Review Article How do publicly procured school meals programmes in sub-Saharan Africa improve nutritional outcomes for children and adolescents: a mixed-methods systematic review Julia Liguori1,* , Hibbah Araba Osei-Kwasi2, Mathilde Savy1, Silver Nanema3, Amos Laar3 and Michelle Holdsworth1 1UMR MoISA (Montpellier Interdisciplinary Centre on Sustainable Agri-Food Systems), University of Montpellier, CIRAD, CIHEAM-IAMM, INRAE, Institut Agro Montpellier, IRD, Montpellier 34000, France: 2School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK: 3University of Ghana, Department of Population, Family & Reproductive Health, School of Public Health, Accra, Ghana Submitted 27 September 2023: Final revision received 10 August 2024: Accepted 5 September 2024 Abstract Objective: This review aimed to (i) synthesise evidence of the impact of publicly procured school meals programmes on nutritional outcomes of children/ adolescents (5–18 years) in sub-Saharan Africa and (ii) identify challenges and facilitators to implementing effective school meals programmes. Design: Mixed-methods systematic review (n 7 databases). Nutritional outcomes assessed were anthropometrics (underweight, stunting, wasting, overweight/ obesity), micronutrient deficiencies, food consumed and food environment. Qualitative findings were coded using a nine-step school food system framework: production of food, wholesale and trading, transportation and storage, processing and distribution, food preparation, distribution to students, student stakeholders, community involvement and infrastructure support. Setting: Sub-Saharan Africa. Participants: Children/adolescents (5–18 years), parents, school personnel and government officials. Results: Thirty-three studies (twenty-six qualitative, seven quantitative) from nine sub-Saharan African countries were included. Six studies found a positive impact of publicly procured school meals programmes on nutritional outcomes (wasting (n 1), stunting (n 3), underweight (n 1), vitamin A intake (n 1) and dietary diversity (n 1)). Fifty-three implementation challenges were identified, particularly during food preparation (e.g. training, payment), distribution to students (e.g. meal quantity/quality/diversity, utensils) and infrastructure support (e.g. funding, monitoring, coordination). Implementation facilitators were identified (n 37) across processing and distribution (e.g. programme coordination), student stakeholders (e.g. food preferences, reduced stigma) and community involvement (e.g. engagement, positive perceptions). Included policy recommendations targeted wholesale and trading, food preparation, student stakeholders and infrastructure support in nine, fifteen and twenty-five studies, respectively. Conclusions: As many challenges remain, strengthening implementation (and therefore the nutritional impact) of school meals programmes in sub-Saharan Africa requires bold commitment and improved coordination at multiple levels of governance. Keywords Public procurement School meals Food environment Policies Sub-Saharan Africa Public Health Nutrition: 27(e213), 1–23 doi:10.1017/S1368980024001939 *Corresponding author: Email julia.liguori@ird.fr © TheAuthor(s), 2024. Published by CambridgeUniversity Press on behalf of TheNutrition Society. This is anOpenAccess article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8847-7169 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6028-885X https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 mailto:julia.liguori@ird.fr https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog?doi=https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939&domain=pdf https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Growing global interest in national school meals pro- grammes (SMP) centres around school meals as a panacea for educational and nutritional outcomes(1). SMP provide breakfast, lunch, snacks and/or take-home rations to students to improve enrolment, attendance, nutritional status and gender-based food allocation practices(2). Approximately 65·4 million primary school children participated in SMP spanning fifty-one African countries in 2021(3). Despite progress, school meal coverage remains the lowest on the African continent, with an estimated 73 % of the world’s most vulnerable children missed(4). SMP at the national level can use public procurement (i.e. public purchase of goods from the private sector) as an opportunity to include healthy food purchasing guidelines to promote food systems change across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In order for public procurement to succeed, a shift in government practices to procure food with economic, environmental and social benefits is prerequisite, with some studies suggesting that political will has already shifted(5,6). In SSA, this can be seen with the surge of countries investing in nationally funded SMP, including Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Congo, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe(7), often representing large proportions of gov- ernment budgets. The introduction of guidelines to regulate what foods are served and sold in and around schools(2,8,9) can include criteria for not only what food schools should purchase (e.g. local, nutritious, culturally acceptable) but also from whom the food is sourced (e.g. smallholder farmers, female farmers, small cooperatives), thus extending potential benefits to students, smallholder farmers and local commun- ities in both centralised and decentralised procurement models(2,5,10,11). Home-grown school feeding embodies this goal, shifting the focus to context-specific approaches for food procurement and incorporating national and pan-African guidelines to increase local food sourcing(2,12). It also underscores increased understanding that SMP need to adapt as programmatic needs evolve and ensure that regional demand for local food sourcing, freshness and taste preferences are met. Beyond SMP, a healthy school food environment (i.e. ‘all the spaces, infrastructure and conditions inside and around school premises where food is available, obtained, purchased and/or consumed’)(13) can also act as a driver to reduce diet- related non-communicable diseases, alongside persistent undernutrition in children and adolescents in SSA(13,14). While childhood and adolescence represent two key life stages for growth and development(15), evidence on the impact of school meals on nutritional outcomes in SSA is limited(16). Evidence from high-income countries demonstrates that implementing criteria for nutritious food to publicly procured SMP will improve the nutritional quality of food consumed among children(17). However, the true potential of procurement as a driver of change in schools remains unknown as few countries in SSA have implemented these models and/or have monitoring and evaluation mecha- nisms(2,6,10). To the best of our knowledge, this review is the first to look at national SMP and food procurement policies as a way to improve nutritional outcomes among children and adolescents and to shape the food environment in SSA. This review aimed to (1) synthesise the evidence of the impact of publicly procured SMP on school food environments and nutritional outcomes of children and adolescents (5–18 years) in SSA and (2) identify the challenges and facilitators to implementing effective SMP. Methods Reporting A systematic reviewwas conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines(18). The protocol for this review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022354440). Eligibility criteria The Population Intervention Comparison Outcome and Study type (PICOS) model was used: Population (children and adolescents in primary/secondary schools); Intervention (publicly procured SMP (i.e. nationally funded government programme)); Context (in SSA); Outcomes (anthropometrics (underweight, stunting, wasting, over- weight/obesity), micronutrient deficiencies, food con- sumption and food environment) or (challenges and facilitators to programme implementation); and Study type (randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, quasi- randomised trials, prospective cohort studies with repeated cross-sectional design, qualitative studies, mixed-method studies). Studies conducted over the past 10 years in English and Frenchwere eligible for inclusion. All eligibility criteria are included in online supplementary material, Supplemental Material 1. Search strategy and data extraction Scoping searches were conducted and checked by a reference librarian to identify relevant studies. The search syntax was developed in PubMed and then adapted to meet database-specific requirements (e.g. Medical Subject Headings). Searches were conducted in September 2022 in seven databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE, Google Scholar, e-Library of Evidence for Nutrition Actions (ELENA) and Global Database on Implementation of Nutrition Action (GINA). Grey literature was also included. At both the title/abstract 2 J Liguori et al. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 and the full-text screening stages, 15 % of excluded articles were reviewed by a second reviewer (HOK, JL, SN) to ensure inter-rater accuracy among excluded articles. Reference lists of background articles, systematic reviews and included studies were hand searched inMarch 2023 for additional references. Additionally, the ‘cited by’ function in Google Scholar was used as a snowball technique to identify relevant articles. Data extraction Google Forms was used for data extraction. HOK, JL, MH and MS piloted and conducted the data extraction, including information on study design, study setting (country, rural/urban, primary/secondary school), partici- pant characteristics (age, sample size, role in school) and type of intervention (school meal type, duration, period of evaluation, cost). Additional information was extracted on nutritional outcomes measured (i.e. anthropometrics, micronutrient deficiencies, food consumed or food envi- ronment), implementation challenges and/or facilitators and author-based policy recommendations (see online supplementary material, Supplemental Material 2). Quality appraisal Included studies were independently appraised twice (JL, HOK, MH, MS) using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)(19). This tool was designed to critically appraise multiple types of research methodologies in systematic reviews(19,20). As Cochrane guidelines advise appraisers to judge the quality of evidence, without giving a definitive score(21), each article was given a colour (red= low, amber=medium, green= high) to indicate overall quality. Any disagreement between reviewers was resolved by discussion. Framework for analysis A school food system framework (Fig. 1) was developed, integrating concepts from others(1,14,22–24). The framework details each step of the school food system: production of food, wholesale and trading, transportation and storage, processing and distribution, food preparation, distribution to students, student stakeholder, community involvement and infrastructure support. This framework differs from prior models as it includes an additional step to include students as active stakeholders within the SMP and a stand- alone step for community involvement. In addition, infrastructure support, adapted from Food-Epi domains(25), was added as a cross-cutting category encompassing leadership, governance, monitoring and evaluation, funding, resource platforms for interaction and health in all policies. Data synthesis Due to the small number and methodological hetero- geneity of quantitative studies, data were synthesised descriptively and reported by nutritional outcome. For qualitative findings, a thematic analysis of barriers and facilitators was conducted. Themes were identified from the analysis of extracted text and coded in NVivo12(26). Data were synthesised with a framework matrix including nodes for different themes/subthemes(27). Nodeswere then broken down into nine steps, representing the different steps of the school food system. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ) statement was followed(28). Author-based policy recom- mendations emerging from included studies were also mapped across the school food system framework. Results Description of included studies In total, thirty-three studies were included in this review (Fig. 2) in nine of the forty-six SSA countries (Fig. 3). Most studies were conducted in either South Africa (n 10) or Ghana (n 9), followed by Ethiopia (n 4), Namibia (n 4) and Zambia (n 2). Only one study was identified in each of Botswana, Kenya, Nigeria and Tanzania. All nine countries reported having national SMP. Most studies focused on primary schools (n 27), while four studies(29–32) included secondary schools, and three studies(33–35) included both. The thirty-three studies comprised eighteen journal articles, ten master-level theses, three international reports, two doctoral theses and oneworking paper. Excluded studies at the data extraction stage are available (see online supplementary material, Supplemental Material 3). Seven studies elucidated the first research objective: to synthesise the evidence of the impact of publicly procured SMP on nutritional outcomes and school food Production of food Community involvement Student stakeholders Infrastructure support Wholesale and trading Transportation and storage Distribution to students Food preparation Processing and distribution Fig. 1 School food system framework adapted from Drake et al., 2016; De Carvalho et al., 2011; Moepeng, 2016; WFP, 2018; and WHO, 2021 Public procurement in sub-Saharan African schools 3 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 environments of children/adolescents (5–18 years) in SSA (Table 1). All seven studies used quantitative methods, including two randomised control trials(36,37), two longi- tudinal cohorts with multiple points of cross-sectional data collection(38,39), two single collect cross-sectional stud- ies(29,40) and one non-randomised trial(41), spanning Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa. Twenty-six studies, using qualitative methods, shed light on the second research objective to identify challenges and facilitators to implementing effective procurement in SMP in SSA (Table 2). These studies were conducted in seven countries: Botswana, Ethiopia, Ghana, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania and Zambia. There was some overlap between challenges and facilitators and was often context dependent (Table 3). Included studies varied in quality, with quantitative studies scoring Green= 1(36), Amber= 4(29,37–39) and Red= 2(40,41), warranting careful interpretation and extrapolation of study findings. Qualitative studies mostly used acceptable/ good methodological and research practices (Green= 7(23,30,31,42–45), Amber= 15(32–35,46–56), Red= 4(57–60) (see online supplementary material, Supplemental Material 4). The impact of procured school meals programmes on nutritional outcomes Overall, the results are mixed with some evidence of positive impact of publicly funded SMP on nutritional outcomes (Table 1). Subgroup analysis by gender, Identification of studies via databases Id en tif ic at io n Sc re en in g El ig ib ilit y In cl ud ed Citations identified through database search (CENTRAL, EMBASE, PubMed) (n 2,922) Additional references identified through other sources (n 36) ELENA (n 12) GINA (n 0) Google Search (n 24) Duplicates (n 127) Titles and abstracts of references screened after removal of duplicates (n 2,831) Full text of references reviewed (n 76) Excluded (n 52) Duplicate (n 5) Not sub-Saharan Africa (n 1) Other outcome (no public food procurement or nutritional outcome) (n 30) Other publication type (n 6) Other study design (n 2) Other study population (n 2) Published before 2011 (n 7) Eligible references for data extraction (n 52) Main search (n 23) Background and reviews hand search (n 4) References and citations hand search (n 25) Excluded main search (n 19) Other outcome (no public food procurement or nutritional outcome) (n 15) Other publication type (n 1) Second record with same results reported (n 2) Unclear reported results (n 1) References included in the review (n 33) Fig. 2 PRISMA diagram detailing the screening process 4 J Liguori et al. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 geography, age, socio-economic status and family compo- sition also produced mixed results for micronutrient status, anthropometric status and dietary outcomes. Only one study reported an impact of SMP on diet and the school food environment, respectively. Impact on anthropometrics Four studies reported on anthropometric outcomes. One randomised controlled trial in Ghana(36) found that SMP did not affect height-for-age Z-score (HAZ) and BMI-for-age Z-score (BAZ) in 5–15 years childrenparticipating in the SMP compared with non-participants. The authors conducted subgroup analysis on age, gender, age*gender, socio- economic status and socio-economic status*age. These analyses showed a small positive effect of the programme on HAZ among girls 5–15 years (P= 0·021), BAZ in boys 5–8 years (P= 0·028) and HAZ in all children from low- socio-economic households. In a Nigerian cohort study(39), authors reported that mean weight-for-length/height Z-score in children (5–7 years) who received the SMP improved over time (–0·67 at baseline, –0·57 at 3 months, –0·41 at 6 months), while deteriorating in the control group (þ0·35, –1·56, –0·17, respectively) (P< 0·0001). Mean weight-for-age Z-score and HAZ among beneficiaries also improved over time, while changes among non-beneficiar- ies were mixed (P< 0·0001 for both indicators). While the authors reported no statistically significant association between the SMP and wasting, they observed significant associations between the SMP and reduction in underweight (P= 0·001) and stunting (P= 0·04). Baseline data revealed major differences in nutritional status between intervention and control groups: stunting 22·0 % v. 44·4 %,wasting 12·0 % v. 6·0 % and underweight 23·2 % v. 2·8 %, respectively, raising concern for the comparability of included groups. Another cohort study conducted in Ethiopia(38) found no significant impact of the SMP on BAZ, HAZ and anaemia in children 10–14 years. In one Kenyan(41) study, children (2–10 years) who received SMP for 12 months, combined with vitamin supplementation for 3 months (when clinically required), deworming and nutrition education, were less stunted (12·0 % v. 22·0 %, P= 0·02), wasted (0% v. 11·0 %, P= 0·02) and underweight (0 % v. 11·0 %, P= 0·06) than children of the same age who only received a deworming treatment. The proportion of childrenwith anaemiawas also lower in the intervention group compared with the control group (19·0 % v. 42·0 %, P= 0·01); however, this association is questionable as data for the intervention and control group were collected a year apart. Impact on micronutrient deficiencies Three studies reported on micronutrient deficiencies. In a randomised controlled trial in South Africa(37), adding African leafy vegetables to SMP 5 days per week over 3 months reduced vitamin A deficiency in children (6–12 Fig. 3 Map showing the distribution of research of publicly procured school meals programmes and nutritional outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa Public procurement in sub-Saharan African schools 5 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Table 1 Characteristics of studies assessing the impact of procured school meals programmes (SMP) on nutritional outcomes Author Study design Country Zone Intervention (modality) Duration of intervention Number of schools (sampling) Participants (sampling) Student age Reported outcomes Key findings Quality Appraisal MMAT Colour Score Abizari et al., 2021(29) Cross-sec- tional Ghana Urban School meal (lunch) 1 month 3 (purposive) Secondary school stu- dents (n 403). Random. 12–17 years Dietary outcomes (dietary diversity score (DDS) 24 h recall; 72 h recall) ○ Over a 3-day lunch compari- son, SMP beneficiaries had a 1-unit increase in DDS (7·5 v. 6·5 food groups, P< 0·001) compared with non-beneficiaries, with sig- nificant differences observed for white roots and tubers, eggs, legumes/ nuts/seeds and oils/fat. ○ In comparing whole-day meals, a 2-unit increase in DDS of whole-day meals of beneficiary students com- pared with non-beneficiaries (11·5 v. 9·3; P< 0·001) for dark green leafy vegetables, vitamin A-rich fruits, organ meat/flesh meat, fish/sea- food, legumes/nuts/seeds and milk/milk products. However, the school meal rarely served fruit, vegeta- bles, meat and dairy prod- ucts. Amber Desalegn et al., 2022(38) Cohort Ethiopia Rural School meal (lunch) 12 months 16 (random) Primary school students (n 463). Random. 10–14 years Anthropometric outcomes (BAZ; HAZ); Micronutrient deficien- cies outcome (anae- mia, Hb concentration) ○ No significant effect on over- all anthropometric status (HAZ, BAZ). ○ No significant difference on overall Hb concentration Amber Faber et al., 2013(40) Cross-sec- tional South Afric- a Urban; peri- urban; rural School meal (not reported) 7 months 90 (purposive) School principal (n 85), pro- gramme coordinator (n 77), food handlers (n 84). Sample method not reported. 11–13 years Food environment out- come (food provision at school level) ○ School policy on food sold (clean and healthy) to the learners was only imple- mented in 19% of schools. ○ School policy on foods brought to school, focusing on healthy foods (fruit) and limiting ‘junk’ food in the lunch box, was found in 13% of schools. Red 6 J Ligu o riet a l. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cam bridge U niversity Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Table 1 Continued Author Study design Country Zone Intervention (modality) Duration of intervention Number of schools (sampling) Participants (sampling) Student age Reported outcomes Key findings Quality Appraisal MMAT Colour Score ○ Most schools did not comply with the required daily serv- ing of vegetables and/or fruit. ○ 64–87% of food handlers received training on hygiene, storage and por- tion sizes (food handlers). Gelli et al., 2019(36) Cluster RCT Ghana Urban; rural School meal (lunch) 34 months 91 (random) Primary school students (n 3170). Random. Food han- dlers (n 55). Purposive. 5–15 years Anthropometric out- comes (BAZ; HAZ) * ○ School meals had no effect on HAZ and BAZ in children aged 5–15 years. ○ In subgroup analysis, the SMP intervention improved HAZ, in children in house- holds living below the pov- erty line (effect size: 0·22 SD) and in girls living in the northern regions (effect size: 0·12 SD). Green Neerrvoort et al., 2013(41) Non-rando- mised trial Kenya Urban slum School meal (lunch, snack); supplementa- tion (vitamin A, iron); Nutrition educa- tion 12 months school meal; 3 months vitamin sup- plementation 1 (not reported) Primary school students (n 148). Convenience. 2–10 years Anthropometric out- comes (stunting, underweight, wasting) *; micronutrient out- comes (anaemia, severe anaemia) ○ SMP beneficiaries were less stunted (12 v. 22%, P= 0·02) and wasted (0 v. 11%, P= 0·02) than those in the control group. However, no children were underweight (0%) in the intervention group at baseline compared with 11% of children being underweight in the control group at the same time, which could bias the sample. Data were also collected for the control group 1 year after the intervention group. ○ Prevalence of anaemia among SMP beneficiaries was lower than non-SMP beneficiaries (19 v. 42%, P= 0·01). Severe anaemia was not reported in any group. Red P u b lic p ro cu rem en t in su b -Sah aran A frican sch o o ls 7 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cam bridge U niversity Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Table 1 Continued Author Study design Country Zone Intervention (modality) Duration of intervention Number of schools (sampling) Participants (sampling) Student age Reported outcomes Key findings Quality Appraisal MMAT Colour Score Oyela et al., 2023(39) Cohort Nigeria Not reported School meal pro- vision (home- grown school feeding) 6 months 10 (random) Primary school students (n 500). Purposive. 5–7 years Anthropometric out- comes (stunting, underweight, wasting) ○ Improvement in the nutri- tional status of the benefici- ary group compared with the non-beneficiary group, with a general improvement in the anthropometric mea- surements at 3 and 6 months, with more gains made at 6 months. However, at baseline, there were major differences in nutritional status between intervention and control groups: stunting 22% v. 44·4 %; wasting 12% v. 6 %; underweight 23·2 % v. 2·8%. ○ Reported statistically signifi- cant improvements in underweight (P = 0·001, F= 23·847, η2= 0·046) and stunting (P= 0·04, F= 4·083, η2= 0·008) at 6 months (5% variance in underweight and ∼1% vari- ance in stunting likely attrib- uted to the SMP. ○ No statistically significant relationship between the SMP and wasting (P = 0·30, F= 1·075, η2= 0·002) was observed. ○ In subgroup analysis, there was an improvement in the nutritional status of both male and female children at 6 months, with statistically significant gender differences were observed in underweight levels of both males and females at 3 months and 6 months (t1= 2·378, p1 = 0·018; t2= 2·123, p1 = 0·035), respectively, and a significant gender dif- ference was observed in stunting level at 6 months (t= 2·152, P= 0·032). Amber 8 J Ligu o riet a l. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cam bridge U niversity Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 years) from 7·0 % (baseline) to 1·3 % (endline) in the intervention group, while no change was observed in controls (P= 0·015). However, this programme had no impact on iron deficiency, as the study population only had mild deficiencies at baseline, and on zinc deficiency, despite high prevalence of deficiencies in the study population. In Southern Ethiopia(38), a prospective cohort study conducted over 9 months found no significant effect of the weekly menu, composed of maize, beans, cracked wheat and vegetable oil, on Hb concentration on children (10–14 years). While in Kenya(41), a study conducted over 12 months reported that the prevalence of anaemia among SMP beneficiaries (children 2–10 years) was lower than non-SMP beneficiaries (P= 0·01) after the intervention. Impact on food consumed In a cross-sectional study inGhana(29), SMP students (12–17 years) had on average a one-unit difference in dietary diversity score at lunch compared with non-beneficiary students (7·5 v. 6·5 food groups, respectively, out of fourteen possible food groups, P< 0·001). Impact on school food environment One cross-sectional study(40) reported on the impact school policies on foods sold or brought to school to limit ‘junk’ food consumption and increase fruit and vegetable intake in ninety South African schools. However, most schools had low levels of policy implementation: food regulations were used in 19 % of schools, food brought from homewas checked in 13 % of schools and vegetables were featured in the school meal in 41 % of surveyed schools. Challenges, facilitators and authors’ recommended solutions for implementing public food procurement policies in sub-Saharan Africa schools Facilitators were reported in twenty-three studies across the steps: production of food (n 2), wholesale and trading (n 9), transportation and storage (n 2), processing and distribution (n 11), food preparation (n 9), distribution to students (n 5), student stakeholders (n 13), community involvement (n 10) and infrastructure support (n 3) (Table 3; illustrative quotes available in online supple- mentary material, Supplemental Material 5). Barriers were reported in twenty-six studies in each step: production of food (n 3), wholesale and trading (n 13), transportation and storage (n 13), processing and distribution (n 12), food preparation (n 17), distribution to students (n 20), student stakeholders (n 11), community involvement (n 11) and infrastructure support (n 15). Recommendations from authors of included studies were made for policy action: production of food (n 5), wholesale and trading (n 9), transportation and storage (n 5), processing and distribution (n 2), food preparation (n 15), distribution to students (n 7), student stakeholders (n 9), community involvement (n 8) and infrastructure support (n 25).T ab le 1 C on tin ue d A ut ho r S tu dy de si gn C ou nt ry Z on e In te rv en tio n (m od al ity ) D ur at io n of in te rv en tio n N um be r of sc ho ol s (s am pl in g) P ar tic ip an ts (s am pl in g) S tu de nt ag e R ep or te d ou tc om es K ey fin di ng s Q ua lit y A pp ra is al M M A T C ol ou r S co re V an de r H oe ve n et al ., 20 15 (3 7) R C T S ou th A fr ic - a R ur al S ch oo lm ea lp ro - vi si on (lu nc h or lu nc h w ith gr ee n le af y ve ge ta bl es ) 3 m on th s 2 (p ur po si ve ) P rim ar y sc ho ol st ud en ts (n 16 7) . R an do m . 6– 12 ye ar s M ic ro nu tr ie nt ou tc om es (a na em ia ,H b co n- ce nt ra tio n; S er um fe rr iti n; se ru m tr an s- fe rr in re ce pt or ; Z in c (s er um Z n; se ru m re t- in ol co nc en tr at io ns ; Z n pr ot op or ph yr in ) ○ N o ef fe ct of ad di ng A fr ic an le af y ve ge ta bl es to th e S M P ob se rv ed in an ae m ia , Z in c de fic ie nc y an d Ir on de fi- ci en cy an d se ru m re tin ol am on g th e S M P be ne fic ia ry gr ou p. ○ T he pr ev al en ce of su bc lin ic al V ita m in A de fi- ci en cy de cr ea se d si gn ifi - ca nt ly in th e in te rv en tio n gr ou p fr om 7· 0 % at ba se - lin e to 1· 3 % at en d po in t (P = 0· 01 5) , w ith no ch an ge in th e co nt ro lg ro up . A m be r B A Z ,B M I- fo r- ag e Z -s co re ;H b, H ae m og lo bi n; H A Z , he ig ht -f or -a ge Z -s co re ; R C T ,r an do m is ed co nt ro lle d tr ia l; S M P , S ch oo lM ea lP ro gr am m e. *W H O st an da rd s us ed . Public procurement in sub-Saharan African schools 9 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Table 2 Characteristics of studies identifying challenges and facilitators of school meal programme implementation Author Country Zone Number of schools (sampling) Participants (sampling) Student age Data collection method Implementation Challenges Facilitators Quality Appraisal MMAT Score Banda†, 2017(42) Zambia Not reported 15 (random) Primary school children (n 15); parents (n 15); government official (n 1); teachers (n 9); head of school (n 6) (purposive) Not reported Individual interviews; semi-struc- tured questionnaire ✓ ✓ Green Daitai†, 2017(30) South Africa Rural 1 (purposive) Parents (n 5); food handlers (2); teachers (2); head of school (n 1); supervisor at circuit level (n 1); farmers (n 5); students (n 10) (quota) 17–18 years Individual interviews; observation; document analysis ✓ ✓ Green Darko†, 2014(46) Ghana Urban; Rural 2 (purposive) Student leadership; school leadership; parent–teacher association. Sample size not reported (random) Not reported Focus group ✓ Amber Dei, 2014(47) South Africa Rural 1 (purposive) Primary school students (n 112); teachers (n 9) (probability) Grade 6–7 (∼11–13) Focus group ✓ ✓ Amber Desalegn et al., 2022(43) Ethiopia Rural 8 (random) Primary school children; parents; government officials; teachers; head of school. Sample size not reported (sample method not reported) 10–14 years Individual interviews; focus group ✓ ✓ Green Ellis, 2012(57) Namibia Urban; peri- urban; rural 15 (purpos- ive) Primary school children; parents; food han- dlers; head of school. Sample size not reported. Government officials (n 27) (sam- ple method not reported) Not reported Individual interviews; focus group ✓ ✓ Red Fernandes et al., 2016(48) Ghana Not reported Not reported Government officials; food handlers. Sample size not reported (sample method not reported) Not reported Focus group; monitoring reports; observation ✓ Amber Fernandes et al., 2017(33) Ghana Urban; rural 111 (purpos- ive) Parents (n 72) (random) 5–17 years Focus group ✓ ✓ Amber Hamupembe†, 2016(44) Namibia Urban 2 (purposive) Teachers (n 16) (random); head of school (n 2); Namibian School Feeding Programme focal person (n 2) (purposive) Not reported Focus group; observation ✓ ✓ Green Khama*, 2022(49) Namibia Not reported 2 (purposive) Head of school (n 2); teachers (n 5), coor- dinators (n 4), school board members (n 2); service providers (n 1) (purposive) Not reported Individual interviews; focus group; observation ✓ ✓ Amber Langsford†, 2018(50) South Africa Urban 2 (purposive) Primary school children; parents; government officials; food handlers; school manage- ment; teachers. Sample size not reported (purposive) 7–13 years Individual interviews; observation ✓ ✓ Amber Mafugu, 2021(31) South Africa Not reported 5 (purposive) One teacher coordinator (n 1), head of school (n 4), food service providers (n 7), food handlers (n 6), government officials (n 2) (purposive) Grade 12 (∼17–18) Individual interviews ✓ ✓ Green Mensah, 2019(51) Ghana Not reported 56 (not reported) Food caterers (n 11); head of school (n 5); household respondent (n 5); Grain Banks Committee Representatives (not reported) (sample method not reported) Not reported Individual interviews; focus group ✓ ✓ Amber Mensah & Karriem, 2021(34) South Africa Rural 12 (random) Government officials (not reported); teachers (n 12); head of school (n 12); food suppli- ers; farmers (n 43) (purposive) Not reported Individual interviews ✓ ✓ Amber 10 J Ligu o riet a l. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cam bridge U niversity Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Table 2 Continued Author Country Zone Number of schools (sampling) Participants (sampling) Student age Data collection method Implementation Challenges Facilitators Quality Appraisal MMAT Score Moepeng, 2016(23) Botswana Urban; Peri- urban; Rural 4 (purposive) Primary school children; parents; kitchen staff; teachers; parent–teacher association members, community members; farmers; food suppliers. Sample size not reported (purposive) Not reported Individual interviews; focus group; observation ✓ ✓ Green Molotja*, 2019(45) South Africa Rural 11 (random) Primary school children (not reported). Random; food handlers (n 30). Purposively; programme officers (n 5); teachers (n 14) (sample method not reported) 10–15 years Individual interviews; focus group; participatory rural appraisal (observations, note taking, photographs, Venn dia- grams, seasonal calendars) ✓ ✓ Green Okae-Adjei et al., 2016(52) Ghana Not reported 10 (random) Primary school children; parents. Sample sizes not reported. Random; government officials. Sample size not reported (purposive) Not reported Individual interviews; observation ✓ ✓ Amber Rector et al., 2021(32) Tanzania Rural 10 (not reported) Secondary school children; parents; govern- ment officials; head of school; biology teachers. Sample size not reported (sam- ple method not reported) 14–15 years Individual interviews; focus group ✓ ✓ Amber Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35) South Africa Urban; rural 12 (purpos- ive) Parents; government officials; kitchen staff; teachers; head of school; food handlers; food suppliers. Sample size not reported (purposive) Not reported Individual interviews; focus group; observation ✓ ✓ Amber Sanousi, 2019(53) South Africa Urban 4 (not reported) Government officials (n 1); Head of school (n 4); teacher coordinators (n 4), food han- dlers (n 4); members of the school governing body (n 4) (purposive) Not reported Individual interviews ✓ ✓ Amber Sibanda†, 2012(58) Namibia Urban 1 (random) Parents (n 8) (convenience) 11–16 years Focus group ✓ ✓ Red Sichala†, 2020(54) Zambia Urban; rural 4 (purposive) Learners (not reported), school heads, pro- gramme focal teachers, parents, key com- munity leaders, government representative, NGO representative (purposive) Not reported Individual interviews; focus group; observation; quantitative questionnaire ✓ ✓ Amber Sulemana et al., 2013(59) Ghana Urban; peri- urban; rural 17 (purpos- ive) Primary school children; food handlers; teachers; head of school; health workers; farmers; community members; programme officers. Sample size not reported (sample method not reported) Not reported Individual interviews; Focus Group ✓ ✓ Red Xie & Brownell, 2020(55) Ethiopia Urban Not reported Community stakeholders (n 7) (convenience) Grade 1–8 (∼7–14) Individual interviews ✓ ✓ Amber Yendaw & Dayour, 2015(56) Ghana Rural 1 (not reported) Parents (n 155); head of school (n 1); food suppliers (n 1); assembly member (n 1); government officials (not reported) (sample method not reported) Not reported Individual interviews; observation ✓ Amber Zenebe et al., 2018(60) Ethiopia Not reported 6 (purposive) FAO/WFP school meal programme coordinator (n 1); head of school (n 6); gov- ernment officials (not reported) (purposive) 10–14 years Individual interviews ✓ ✓ Red *PhD thesis; †master’s thesis. P u b lic p ro cu rem en t in su b -Sah aran A frican sch o o ls 11 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cam bridge U niversity Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Table 3 Challenges and facilitators to implementing publicly procured school meal programmes (SMP) School food system step Challenges (no of studies) Studies Facilitators (no of studies) Studies Production of food 3 2 Local food production 3 Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Mensah & Karriem, 2021(34); Moepeng 2013(23) 2 Ellis, 2012(57); Moepeng, 2013(23) Wholesale and trading 13 9 Local procurement and home-grown school feeding programmes 5 Daitai et al., 2018(30); Ellis, 2012(57); Moepeng, 2013(23); Molotja, 2019(45); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35) 5 Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Mensah, 2019(51); Mensah & Karriem, 2021(34); Moepeng, 2013(23); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35) Financial constraints and transparency 4 Mafugu, 2021(31); Mensah & Karriem, 2021(34); Xie & Brownell, 2020(55); Zenebe et al., 2018(60) 1 Rector et al., 2021(32) Quantity of food purchased 4 Banda, 2017(42); Mafugu, 2021(31); Mensah & Karriem, 2021(34); Khama, 2022(49) 0 Decentralised food procurement 2 Khama, 2022(49); Langsford, 2018(50) 3 Langsford, 2018(50); Mensah & Karriem, 2021(34); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35) Centralised food procurement 1 Banda, 2017(42) 3 Moepeng, 2013(23); Molotja, 2019(45); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35) Reliability of suppliers (e.g. contracts, avoid conflict) 2 Khama, 2022(49); Moepeng 2013(23) 3 Dei, 2014(47); Mafugu, 2021(31); Molotja, 2019(45) Food procurement procedure in place (or lack thereof) 2 Mafugu, 2021(31); Rector et al., 2021(32) 1 Dei, 2014(47) Transportation and storage 13 2 On-time food deliveries 10 Banda, 2017(42); Daitai et al., 2018(30); Dei, 2014(47); Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Langsford, 2018(50); Mensah & Karriem, 2021(34); Moepeng, 2013(23); Molotja, 2019(45); Sanousi, 2019(53); Sibanda, 2012(58) 1 Hamupembe, 2016(44) Quality of food delivered (spoilage) 4 Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Hamupembe, 2016(45); Moepeng, 2013(23); Molotja, 2019(45) 0 Infrastructure of food transportation and supply chain 3 Khama, 2022(49); Moepeng, 2013(23); Zenebe et al., 2018(60) 0 Quantity of food delivered 0 1 Sichala, 2020(54) Processing and distribution 14 11 Storage condition on-site 12 Banda, 2017(42); Daitai et al., 2018(30); Dei, 2014(47); Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Ellis, 2012(57); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Khama, 2022(49); Mafugu, 2021(31); Molotja, 2019(45); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Xie & Brownell, 2020(55); Zenebe et al., 2018(60) 1 Hamupembe, 2016(44) School gardens creation and maintenance 5 Banda, 2017(42); Daitai et al., 2018(30); Ellis, 2012(57); Rector et al., 2021(32); Sanousi, 2019(53) 3 Molotja, 2019(45); Rector et al., 2021(32); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35) Programme coordination at all levels 0 10 Daitai et al., 2018(30); Dei, 2014(47); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Khama, 2022(49); Langsford, 2018(50); Mensah & Karriem, 2021(34); Moepeng, 2013(23); Molotja, 2019(45); Rector et al., 2021(32); Sanousi, 2019(53) 12 J Liguori et al. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Table 3 Continued School food system step Challenges (no of studies) Studies Facilitators (no of studies) Studies Food preparation 17 9 Unpaid (including delayed payments) and/or untrained food handlers 13 Banda, 2017(42); Dei, 2014(47); Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Ellis, 2012(57); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Khama, 2022(49); Langsford, 2018(50); Mafugu, 2021(31); Mensah, 2019(51); Molotja, 2019(45); Okae-Adjei et al., 2016(52); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35) 0 Infrastructure to prepare school meal 11 Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Ellis, 2012(57); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Khama, 2022(49); Langsford, 2018(50); Mafugu, 2021(31); Okae- Adjei et al., 2016(52); Rector et al., 2021(32); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Sulemana et al., 2013(59); Xie & Brownell, 2020(55) 5 Dei, 2014(47), Hamupembe, 2016(44), Langsford, 2018(50), Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35), Xie & Brownell, 2020(55) Food safety measures and training 9 Banda, 2017(42); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Khama, 2022(49); Mafugu, 2021(31); Molotja, 2019(45); Okae-Adjei et al., 2021(32); Xie & Brownell, 2020(55); Zenebe et al., 2018(60) 5 Banda, 2017(42), Daitai et al., 2018(30), Moepeng, 2013(23), Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35), Xie & Brownell, 2020(55) Tools for measurements and consistency 3 Ellis, 2012(57); Hampuembe, 2016(44); Sibanda, 2012(58) 1 Fernandes et al., 2017(33) Safety standards in kitchen 2 Langsford, 2018(50); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35) 0 Lack of guidelines for meal preparation 1 Hamupembe, 2016(44) 0 Lack of nutrition knowledge of food handlers 1 Ellis, 2012(57) 0 Food not meeting SMP requirements 1 Langsford, 2018(50) 0 Timing of food on menus to avoid spoilage 1 Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013 (35) 0 Distribution to students 20 5 Meal quality and quantity (dietary diversity) 13 Daitai et al., 2018(30); Darko, 2014(56); Dei, 2014(47); Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Ellis, 2012(57); Khama, 2022(49); Moepeng, 2013(23); Molotja, 2019(45); Okae- Adjei et al., 2016(52); Rendall- Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Sanousi, 2019(53); Sichala, 2020(54); Suelmana et al., 2013(59) 0 Supplies of cutlery and serv- ing equipment not pro- vided/provided 9 Banda, 2017(42); Dei, 2014(47); Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Ellis, 2012(57); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Khama, 2022(49); Molotja, 2019(45); Sulemana et al., 2013(59) 1 Ellis, 2012(57) Time constraints 9 Banda, 2017(42); Dei, 2014(47); Ellis, 2012(57); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Khama, 2022(49); Mafugu, 2021(31); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Sulemana et al., 2013(59); Zenebe et al., 2018(60) 0 Infrastructure in/around din- ing space 6 Khama, 2022(49); Langsford, 2018(50); Molotja, 2019(45); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Sulemana et al., 2013(59) 0 Record-keeping of meals consumed per d/week 6 Ellis, 2012(57); Fernandes et al., 2017(33); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Moepeng, 2013(23); Rendall- Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Sulemana et al., 2013(59) 1 Desalegn et al., 2022(43) Public procurement in sub-Saharan African schools 13 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Table 3 Continued School food system step Challenges (no of studies) Studies Facilitators (no of studies) Studies Meal diversity 5 Darko, 2014(56); Khama, 2022(49); Mafugu, 2021(31); Moepeng, 2013(23); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35) 2 Fernandes et al., 2016(48); Sanousi, 2019(53) Added workload for school staff 4 Banda, 2017(42); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Khama, 2022(49); Molotja, 2019(45) 0 Inconsistent meal distribution 2 Sanousi, 2019(53); Sichala, 2020(54) Teachers receiving school meals when food supply is limited 2 Darko, 2014(56); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35) 0 Absent food handlers 1 Dei, 2014(47) 0 Alternative food available in/ around school 1 Fernandes et al., 2016(48) 0 Food safety 1 Hamupembe, 2016(44) 0 Encouraging students to stay all day at school 0 1 Fernandes et al., 2016(48) Student stakeholders 11 13 Preferences 8 Banda, 2017(42); Daitai et al., 2018(30); Ellis, 2012(57); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Langsford, 2018(50); Mafugu, 2021(31); Moepeng, 2013(23); Xie & Brownell, 2020(55) 8 Desalegn et al., 2022(43), Ellis, 2012(57), Khama, 2022(49), Moepeng, 2013(23), Molotja, 2019(45), Rector et al., 2021(32), Sanousi,2019(53), Zenebe et al., 2018(60) Student stigma of participation in SMP 5 Banda, 2017(42); Ellis, 2012(57); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Khama, 2022(49); Sibanda, 2012(58) 0 Student perceptions of SMP (negative or positive) 1 Hamupembe, 2016(44) 6 Dei, 2014(47); Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Khama, 2022(49); Sanousi, 2019(53); Sibanda, 2012(58); Sulemana et al., 2013(59) Poor hygiene practices 1 Molotja, 2019(45) 0 Student participation in SMP planning and organisation 0 3 Rector et al., 2021(32); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Xie & Brownell, 2020(55) Decrease in disruptive class- room behaviour 0 1 Sanousi, 2019(53) Community involvement 11 10 Community engagement (parents and wider com- munity) 6 Banda, 2017(42); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Khama, 2022(49); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Sibanda, 2012(58); Sulemana et al., 2013(59) 1 Banda, 2017(42) Community perceptions of the SMP (negative or pos- itive) 5 Banda, 2017(42); Darko, 2014(56); Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Moepeng, 2013(23); Yendaw & Dayour, 2015(56) 5 Banda, 2017(42); Daitai et al., 2018(30); Moepeng, 2013(23); Okae-Adjei et al., 2016(52); Rector et al., 2021(32) Shared responsibility 0 5 Molotja, 2019(45); Okae-Adjei et al., 2016(52); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Sanousi, 2019(53); Sibanda, 2012(58) Employment creation 0 4 Daitai et al., 2018(30); Moepeng, 2013(23); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Xie & Brownell, 2020(55) External donors (financial and supplies) 0 3 Hamupembe, 2016(44); Langsford, 2018(50); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35) Infrastructure support 15 3 Funding for SMP 9 Banda, 2017(42); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Langsford, 2018(50); Moepeng, 2013(23); Molotja, 2019(45); Okae-Adjei et al., 2016(52); Sulemana et al., 2013(59); Yendaw & Dayour, 2015(56) 1 Rector et al., 2021(32) 14 J Liguori et al. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Facilitators, barriers and authors’ recommended solutions (Table 4) are reported for each step of the school food system framework. Production of food Switching SMP from centrally sourced to domestically grown crops was a challenge for countries, like Namibia, where imported food makes up the majority of available food(57). Promoting local procurement in Botswana sought to create more reliable market access for farmers(34) increasing economic activity and sometimes crop diversi- fication(23). However, government budgets for local production were low, and only individual farmers (not farmer groups) could apply for contracts, making it difficult to supply sufficient quantities of crops that met set quality standards(23). Authors’ recommended solutions include creating links with farmers to promote more local and sustainable procurement approaches(23,40,43,46,48,54). Examples include supporting local agriculture production of micronutrient rich vegetables and incorporating them in meals served(43) and including tools, such as ‘The School Meals Planner Package’ in Ghana, to include local produce in weekly menus(48). Wholesale and trading In terms of wholesale and trading, no consensus on best type of procurement model was reached. Centralised procurement was challenging when the food supply was disrupted, as it impacted the entire programme(42). However, moving away from centralised to decentralised procurement was also cited as a challenge(49,50). For example, including or increasing the percentage of locally procured food for SMP was difficult, particularly due to the seasonality, quality or scale of local production, especially in non-agricultural regions(23,30,35,45,57). Alternatively, non- local procurement was problematic as it failed to support the local economy, with school menus composed of non- traditional and international foods such as tinned fish and soya. Depending on the context, some sources reported that centralised procurement was a SMP facilitator, as the directives of the overall programme came from one source, facilitating programme management, purchasing, imple- mentation and reporting(23). Competitive market prices, offered to those buying large quantities, often reduced financial burden of schools, thus ensuring equal access to food, even among remote schools(23,35,45). Other sources reported the advantages of decentralised procurement models, which allowed schools to have more flexible procurement criteria. Decentralised models allowed SMP to set budgets in advance, which helped reduce corrup- tion(32,34,35,50). Meanwhile, some centralised models included local food, allowing schools to manage SMP independently, encouraging local purchasing and reducing costs for food-related transportation(23,34,35,43,51). Freshness of local food was positively associated with locally grown crops, with some studies noting that students preferred these foods(23,34,35,43,51). Additional challenges included delayed contracts, supplier payments and changing class sizes and enrolments throughout the year, making food orders complex(23,49). On the other hand, establishing contracts with food providers helped ensure on-time Table 3 Continued School food system step Challenges (no of studies) Studies Facilitators (no of studies) Studies Monitoring 7 Banda, 2017(42); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Langsford, 2018(50); Moepeng, 2013(23); Molotja, 2019(45); Okae-Adjei et al., 2016(52); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35) 0 Coordination 6 Hamupembe, 2016(44); Khama, 2022(49); Lansgford, 2018(50); Moepeng, 2013(23); Okae-Adjei et al., 2016(52); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35) 2 Rector et al., 2021(32); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Xie & Brownell, 2020(55) Implementation 5 Langsford, 2018(50); Khama, 2022(49); Rector et al., 2021(32); Rendall-Mkosi, 2013(35); Sibanda, 2012(58) 2 Xie & Brownell, 2020(55) Corruption 3 Langsford, 2018(50); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Sanousi, 2019(53) 0 SMP eligibility criteria for schools and/or students 2 Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Sanousi, 2019(53) 1 Xie & Brownell, 2020(55) Technical support and literacy among SMP stakeholders 2 Fernandes et al., 2016(48); Khama, 2022(49) 1 Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35) Public procurement in sub-Saharan African schools 15 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Table 4 Author policy-focused recommendations on implementing publicly procured school meal programmes (SMP) Step Studies per step in school food system Studies Production of food 6 Support local food production 4 Darko, 2014(54); Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Faber et al., 2013(40); Sichala, 2020(55) Government investment in agricultural sector 1 Moepeng, 2013(23) Develop tools for coordinated food production for school meals programmes 1 Fernandes et al., 2016(48) Wholesale and trading 13 Decentralise procurement (include local food) 6 Banda, 2017(42); Daitai et al., 2018(30); Khama, 2022(49); Mensah & Karriem, 2021(34); Moepeng, 2013(23); Sulemana et al., 2013(59) Support farmer collectives 2 Mensah, 2019(51); Moepeng, 2013(23) Develop tools to coordinate food procurement 2 Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Sichala, 2020(54) Transportation and storage 5 Introduce infrastructure improvements along the supply chain 3 Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Faber et al., 2013(40); Moepeng, 2013(23); Molotja, 2019(45) Increase monitoring of food deliveries 3 Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Mafugu, 2021(31); Moepeng, 2013(23) Processing and distribution 2 Facilitate access to school gardens 2 Faber et al., 2013(40); Sanousi, 2019(53) Food preparation 15 Implement infrastructure improvements in the school kitchen 6 Desalegn et al., 2022(38); Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Ellis, 2012(57); Khama, 2022(49); Molotja, 2019(45); Sulemana et al., 2013(59) Ensure nutritious food and dietary diversity 4 Faber et al., 2013(40); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Khama, 2022(49); Van der Hoeven et al., 2015(37) Train food handlers 4 Banda, 2017(42); Desalegn et al., 2022(38); Khama, 2022(49); Mafugu, 2021(31) Ensure meal quantity and quality requirements are met 3 Moepeng, 2013(25); Yendaw & Dayour, 2015(56) Pay food handlers 2 Khama, 2022(49); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35) Develop tools for coordination of meal preparation 2 Hamupembe, 2016(44); Mafugu, 2021(31) Find regular external donors/funders 1 Hamupembe, 2016(44) Distribution to students 8 Introduce infrastructure improvements for food service and student dining spaces 4 Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Ellis, 2012(57); Khama, 2022(49); Molotja, 2019(45) Monitor handwashing among students before food ser- vice 3 Ellis, 2012(57); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Khama, 2022(49) Allot time in school day for school meal 2 Banda, 2017(42); Sulemana et al., 2013(59) Ensure healthy food environment in school 1 Fernandes et al., 2017(33) Student stakeholders 9 Implement nutrition education programme 5 Daitai et al., 2018(30); Desalegn et al., 2022(38); Faber et al., 2013(40); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35) Teach school gardening as specific topic 4 Khama, 2022(49); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Sibanda, 2012(58); Xie & Brownell, 2020(55) Teach food production as specific topic 3 Faber et al., 2013(40); Khama, 2022(49); Molotja, 2019(45) Assess nutritional status of students 1 Van der Hoeven et al., 2015(37) Community involvement 8 Encourage community participation 6 Ellis, 2012(57); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Moepeng, 2013(25); Molotja, 2019(45); Okae-Adjei et al., 2016(52); Yendaw & Dayour, 2015(56) Introduce a school meal programme awareness cam- paign 3 Sichala, 2020(54); Sulemana et al., 2013(59); Yendaw & Dayour, 2015(56) Infrastructure support 25 Provide funding and resources (infrastructure improve- ments, increase programme funding and resources (including training), pay and regulate food suppliers and food handlers, review external partnerships, pro- gramme roll-out) 16 Darko, 2014(56); Desalegn et al., 2022(43); Ellis, 2012(57); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Khama, 2022(49); Mafugu, 2021(31); Mensah, 2019(51); Moepeng, 2013(23); Molotja, 2019(45); Oyela et al., 2023(39); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Sanousi, 2019(53); Sibanda, 2012(58); Sulemana et al., 2013(59); Yendaw & Dayour, 2015(56); Zenebe et al., 2018(60) Implement monitoring and evaluation (surveillance, evalu- ation, research, reporting) 11 Banda, 2017(42); Daitai et al., 2018(30); Darko, 2014(56); Desalegn et al., 2022(38); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Khama, 2022(49); Molotja, 2019(45); Oyela et al., 2023(39); Rendall- Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Sanousi, 2019(53); Sibanda, 2012(58) 16 J Liguori et al. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 deliveries, food quality and financial transparency, such as a public record of purchasing to facilitate SMP’ implementation(31,45). Authors’ recommended solutions included changes to current procurement models, such as a shift from centralised to decentralised modalities to promote, or require, locally produced food in SMP(23,30,34,42,49,59). Creating farmer cooperatives and grain banks was also suggested to support smallholder/local farmers(23,51). Transportation and storage Irregular, inadequate and/or late food deliveries repre- sented real challenges that disrupt SMP and make nutri- tional gains difficult to achieve and record(23). Irregular deliveries were linked with poor food procurement processes and seasonality(30,34,42,50,58). However, large food deliveries and improved infrastructure could safeguard against delays(44,54). The poor quality of food delivered was concerning, with four studies(23,43–45) detailing that food was often spoiled upon delivery, highlighting logistic challenges of food storage during transportation in local and national supply chains(23,49). Authors’ recommended solutions included developing applications to communicate and track food delivers, monitor the quality of food deliveries, monitor store room inventories and improve storage facilities(23,31,40,43,45). Processing and distribution Facilitators for processing and distribution included good programme coordination, motivated and dedicated school staff, adequate food storage and contracting food suppliers trained in food safety and hygiene(23,30,32,34,45,47,49,53). Record-keeping also helped to ensure adequate food supply by facilitating monitoring efforts and increasing the frequency of reports. Inadequate on-site school storage was cited as a challenge in twelve studies(30,31,35,42– 45,47,49,55,57,60). While some schools described on-site storage facilities, these were often poorly adapted for hygienic food storage. Poor ventilation, storing food on the floor and using classrooms as makeshift storage spaces were listed as unsafe food storage practices, creating opportunities for food spoilage, theft and burglary. In addition, school gardens were also viewed as facilitators, contingent on land availability and production rates (i.e. enough fruit and vegetables to complement SMP)(32,35,45), but as a burden when poorly maintained and not included in educational activities(30,32,42,53,57). Authors’ recommended solutions detailed developing or improving existing school gardens to supplement fruit and vegetable procurement in SMP and budgeting for upkeep(40,53). Food preparation Inmany countries, mothers of children attending the school became the school cook. Thesemothers were often viewed as unpaid volunteers. However, not paying wages resulted in delays in meal preparation and even programme suspension. Among paid food handlers, delayed payments from the government posed a challenge for purchasing food, in turn causing delayed payments to suppliers(51). Training on safe food handling was not uniform or compulsory and thus, an additional challenge. Concerns among parents and students were raised about the lack of training on food safety among food handlers in nine studies(31,32,42–44,49,50,52,55,60). Meal preparation often repre- sented a large workload, demanding time and energy to cook. Some students in Zambia were tasked with meal preparation when food handlers were absent, taking them away for their studies(42). Additional food preparation challenges reported were a lack of school meal guidelines and infrequent record-keeping of meals prepared and ingredients used. Food preparation was facilitated by reliable infrastructure, such as well-designated and clean spaces to store and cook food, reliable and paid food handlers, food safety training, medical certifications, food measurement and school guidelines, such as weekly menus(48). Authors’ recommended solutions comprised hiring trained and paid food handlers for food preparation to Table 4 Continued Step Studies per step in school food system Studies Strengthen leadership (awareness campaign, creation and/or re-examination of SMP policy, re-evaluation of programme scope and reach, political commitment) 9 Abizari et al., 2021(29); Ellis, 2012(57); Faber et al., 2013(40); Fernandes et al., 2017(33); Hamupembe, 2016(44); Khama, 2022(49); Moepeng, 2013(23); Rendall-Mkosi et al., 2013(35); Sibanda, 2012(58); Sulemana et al., 2013(59); Xie & Brownell, 2020(55) Introduce platforms for interaction (coordination, create and/or follow national nutrition guidelines, tools to organise) 5 Daitai et al., 2018(30); Fernandes et al., 2017(33); Moepeng, 2013(23); Molotja, 2019(45); Rector et al., 2021(32) Strengthen governance (include stakeholders at all pro- gramme stages, regulate school food environment) 4 Faber et al., 2013(40); Molotja, 2019(45); Okae-Adjei et al., 2016(52) Introduce health in all policies (health and nutrition included in the agenda of all ministries) 4 Moepeng, 2013(23); Molotja, 2019(45); Rector et al., 2021(32); Sichala, 2020(54) Public procurement in sub-Saharan African schools 17 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 ensure safe and uninterrupted meal service(29,33,36,41,51,59). Several studies also recommended infrastructure improve- ments, specifically for kitchen equipment and designated cooking spaces(38,43,45,49,57,59); one study suggested estab- lishing a partnerships with local funders(44). School feeding manuals and platforms to input attendance records and ways to track student participation during meals were also recommended(31,44). Improvement of meal quantity and nutritional quality, including nutritionally adequate and diverse food groups, such as fruit and vegetables, was widely advised(23,37,40,44,49,56). Distribution to students Overall food distribution challenges included irregular meal services, meals served in unhygienic and unsafe spaces and a lack of programme monitoring and record- keeping of food distributed and consumed. Designated school canteen spaces were rare, resulting in students eating outdoors, often on the ground. A major challenge during meal distribution was poor nutritional quality, diversity and quantity, with portions getting smaller towards the end of lunchtime(23,30,35,43,45–47,49,52–54,57,59). Establishing a dedicated school breakfast or lunch period was also a challenge. In several studies, school staff complained that SMP reduced teaching time or added to their overall workload, while others reported that lunch periods were too short for students to eat a full meal. This challenge was also linked to students not having proper cutlery and bowls, with some waiting for their friends to finish before borrowing them for use. Conversely, food distribution was facilitated when daily attendance and daily meal participation were recorded(43), utensils/crockery were provided(57) and leftover/take- home rations were given to vulnerable students(53). Distributing food to students increased daily food intake and motivated students to stay at school for the entire day, avoiding travelling home for lunch, especially when meals were varied throughout the week(33,53). Universal eligibility among children was reported to reduce the stigma associated with eating free meals(55). Authors’ recommended solutions to improve food distribution included enhancing serving and dining facili- ties and providing bowls and cutlery for all stu- dents(43,45,49,57). Monitoring handwashing before meals and allocating a designated mealtime were also recommended(44,49,57). Student stakeholders Students’ dislike of some school meals (e.g. beans, soya- based), resulting in reduced participation,was cited in eight studies(23,30,31,42,44,50,55,57). Poor hygienic practices, such as not washing hands before eating, were also a barrier to programme implementation(45). Considering student pref- erences when creating school menus and offering membership to school gardening clubs encouraged student participation, allowing them to become active stakeholders and facilitating implementation(32,55). Inversely, eight studies reported that students liked having a school meal(23,32,43,45,49,53,57,60), and increased participa- tion was observed when students perceived links with positive educational, health or nutritional outcomes(45). Authors’ recommended solutions included revising the school curriculum to include nutrition education(59), with specific content on hygiene practices(35), agriculture and food production(40,45,49) and school gardens(35,49,55,58). One study also recommended regularly assessing students’ nutritional status(37). Community involvement Communities had negative perceptions of SMP when parents considered meals to be of low nutritional quality (e.g. few fruit and vegetables served) and quantity(23). However, among communities where nutritional and educational gains were observed, particularly in reducing short-term hunger, SMP were more successful. The role of SMP as a social security net to support household food security was also discussed(52). Little to no information sharing led to low levels of parental involvement and unengaged community members(58). Hiring community members, often mothers, to work in SMP provided local employment opportunities and further promoted house- hold food security(55). In addition, working with external funders in the community helped improve SMP infra- structure, by constructing permanent kitchens or purchas- ing cutlery(35). Authors’ recommended solutions consist of introducing national and local awareness campaigns on SMP objectives to increase community support and engagement(54,56,59). Infrastructure support Lack of policy and legislation for funding, coordination, implementation, monitoring, corruption, eligibility and technology were notable challenges. Inadequate pro- gramme funding was cited as a challenge by nine studies(23,42,44,45,50,52,56,59). At the national, regional and school levels, SMP coordination was cited as a challenge, especially when no dedicated coordinating agency or branch of government was charged with programme oversight. Poor programme coordination led to gaps in implementation, leaving room for incorrect food orders, late deliveries, corruption and placing more responsibility on school staff(23,32,35,44,49,50,52,58,58). Large distances between schools and damaged and/or bottlenecked roads created additional logistical challenges for SMP staff. Furthermore, in programmes with policies and guidelines, monitoring and evaluation efforts revealed low levels of implementation(23,35,42,44,45,50,52). Corruption was also cited as a challenge, mainly attributed to large SMP budgets. In 18 J Liguori et al. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 South Africa, where eligibility was based on the quintile system, classifying schools by proxy of children’s socio- economic statuswas a barrier to ensuring that all children in need qualified for school meals(35,53). Infrastructure support facilitated implementation when financial and technical support from the government, such as capacity building workshops, food handler training and programme monitoring, was provided. Additionally, using models of best practice, successful programming and guidelines, like national nutrition requirements, facilitated procurement(32,35,55). Additionally, tools to measure stan- dard quantities, records of attendance and software applications, like the School Meals Planner in Ghana, helped food handlers design menus to meet nutrition requirements and procurement officers determine the correct quantities to purchase within allocated budgets(48). Authors’ recommended solutions encompassed all aspects of infrastructure support. Overall political will and leadership commitment to SMP were key recommen- dations(35,59). High-level political champions of SMP, such as the First Lady of Ethiopia, also encouraged success(55). Introducing national awareness campaigns on SMP objec- tives and the importance among programme beneficiaries and stakeholders was also proposed(35,44,57–59). Four studies recommended developing a national policy to guide their SMP(23,44,49,57), while two additional studies recommended implementing a unified procurement framework and/or guiding document to help tailor policy design to focus on children/adolescents(33,55). In terms of recommendations to strengthen governance, one South African study suggested requiring national regulations for food sold in/around schools(40). Others recommended revising educational curricula to include SMP and local food production(23,32,45,54) and working with qualified nutritionists, health professionals and/or profes- sional chefs, to create nutrition-based recommendations and SMP guidelines(45,52). Recommendations for improved mon- itoring and evaluation included establishing public records of transactions to reduce corruption(30,35,38,39,42,44,45,49,57–59), as well as suggestions to streamline monitoring meal quantity and quality(46,53). These recommendations go alongside the need to improve platforms for interaction and ways to make policies and actions coherent between different levels of government(30,45); perhaps developing national nutrition guidelines and food composition tables(32,48) or using information management systems(23,45) could be used to achieve these goals. Finally, recommendations were made to ensure that funding and resources were sufficient to employ and train more personnel to meet programme needs(23,35,43,45,49,57,58). Funding infrastructure improvements in schools, including sanitation and agricultural inputs(35,44,59) and on-time pay- ments to food suppliers and food handlers, could allow SMP to run smoothly(31,44,46,49,51,59). Increased technological support for SMP officers and school staff was proposed to ensure the proper use of online ordering systems and programme coordination tools(46,52). Additionally, revising SMP eligibility criteria for funding to ensure the long-term viability across varied contexts and expanding programme reach was recommended(39,43,46,53,58,60). Creating partner- ships with NGO and other stakeholders to fundraise or increase support was also suggested(35,51,59). Discussion While studies linking SMP and nutritional outcomes were found in nine SSA countries, the extent of evidence was limited. Evidence from seven studies on the impact of publicly funded SMP and nutrition outcomes was mixed, explained in part, by inadequate research designs used to evaluate impact. Future experimental research studies should not only consider improving research design and increasing the intervention period but also fully consider ethical implications(61). Malnourished school children represent one of the world’s most vulnerable populations and studies need to be rigorously designed to address objectives and ensure that children’s engagement is best valued. Evidence from twenty-six qualitative studies concluded that developing or revising publicly procured SMP to include healthy (nutritious and safe) food at all levels of the school food system has potential, particularly when included in overall programming and at each step of implementation. This review chose to use the term ‘school meals’ to refer to all school-based food provision programmes, as opposed to ‘school feeding’, because the term ‘feeding’ implies a passive action. As the results highlight, students are not passive programme beneficiaries but active participants. Several studies suggested that neglecting student preferences and opinions limited programme success(32,35,55), especially when older children and ado- lescents are consulted, which is a key consideration for future programming creation and modification. Policy implications There is a global shift towards more decentralised procure- ment. However, evidence from this review suggests that no single procurement method works best in SSA. In some settings, centralised models allow SMP to thrive, as all logistics are organised at the highest level and all schools receive the same materials and food supply. Centralised procurement can present opportunities to include healthy food, such as fruit and vegetables, in SMP with few changes to national guidelines. The centralised model in Botswana began working with Botswanan farmers to include local foods, like melon, in school meals, demonstrating that locally sourced foods can also be included in this type of procurement model(23). Public procurement in sub-Saharan African schools 19 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Alternatively, decentralised models, with flexible pro- curement requirements for smallholder farmers may be preferable in countries that seek to focus on building smaller scale and/or sustainable community models. Notwithstanding, decentralisation can pose a risk to SMP, as this procurement model shifts food procurement responsibilities to lower administrative levels and often to individual schools, which may overwhelm staff. Trade- offs are important to consider, especially if training and resources are not provided during programme transi- tions(51,55,61). South Africa, for example, has a dedicated SMP unit within in the Department of Education, but unreliable funding and limited staff hinder programme implementation(1,35). Further research to explore the underlying mechanisms that determine which procure- ment model is best suited for each country is of merit and should be considered alongside each country’s objectives. Regardless of the selected procurement model, govern- ments with SMP should introduce legislation to structure each programme and commit to a dedicated line for school meals in the national budget. Programme buy-in from the Ministry of Education is key to SMP’ success(61) alongside staff engagement and motivation. The Government of Ghana, for example, declared its commitment to create a national food procurement policy focused on including healthy food service in schools. Therefore, the Ghanaian government developed food-based dietary guidelines in 2022 and is in the process of developing a nutrient profiling model to facilitate the implementation in all food-based policies(62). Countries that are in the process of selecting or restructuring existing procurement model for SMP can use an existing set of tools compiled by the African Union Development Agency (AUDA-NEPAD) and the WHO as well as case studies by the World Food Programme (WFP) and the School Meals Coalition to ensure that the selected model works well for all SMP stakeholders(11,13,63,64). In addition to revising allocated budgets and nutritional content of SMP, investment to improve the infrastructure surrounding SMP is needed to support farmers, whole- salers, school cooks and programme staff. Without improved roads, food deliveries may continue to arrive with delays, putting pressure on school staff and taking away learning time(44,54). Unreliable road infrastructure could also jeopardise programme monitoring and evalu- ation efforts as staff cannot easily travel between schools. Investments in national electricity grids and provision of clean water are key priorities to ensure the timely delivery of safe school meals. Additionally, connections to electricity could increase the use of refrigeration of perishable food items, thus improving storage conditions across several steps of the food system. For example, storage facilities, such as school kitchens, should be equipped with a refrigerator or freezer to increase the inclusion of vegetables and animal-sourced foods in the meals while simultaneously reducing food spoilage(23,49) and waste. Strengths and limitations of the review This is the first review of publicly procured food in SSA, and it includes an abundance of rich qualitative data on the subject. Limitations of this review are attributable to the heterogeneity of included studies (in terms of outcomes, targets, method- ology and quality), which made quantitative evidence synthesis difficult and removed the possibility to conduct a meta-analysis to draw firm conclusions. Additional nationally funded SMP in SSA are known(8), but no studies from these countries were identified. Furthermore, no publications in French were identified. However, many Francophone SMP were recently expanded, and research or programme evaluation may be forthcoming. Conclusion While several studies recommend more rigorous research to measure nutritional outcomes, we recommend improv- ing the overall structure of SMP and ensuring effective programme implementation before undertaking large- scale trials. Before the quality of evidence collected can improve, programme coordination and monitoring need to be implemented and overseen. SMP stakeholders including different governmental ministries (i.e. agricul- ture, education and health) need to collaboratively and synergically provide programme support. For example, this review suggests that while improvements are needed across the school food system, strengthening infra- structure support and food preparation, followed by student engagement and wholesale and trading, should be prioritised. This can be done by introducing or updating the national SMP policy to include criteria for nutritious school meals. Increased commitment to pro- gramme monitoring and evaluation, such as improved record-keeping for food delivered, prepared and con- sumed, is also recommended. As nutritional quality and quantity of school meals were also highlighted as a challenge, using dietary guidelines can be used to promote the inclusion of nutritionally adequate and diverse food groups, such as fruit and vegetables, in SMP across SSA. While the creation and use of electronic tools to share data is recommended to facilitate this process, training and technical support will also be required and should be budgeted for accordingly. Cost estimates, dedicated annual funding and governments’ renewed commitment are all necessary to ensure that the nutritional quality and safety of food served in SMP are guaranteed before expanding coverage and scaling up. Financial support This reviewwas conducted as part of the Healthier Diets for Healthier Lives (HD4HL) Project. The HD4HL Project is 20 J Liguori et al. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC-Canada) and the Rockefeller Foundation (grant no.: 109 864–001). The funders played no role in the design of the study, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of the data or writing of the manuscript. Conflicts of interest No conflict of interest to declare. Authorship M.H., A.L. and H.A.O-K. designed the research study and contributed to protocol development. H.A.O-K. led the search. H.A.O-K., J.L. and S.N. screened the titles, abstract and full text. J.L. led the data extraction, with support from H.A.O-K., M.H. and M.S., including two independent quality appraisals for each article. J.L. analysed and synthesised the data with advice from A.L., M.H. and M.S. J.L. and M.H. wrote the first draft of the paper. All authors provided detailed feedback for the manuscript and approved the final version. Ethics of human subject participation The reviewwas prospectively registered and published in the PROSPERO database (PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022354440; available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ display_record.php?ID=CRD42022354440). Systematic Review Registration Number: PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022354440 Supplementary material For supplementary material accompanying this paper, visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939. References 1. Drake L, Woolnough A, Burbano C et al. (2016) Global School Feeding Sourcebook: Lessons from 14 Countries. London: Imperial College Press. p. 446. 2. WFP (2022) State of School Feeding Worldwide 2022. Rome: World Food Programme. 3. African Union (2021) African Union Biennial Report on Home-Grown School Feeding (2019–2020). Addis Ababa: African Union. 4. UNESCO, UNICEF &WFP (2023) Ready to Learn and Thrive: School Health and Nutrition around the World [Internet]. Paris: UNESCO, UNICEF, WFP; available at http://www. unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en (accessed 29 March 2023). 5. FAO;Bioversity International (2021) Public FoodProcurement for Sustainable Food Systems and Healthy Diets - Volume 1 [Internet]. FAO; Bioversity International. http://www.fao.org/ documents/card/en/c/cb7960en (accessed 29 March 2023). 6. Swensson Luana FJ (2018) Aligning Policy and Legal Frameworks for Supporting Smallholder Farming through Public Food Procurement: The Case of Home-Grown School Feeding Programmes. Working Paper No. 177 [Internet]. Rome, FAO, and Brasilia: International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth; available at www.fao.org/3/ca2060en/ CA2060EN.pdf (accessed 29 March 2023). 7. SMC (2024) National Commitments [Internet]. School Meals Coalition. https://schoolmealscoalition.org/commitments/ (accessed 11 August 2024). 8. FAO (2019) Nutrition Guidelines and Standards for School Meals: A Report from 33 Low and Middle-Income Countries. Rome: FAO. 9. GCNF (2022) School Meal Programs Around the World: Results from the 2021 Global Survey of School Meal Programs [Internet]. Global Child Nutrition Foundation. https://survey.gcnf.org/2021-global-survey (accessed 14 June 2023). 10. Swensson Luana FJ & Tartanac F (2020) Public food procure- ment for sustainable diets and food systems: the role of the regulatory framework. Glob Food Secur 25, 100366. 11. Aboah J, Casey K & Commandeur D (2016) Practicing Inclusive Food Procurement from Smallholder Farmers. A Learning document of Procurement Governance for Home Grown School Feeding Project [Internet]. SNV. http://www. snv.org/project/procurement-governance-home-grown- school-feeding www.snvusa.org (accessed 12 June 2023). 12. AUDA-NEPAD (2022) AUDA-NEPADGuidelines for the Design and Implementation of Home-Grown School Feeding Programmes in Africa [Internet]. Midrand, South Africa: African Union Commission and African Union Development Agency - NEPAD; available at https://www.nepad.org/ publication/guidelines-design-and-implementation-of-home- grown-school-feeding-programmes (accessed 30 March 2023). 13. FAO (2022) School Food andNutrition [Internet].Online. https:// www.fao.org/school-food/areas-work/food-environment (accessed 29 March 2023). 14. WHO (2021) Action Framework for Developing and Implementing Public Food Procurement and Service Policies for a Healthy Diet [Internet]. https://www.who.int/ publications/i/item/9789240018341 (accessed 29 March 2023). 15. Norris SA, Frongillo EA, Black MM et al. (2022) Nutrition in adolescent growth and development. The Lancet 399, 172–184. 16. Kyere P, Veerman JL, Lee P et al. (2020) Effectiveness of school-based nutrition interventions in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 23, 2626–2636. 17. Niebylski M, Lu T, Campbell N et al. (2014) Healthy food procurement policies and their impact. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11, 2608–2627. 18. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S et al. (2021) PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev 10, 39. 19. Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G et al. (2018) The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for informa- tion professionals and researchers. Educ Inf 34, 285–291. 20. Booth A, Sutton A & Papaioannou D (2016) Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review, 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage. p. 326. 21. Higgins J & Green S (2006) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley&Sons, Ltd (The Cochrane Library). 22. Carvalho FD, Dom BS, Fiadzigbey MM et al. (2011) Ghana School Feeding Program: Re-Tooling for a Sustainable Future. Public procurement in sub-Saharan African schools 21 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022354440 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022354440 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022354440 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb7960en http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb7960en https://www.fao.org/3/ca2060en/CA2060EN.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/ca2060en/CA2060EN.pdf https://schoolmealscoalition.org/commitments/ https://survey.gcnf.org/2021-global-survey http://www.snv.org/project/procurement-governance-home-grown-school-feedingwww.snvusa.org http://www.snv.org/project/procurement-governance-home-grown-school-feedingwww.snvusa.org http://www.snv.org/project/procurement-governance-home-grown-school-feedingwww.snvusa.org https://www.nepad.org/publication/guidelines-design-and-implementation-of-home-grown-school-feeding-programmes https://www.nepad.org/publication/guidelines-design-and-implementation-of-home-grown-school-feeding-programmes https://www.nepad.org/publication/guidelines-design-and-implementation-of-home-grown-school-feeding-programmes https://www.fao.org/school-food/areas-work/food-environment https://www.fao.org/school-food/areas-work/food-environment https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240018341 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240018341 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.1.4299.9527 (accessed 30 May 2023). 23. Moepeng P (2013) Botswana National Primary School Feeding Programme: A Case Study [Internet]. Republic of Botswana, BIDAP, PCD, African Union and NEPAD. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/318210413_Botswana_National_ Primary_School_Feeding_Programme_A_Case_Study (accessed 21 September 2023). 24. WFP (2018) Home-Grown School Feeding in Ghana [Internet]. World Food Programme. https://docs.wfp.org/ api/documents/WFP-0000105577/download/ (accessed 15 June 2023). 25. Laar A, Barnes A, Aryeetey R et al. (2020) Implementation of healthy food environment policies to prevent nutrition- related non-communicable diseases in Ghana: national experts’ assessment of government action. Food Policy 93, 101907. 26. QSR International Pty Ltd (2012) NVivo [Internet]. https:// www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis- software/home (accessed 1 June 2023). 27. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E et al. (2013) Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 13, 117. 28. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E et al. (2012) Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol 12, 181. 29. Abizari AR, Ali Z, Abdulai SA et al. (2021) Free senior high school lunch contributes to dietary quality of nonresidential students in Ghana. Food Nutr Bull 42, 65–76. 30. Daitai E, Tshifhumulo R & Mukwevho MH (2018) Assessing the potential contribution of feeding schemes at rural schools in South Africa. J Gend Inf Dev Afr S1, 243–260. 31. Mafugu T (2021) Challenges encountered in a South African school nutrition programme. J Public Health Res 10, 1982. jphr.2021.1982. 32. Rector C, Afifa NN, Gupta V et al. (2021) School-based nutrition programs for adolescents in Dodoma, Tanzania: a situation analysis. Food Nutr Bull 42, 378–388. 33. Fernandes M, Folson G, Aurino E et al. (2017) A free lunch or a walk back home? The school food environment and dietary behaviours among children and adolescents in Ghana. Food Secur 9, 1073–1090. 34. Mensah C & Karriem A (2021) Harnessing public food procurement for sustainable rural livelihoods in South Africa through the National School Nutrition Programme: a qualitative assessment of contributions and challenges. Sustainability 13, 13838. 35. Rendall-Mkosi K, Wenhold F & Sibanda NB (2013) Case Study of the National School Nutrition Programme in South Africa [Internet]. PCD, NEPAD, University of Pretoria. https:// docplayer.net/27502410-Case-study-of-the-national-school- nutrition-programme-in-south-africa.html (accessed 30 May 2023). 36. Gelli A, Aurino E, Folson G et al. (2019) A school meals program implemented at scale in Ghana increases height-for- age during midchildhood in girls and in children from poor households: a cluster randomized trial. J Nutr149, 1434–1442. 37. van der Hoeven M, Faber M, Osei J et al. (2016) Effect of African leafy vegetables on the micronutrient status of mildly deficient farm-school children in South Africa: a randomized controlled study. Public Health Nutr 19, 935–945. 38. Desalegn TA, Gebremedhin S & Stoecker BJ (2022) Effect of school feeding program on the anthropometric and haemo- globin status of school children in Sidama region, Southern Ethiopia: a prospective study. J Nutr Sci 11, e69. 39. Oyela B, Ogunfowokan A, OloduM et al. (2022) Influence of home-grown school feeding on nutritional status of school- children: findings from South-West Nigeria.Niger J Health Sci 22, 32. 40. Faber M, Laurie S, Maduna M et al. (2014) Is the school food environment conducive to healthy eating in poorly resourced South African schools? Public Health Nutr 17, 1214–1223. 41. Neervoort F, von Rosenstiel I, Bongers K et al. (2013) Effect of a school feeding programme on nutritional status and anaemia in an urban slum: a preliminary evaluation in Kenya. J Trop Pediatr 59, 165–174. 42. Banda E (2019) An Evaluation of the Implementation of Home Grown School Feeding Programme in Selected Primary Schools in Nyimba District, Zambia [Internet]. University of Zambia. http://dspace.unza.zm/handle/ 123456789/5602 (accessed 30 May 2023). 43. Desalegn TA, Gebremedhin S & Stoecker BJ (2022) Successes and challenges of the Home-grown School Feeding Program in Sidama Region, Southern Ethiopia: a qualitative study. J Nutr Sci 11, e87. 44. Hamupembe EN (2016) Investigating the Administration of the School Feeding Programme: A Case Study of Two Primary Schools in Windhoek, Namibia [Internet]. University of Namibia. http://hdl.handle.net/11070/1950 (accessed 30 May 2023). 45. Molotja MC (2019) Towards a Framework for Enhancing School Feeding Programmes for Rural Development in Blouberg Local Municipality, South Africa [Internet]. University of Venda. http://hdl.handle.net/11602/1441 (accessed 30 May 2023). 46. Darko B (2014) The School Leadership Views on the Impact of the National School Feeding Programme in Ghana: The Case Study of Adumanu M/A and Ayaasi D/A Primary Schools [Internet]. University of Jyväskylä. http://urn.fi/URN: NBN:fi:jyu-201411223340 (accessed 30 May 2023). 47. Dei FA (2014) An Evaluation of the School Feeding Programme: A Case Study of Magog Primary School, University of South Africa [Internet]. University of South Africa. http://hdl.handle.net/10500/18779 (accessed 30 May 2023). 48. Fernandes M, Galloway R, Gelli A et al. (2016) Enhancing linkages between healthy diets, local agriculture, and sustainable food systems: the school meals planner package in Ghana. Food Nutr Bull 37, 571–584. 49. Khama NR (2022) Experiences of the Implementers of the School Feeding Programme in Two Schools in the Zambezi Region, Namibia [Internet]. University of Namibia. http://hdl. handle.net/11070/3198 (accessed 30 May 2023). 50. Langsford C (2012) Enough on our Plate? The National School Nutrition Programme in Two Schools in Katlehong, South Africa [Internet]. Wits University. http://hdl.handle. net/10539/11838 (accessed 30 May 2023). 51. Mensah C (2019) Incentivising smallholder farmer live- lihoods and constructing food security through home-grown school feeding: evidence from Northern Ghana. Rev Direito Int [Internet]. 2019 Mar 14;15(3). https://www.publicacoes. uniceub.br/rdi/article/view/5922 (accessed 30 March 2023). 52. Okae-Adjei S, Akuffo B & Amartei C (2020) Ghana’s school feeding programme in perspective: a case study of the Akuapem North Municipality in the Eastern Region. Int J Technol Manag Res 1, 31–41. 53. SanousiM (2019) The Expected Effects of theNational School Nutrition Programme: Evidence from a Case Study in Cape Town, Western Cape [Internet]. University of the Western Cape. http://hdl.handle.net/11394/6809 (accessed 30 May 2023). 54. Sichala L (2020) Food for Education Programme and Prospects for Multi-Sectoral Gains: Experiences from Kazungula and Sinazongwe Districts of Southern Zambia. [Internet]. University of Zambia. http://dspace.unza.zm/ handle/123456789/6664 (accessed 30 May 2023). 55. Xie J &Brownell K (2019)Nutritious FoodProcurement in Cities in Low andMiddle Income Countries [Internet]. Global Alliance 22 J Liguori et al. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.1.4299.9527 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318210413_Botswana_National_Primary_School_Feeding_Programme_A_Case_Study https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318210413_Botswana_National_Primary_School_Feeding_Programme_A_Case_Study https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318210413_Botswana_National_Primary_School_Feeding_Programme_A_Case_Study https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000105577/download/ https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000105577/download/ https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home https://docplayer.net/27502410-Case-study-of-the-national-school-nutrition-programme-in-south-africa.html https://docplayer.net/27502410-Case-study-of-the-national-school-nutrition-programme-in-south-africa.html https://docplayer.net/27502410-Case-study-of-the-national-school-nutrition-programme-in-south-africa.html http://dspace.unza.zm/handle/123456789/5602 http://dspace.unza.zm/handle/123456789/5602 http://hdl.handle.net/11070/1950 http://hdl.handle.net/11602/1441 http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-201411223340 http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-201411223340 http://hdl.handle.net/10500/18779 http://hdl.handle.net/11070/3198 http://hdl.handle.net/11070/3198 http://hdl.handle.net/10539/11838 http://hdl.handle.net/10539/11838 https://www.publicacoes.uniceub.br/rdi/article/view/5922 https://www.publicacoes.uniceub.br/rdi/article/view/5922 http://hdl.handle.net/11394/6809 http://dspace.unza.zm/handle/123456789/6664 http://dspace.unza.zm/handle/123456789/6664 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 for Improved Nutrition (GAIN); 2019 Jun. https://www. gainhealth.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/ gain-working-paper-series-7-nutritious-food-procurement-in- cities-in-low-and-middle-income-countries.pdf (accessed 30 March 2023). 56. Yendaw E & Dayour F (2015) Effect of the national school feeding programme on pupils’ enrolment, attendance and retention: a case study of Nyoglo of the Savelugu-Nantong Municipality, Ghana. Br J Educ Soc Behav Sci 5, 341–353. 57. Ellis J (2012) The Namibian School Feeding Programme: A Case Study [Internet]. WFP, PCD, AU-NEPAD, Republic of Namibia Ministry of Education. https://www.npc.gov.na/ publicpolicy/the-namibian-school-feeding-programme-case- study/ (accessed 30 May 2023). 58. Sibanda DG (2012) An Analysis of the Implementation of the School Supplementary Feeding Programme in Windhoek, Namibia [Internet]. http://hdl.handle.net/11070/542 (accessed 30 May 2023). 59. Sulemana M, Ngah I & Majid MR (2013) The challenges and prospects of the school feeding programme in Northern Ghana. Dev Pract 23, 422–432. 60. Zenebe M, Gebremedhin S, Henry CJ et al. (2018) School feeding program has resulted in improved dietary diversity, nutritional status and class attendance of school children. Ital J Pediatr 44, 16. 61. Kabeer N (2020) ‘Misbehaving’ RCTs: the confounding problem of human agency. World Dev 127, 104809. 62. Bundy D, Burbano C, Grosh ME et al. (2009) Rethinking School Feeding: Social Safety Nets, Child Development, and the Education Sector [Internet]. The World Bank. http:// elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/978-0-8213-7974- 5 (accessed 10 August 2023). 63. Laar A (2022) Ghana Food Systems Summit Dialogues Synthesis Paper. From Dialogues to Action: Ghana’s Food Systems Actors Identify Food Systems Challenges and Opportunities for Transformation. Government of Chana Commissioned Food Systems Dialogues. https://www.ndpc. gov.gh/media/GHANA_FOOD_SYSTEMS_SYNTHESIS_ PAPER.pdf (accessed 25 July 2023). 64. SMC (2023) National School Food Case Studies [Internet]. School Meals Coalition https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/research/ centres-projects-groups/research-consortium-for-school- health-and-nutrition#publications (accessed 11 September 2023). Public procurement in sub-Saharan African schools 23 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024001939 Published online by Cambridge University Press https://www.gainhealth.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/gain-working-paper-series-7-nutritious-food-procurement-in-cities-in-low-and-middle-income-countries.pdf https://www.gainhealth.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/gain-working-paper-series-7-nutritious-food-procurement-in-cities-in-low-and-middle-income-countries.pdf https://www.gainhealth.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/gain-working-paper-series-7-nutritious-food-procurement-in-cities-in-low-and-middle-income-countries.pdf https://www.gainhealth.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/gain-working-paper-series-7-nutritious-food-procurement-in-cities-in-low-and-middle-income-countries.pdf https://www.npc.gov.na/publicpolicy/the-namibian-school-feeding-programme-case-study/ https://www.npc.gov.na/publicpolicy/the-namibian-school-feeding-programme-case-study/ https://www.npc.gov.na/publicpolicy/the-namibian-school-feeding-programme-case-study/ http://hdl.handle.net/11070/542 http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/978-0-8213-7974-5 http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/978-0-8213-7974-5 http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/978-0-8213-7974-5 https://www.ndpc.gov.gh/media/GHANA_FOOD_SYSTEMS_SYNTHESIS_PAPER.pdf https://www.ndpc.gov.gh/media/GHANA_FOOD_SYSTEMS_SYNTHESIS_PAPER.pdf ht