Economic evaluation of the national school food standards across secondary schools in the Midlands, UK (the FUEL study): methodological challenges of undertaking health economics research within non-health settings

Irina Pokhilenko, Miranda Pallan, Marie Murphy, Peymane Adab, Breanna Morrison, Alice Sitch, Ashley Adamson, Suzanne Bartington, Rhona Duff, Tania Griffin, Kiya Hurley, Emma Lancashire, Louise McLeman, Sandra Passmore, Maisie Rowland, Vahid Ravaghi, Suzanne Spence, Emma Frew

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: Economic evaluations of complex public health interventions are becoming increasingly important. This presents health economists with challenges of adapting methodologies originally designed for healthcare to other contexts, such as education. This study presents an economic evaluation of the UK School Food Standards (SFS), with a particular focus on the methodological challenges involved. Methods: The economic evaluation was conducted alongside an observational study comparing the SFS-mandated secondary schools to non-mandated schools in the Midlands (UK). Costs of food provision and SFS implementation were collected directly from schools and supplemented by secondary data on schools’ catering expenditure. The outcomes included dietary intake, dental health, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and educational performance, collected from pupils and secondary data. The analysis comprised a micro-costing, cost-consequence, and an exploratory cost-utility analysis, from school and societal perspectives. Results: Data were collected from 36 schools and 2,543 pupils. We found mandated schools spent less on food provision compared to non-mandated schools, and pupils attending mandated schools had marginally better HRQoL, dental health, and slightly worse nutritional intake. Mandated schools performed worse according to the educational outcomes. There were large amounts of missing cost data despite repeated data collection attempts, and the results of the cost-utility analysis were uncertain. Discussion: We found no clear evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the SFS in secondary schools, likely due to substantial variation in implementation and compliance across both mandated and non-mandated schools, as well as multiple challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic, difficulties in collecting cost data from schools, and the complexity of the study context. This study highlights the challenges of primary cost data collection for evaluating complex interventions and the need to balance data accuracy with the resources required. As economic evaluations of school-based interventions become more common, there is a growing need to refine methods for such evaluations.

Original languageEnglish
Article number142
Number of pages18
JournalInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
Volume22
Issue number1
Early online date12 Nov 2025
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 12 Nov 2025

Data Availability Statement

The data collected within this study is available in the manuscript and in the additional files.

Acknowledgements

We thank the young people, parents, schools, school staff and governors who participated in the study, the young people who served as youth advisors, and the NIHR Clinical Research Network-West Midlands Young Research Champions Group facilitators for supporting the youth public engagement activities. We also thank members of the parent and school staff advisory groups. We acknowledge: the administrative and research staff who contributed to the study (David Alexander, Katie Youngwood, Frances Mason, Daniel Mensah, Estera Sevel, Florence Edwards, Ankita Gupta, Anisah Ali, Lucy Carver, Natalie Quinn-Walker, James Bhol, and Prajakta Gandhi); the university students and sessional staff workers who supported data collection; Ivan Poliakov for providing technical support; and Scott Wheeldon for his advisory role in the study. Finally, we thank members of the external Study Steering Committee: Robert West (University of Leeds; Chair); Christopher Owen (St. George’s, University of London); Alexander Turner (Putnam PHMR Ltd); Helen Carter (public health consultant; Public Health England, West Midlands; Steering Committee member until January 2021); Sheila Birdi (public representative until January 2020); Ann Hughes (public representative; January 2020 – September 2021) and Clare Madden (public representative; September 2021-October 2022). This study was presented at the UK Health Economists’ Study Group (HESG) conference in January 2023. We thank the discussant, Prof. Marjon van der Pol, and the audience for the useful feedback on the manuscript.

Funding

The FUEL study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (17/92/39). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The grant applicants designed the study, and the funders approved the protocol. The funders had no role in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication.

Keywords

  • Costing
  • Economic evaluation
  • Educational performance
  • Health-related quality of life
  • Nutritional intake
  • School food

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Nutrition and Dietetics

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Economic evaluation of the national school food standards across secondary schools in the Midlands, UK (the FUEL study): methodological challenges of undertaking health economics research within non-health settings'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this