ArticlePloS one2026
Food for thought? The effects of the Healthy Primary School of the Future on children's educational outcomes.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited empirical evidence regarding the effects of school-based health-promoting interventions on educational outcomes, highlighting a need for further research in this area to understand their broader impact on academic performance. The Healthy Primary School of the Future (HPSF) is a Dutch intervention aimed at improving children's health by providing healthy school lunches and structured physical activity (PA) sessions. While HPSF's positive impact on physical health has been well-documented, its effects on academic outcomes, particularly in mathematics and reading comprehension, remain less understood. This study evaluated the influence of HPSF on children's performance by using national standardised tests for these academic domains.
methodsA longitudinal quasi-experimental design was employed involving eight Dutch primary schools over a four-year period. Schools included two full HPSF schools (implementing both PA and healthy lunches), two partial HPSF schools (PA only), and four control schools (all in the same region). Scores from biannually taken national standardised tests in mathematics and reading comprehension were combined within the same year to decrease the number of missing values. The data were analysed using mixed model for repeated measures to assess the intervention effects over time.
resultsChildren in full HPSF schools demonstrated significant improvements in mathematics performance compared to control schools (standardised effect size (ES) = 0.30, p = 0.011 after one year, increasing to ES = 0.66, p < 0.001 after four years). Mathematics gains in partial HPSF schools were smaller and non-significant (ES ≤ 0.23, p ≥ 0.137). For reading comprehension, small but significant improvement was observed in year 1 for full HPSF schools compared with control schools (ES = 0.28, p < 0.001), but this effect was diminished by year 4. Partial HPSF schools showed sustained small gains in reading comprehension over time (ES between 0.06 and 0.39).
conclusionsThe HPSF intervention significantly enhanced mathematics performance when both healthy lunches and PA sessions were implemented, underlining the importance of a holistic approach to health promotion in schools. However, the intervention's impact on reading comprehension was limited, indicating the need for additional and/or more targeted strategies to improve literacy outcomes. These findings highlight the potential of integrated health interventions to boost academic performance and address both health and educational inequities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.