary schools in Ibadan, Oyo State. Private school students are mostly from the high or middle-income class with reported cases of non-communicable diseases [31]. According to Ahmad, A et colab. (2018) [12], adolescents in this socioeconomic tier had a greater prevalence of obesity and overweight. Therefore, targeted intervention for this group of young people will aim at limiting the grievous consequences of non-communicable diseases. From the list of private secondary schools, six schools were randomly selected. Location includes Sango, Oluyole, Bodija, Mokola, Agbowo, and Total Garden. All are within the Ibadan metropolis, Oyo State.

Limitations

No passage was selected automatically. Inspect the complete source before adopting a practice.

A 90-day district inquiry

Days 1–15 · Appraise. Read the source methods, recruitment, comparator, outcomes and limitations. Record how the study setting differs from your district and which claim the design can support.
Days 16–30 · Design. Select one recurring district decision. Publish the decision owner, evidence requirements, consultation process and appeal route; test the process on a bounded low-risk decision. Agree participation, privacy protections, baseline and stopping rules before starting.
Days 31–60 · Observe. Collect the pre-agreed measures, keep a log of implementation changes and invite confidential voluntary feedback. Preserve existing support for staff and learners.
Days 61–90 · Decide. Track decision time, unresolved objections, documented reasons, appeals and access differences. Review whether the process changes who can participate and who carries the burden. Make a dated decision to stop, revise or extend the inquiry.

Board decision brief

Present the local problem, source setting, evidence limits, intervention, responsible owner, total cost, measured changes and uncertainty. Separate staff perceptions, implementation measures and student learning outcomes.

Attribution and reuse

Mary Ibukunoluwa Tubi; Oyediran Emmanuel Oyewole. Assessment of School Food Policy Influencing Nutritional Behaviour of Adolescents from the Perspective of School Stakeholders in Ibadan, Oyo State. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2025-05-31). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22060866

Prepared 2026-11-07. Source authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract and source passages are attributed extracts; this editorial guide is offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license.