The United States Department of Agriculture’s National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program provide healthful meals to approximately 30 million children in the United States (U.S.) each school day at low or no cost(1,2) . Students from households earning less than 130 % of the federal poverty guideline are eligible to receive free school meals, and those from households earning between 130 and 185 % of the federal poverty guideline can receive meals at a reduced cost(2). All other students pay full price for school meals, but as all school meals are federally subsidised, full-priced meals are low cost (i.e. a national average of $1·75 for elementary and middle schools and $1·80 for high schools for breakfast and $2·83, $3·00 and $3·05 for lunch for elementary, middle and high schools, respectively, in 2024)(1,2) . The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 authorised the U.S. Department of Agriculture to update school meal nutrition standards to reflect the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans, making U.S. school meals on average healthier than meals brought from home and the healthiest source of nutrition for many U.S. children each day(3–Reference Gearan, Monzella and Jennings8). However, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, only 80 % of students eligible for free meals and 67 % of students eligible for reduced-price meals participated in school lunch(9). Participation among those who paid full price because of their higher household income was even lower (37 %)(9).
Numerous factors influence school meal consumption, such as student demographics, food preferences and perceived stigma regarding school meals(Reference Cohen, Hecht and Hager10). Mealtime operations (such as lunch period lengths, the number of lunch lines, the timing of recess and other school district policies and practices) can also influence students’ school meal participation and consumption of meals at school(Reference Cohen, Hecht and Hager10). Additionally, mealtime socialising or ‘meeting and spending time with people in a friendly way in order to enjoy oneself’(11) and the cafeteria social environment (e.g. crowding, noise level) may influence students’ consumption of school meals through numerous pathways. For example, socialising during meals may foster social support, thereby decreasing stress and allowing children to comfortably enjoy meals(12,Reference Marriott13) . Socialising may also encourage children to try new foods (e.g. if a school is serving a new food that a child has not tried, a child may want to try the new food if they see their friends eating it)(Reference Salvy, Elmo and Nitecki14). However, socialising could also divert children’s attention away from eating (e.g. more time spent talking rather than eating), thereby leading to less consumption(Reference Ogden, Coop and Cousins15–Reference Zhao, Panizza and Fox17), particularly if children do not have enough time to eat. Additionally, some children may feel anxious about socialising during meals or may feel anxious in a crowded environment, which may lead to stress, anxiety and a reduced desire to eat meals(Reference Ulrich-Lai, Fulton and Wilson18). Figure 1 displays these various proposed causal pathways.
Figure 1. Conceptual model displaying the hypothesised relationship between socialising during mealtime and consumption of meals at school.
It has been hypothesised that school meals are important for building peer relationships, trust and social support(Reference Ochs and Shohet19–21), but there is currently limited evidence documenting parents’ and caregivers’ (i.e. the person who plays the lead parental role, herein referred to as caregivers) perceptions of the importance of their children’s school meal social experiences, and whether these experiences impact consumption of meals at school. Understanding caregiver perceptions may be particularly important, as caregivers are often powerful change agents in school settings and serve as advocates for students. Understanding caregiver perceptions is also important because caregiver perceptions of school meals are positively associated with school meal participation rates(Reference Martinelli, Acciai and Au22,Reference Zuercher, Cohen and Hecht23) . Several studies have assessed parent perceptions of school meals generally, finding both negative or mixed views about school meal quality or healthfulness(Reference Martinelli, Acciai and Au22–Reference Aydin, Margerison and Worsley26). Prior research has also documented parental views on the perceived benefits of school meals including saving families money, time and stress(Reference Zuercher, Cohen and Hecht23,Reference Chapman, Gosliner and Olarte24) . However, to the authors’ knowledge, no studies have examined caregiver perceptions of school meal social experiences. Additionally, several studies have found that school mealtime social experiences (e.g. social support, peer influence) are associated with the consumption of meals at school(Reference Bruening, Eisenberg and MacLehose27–Reference Blondin, Goldberg and Cash30), but no studies have examined how or why this association may exist. Given these research gaps, this study aimed to understand caregivers’ perceptions about their children’s mealtime social experiences at school and how they think these might impact their children’s consumption of meals at school (both meals brought from home and school meals). The study used a qualitative approach that involved interviewing caregivers of elementary, middle and high-school children in the U.S. during the 2021–2022 school year.
Methods
The present study is a secondary analysis of qualitative data that was collected as part of a larger mixed methods study examining the impact of the U.S. COVID-19 federal Universal Free School Meals (UFSM) policy on school meal participation rates and household food insecurity. The study also examined caregiver perceptions of school meals and related policies, including students’ experiences during school meals. California and Maine were the two states selected for this study because they were among the first U.S. states to adopt UFSM statewide once the federal policy ended after the 2021–2022 school year(31,32) . However, data for this study were collected when school meals were free of charge for all students due to the COVID-19 federal UFSM policy and prior to the implementation of California and Maine’s state-level UFSM policies. This mixed methods study used an embedded-QUAN dominant research design; the qualitative data were used to help contextualise and further explain findings from the quantitative results. As such, participants were first recruited for the quantitative portion of the study. All participants were recruited from the Galloway Research proprietary research panel. This panel contains more than one million U.S. residents who were recruited using a variety of methods, including online, television and radio advertising, corporate partnerships and word of mouth. More details on this research panel are published elsewhere(Reference Zuercher, Cohen and Hecht23,Reference Chapman, Gosliner and Olarte24,33) .
Study population
To be eligible for the mixed methods study, caregivers were required to (1) live in the state of Maine or California; (2) be the caregiver of one or more children in grades kindergarten through twelve; (3) have a child who attended a public or charter school; and (4) have a child who attended either an elementary, middle or high school. In Maine, only schools that did not previously provide UFSM before the federal COVID-19 policy through programmes such as the Community Eligibility Provision were considered, but this was not the case in California. In California, policy requires schools that are eligible for Community Eligibility Provision to provide UFSM through Community Eligibility Provision(34). Therefore, to obtain the necessary amount of lower-income households in the sample to be reflective of state demographics, the authors did not exclude Community Eligibility Provision schools from the California sample. Additionally, target sampling quotas for free and reduced-price meals eligibility and race/ethnicity were established to be representative of student population in each state(35–38). More details on this study’s sampling quotas are published elsewhere(Reference Chapman, Gosliner and Olarte24).
Participants eligible for the mixed methods study within the Galloway Research panel received an invitation with a survey link via email and text message inviting them to complete a survey about their opinions of school meals during the school year 2021–2022 (n 152 000). Out of these participants, 3202 accepted the invitation. However, 2012 participants did not meet the study’s eligibility criteria, or their free and reduced-price meals and/or race/ethnicity quotas were already met. The remaining 1190 participants (n 80 Maine participants and n 1110 California participants) completed the full survey. Due to California’s larger population and greater diversity by race/ethnicity, more survey responses were collected from caregivers in California than in Maine. Subsets of these participants (n 80 in Maine and n 220 in California) were randomly selected and invited to complete qualitative interviews to help contextualise findings from the surveys.
Trained researchers conducted semi-structured Zoom (Zoom Video Communications) interviews with caregivers in Maine and California in the late spring and early summer of 2022 (April, May and June). Out of the 80 caregivers in Maine and 220 caregivers in California invited to participate, 20 and 46 agreed to participate, respectively (n 66 caregivers total). More interviews were needed in California than Maine because of the greater diversity by race/ethnicity. The sample was evenly distributed by school type (with similar numbers of caregivers in elementary, middle and high school) and urbanicity (caregivers in rural, urban and suburban schools).
Interviews
To develop the interview guide, the study researchers partnered with U.S. nutrition and school food policy advocacy organisations (including the School Nutrition Association (www.schoolnutrition.org), Center for Science in the Public Interest (www.cspinet.org), and the Urban School Food Alliance (www.urbanschoolfoodalliance.org), Full Plates Full Potential (www.fullplates.org) and Share our Strength (www.shareourstrength.org)), the California Department of Education (www.cde.ca.gov), and community school meal stakeholders. The research team pilot-tested the interview guide among socioeconomically and racially/ethnically diverse caregivers in both California and Maine and updated it based on the feedback. The final interview guide is provided in online Supplemental Figure 1.
The interview guide contained 14 questions on caregivers’ perceptions of school meals and their perceptions of their child’s experiences with school meals, as well as their opinions of the federal COVID-19 UFSM policy. While none of the questions focused specifically on social experiences during school meals, many caregivers’ responses to questions such as ‘What does your child like best about their experience with school lunch? What do they like least?’ or ‘What do you think are some of the benefits of schools providing lunch?’ included answers related to students’ social experiences during school breakfast and lunch. Thus, multiple themes around mealtime social experiences were prominent within the data. The research team therefore chose to examine these themes in the present study.
All interviews were recorded and conducted by five women research assistants trained in qualitative methods. Two data collectors were coauthors of the present study (one postdoctoral research fellow with a PhD in Nutrition and one research project manager with a master’s degree in public health), and the other three were bilingual professionals at Galloway Research. All data collectors had extensive experience working on various public health research projects throughout the United States. No data collectors had children who attended any of the schools in the present study. For this qualitative study, the data collectors’ backgrounds may have influenced the data collection and analysis. However, the data collectors and study authors are experienced in qualitative research methods, and numerous steps were taken to ensure credibility, confirmability and authenticity with the data (e.g. prolonged engagement with participants during the interviews, iterative questioning of the data, negative case analysis, peer-debriefing, keeping detailed notes of all coding decisions and analysis, and discussing these notes and decisions in peer-debriefing sessions with other experienced qualitative researchers)(Reference Connelly39). Maine interviews were conducted in English only; approximately one-quarter of the California interviews were conducted in Spanish by the three data collectors from Galloway Research who are fluent Spanish speakers. Interviews lasted between 30 and 40 min. No one else was present besides the participant and interviewer on the Zoom call during the interview. Two of the data collectors used Zoom’s transcription service to transcribe the interviews and then de-identified the transcripts and checked the transcriptions for accuracy. Each caregiver provided written consent and completed a brief survey before participating in the interview. The Merrimack College Institutional Review Board and the Institutional Review Board of the University of California, Davis approved this study.
Data analysis
Using thematic analysis to code and analyse the qualitative data, the lead author first reviewed a set of 13 transcripts (five in Maine and eight in California) and developed codes and sub-codes. Then, using immersion-crystallisation methodology (an inductive, iterative process for identifying themes, categories and patterns in qualitative data(Reference Borkan40)), the lead author and one research assistant formally coded the 13 interviews and refined the codebook to further reflect the transcripts’ content. A total of 28 codes and 21 sub-codes were created (nine of which were codes regarding the social experiences of mealtime). Five additional transcripts were subsequently coded and cross-checked using the finalised codes until inter-rater reliability reached at least 75 % (calculated using the percent agreement (the number of times the coders agreed on the same data item, divided by the total number of data items))(Reference Chaturvedi and Shweta41). The lead author and research assistant then coded the remaining 48 transcripts with the 49 finalised codes using Excel® version 14.0.0. Thematic saturation across the broader study was reached (i.e. no new information was identified) after 30 interviews; however, all remaining interviews were reviewed and coded with the 49 codes. (Had new information been identified, the lead author and research assistant would have revisited and updated the codebook with new codes.) Codes were then grouped to create themes. From the themes, the lead author (with assistance from senior members of the research team) generated domains that encapsulated and summarised the main outcomes from the study. The broader mixed methods study’s primary aims were to examine the impact of the U.S. COVID-19 federal UFSM policy on school meal participation rates and household food insecurity, and themes related to these topics were first examined and published earlier(Reference Zuercher, Cohen and Hecht23,Reference Chapman, Gosliner and Olarte24) . After publishing these findings, other findings (such as the findings in the current study on mealtime social experiences) were subsequently examined.
Results
Table 1 presents the characteristics of the caregiver interviewees. Most caregivers interviewed in California and Maine were women, had children who were eligible for free and reduced-price meals and lived in households with three to five people. On average, caregivers had children in an even distribution of schools (i.e. elementary, middle school or high school), but there was a slightly larger sample of students identifying as boys in both California and Maine compared to the general population. All caregivers in Maine were white and non-Hispanic/Latino, which reflects Maine’s statewide demographics(35,36) . Reflective of the demographics of California, approximately half of the caregivers were of Hispanic/Latino origin(37,38) .
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of 66 caregivers of public or charter school students in grades kindergarten through twelve who participated in qualitative interviews on caregivers’ perceptions of school meals in Maine (n 20) and California (n 46) during the 2021–2022 school year
* ‘Household size’ refers to the total number of individuals living in the household, which could be a combination of children and/or adults.
† ‘Two’ signifies one caregiver and one child.
‡ Includes participants who identified their race as ‘Other,’ ‘Mexican American’ or ‘Latino’.
Three domains were constructed through the analysis: (1) caregivers believe it is important for children to socialise during school mealtime, (2) socialising can be an incentive for consuming meals at school, and (3) socialising can be a barrier for consuming meals at school. For each domain, major themes and illustrative quotations are summarised in Table 2. All quotations are from different participants.
Table 2. Domains, themes and illustrative quotations from 66 caregivers of public or charter school students in grades kindergarten through twelve who participated in qualitative interviews on caregivers’ perceptions of school meals in Maine (n 20) and California (n 46) during the 2021–2022 school year
Domain 1: Caregivers believe it is important for children to socialise during school mealtime
Theme 1a: Caregivers believe the opportunity for their children to socialise with peers is an important benefit of school meals
Many caregivers stated that socialising was a benefit of schools providing meals to students (Table 2, Theme 1a). For example, one caregiver explained, ‘I think it’s good that they have it (school meals) because it’s a time for the kids to…sit and be able to eat and have some social time’ (caregiver of a non-Hispanic/Latino white second-grade girl in Maine). Additionally, caregivers appreciated that school meals brought students together and provided them with a shared meal experience. A caregiver stated, ‘And socialising, I think it’s important that they have access to food, and they can just sit down together and eat the same things and whatnot, and it gives them something common’ (caregiver of a non-Hispanic/Latino white eighth-grade girl in California).
Theme 1b: Caregivers and students disliked how COVID-19 social distancing protocols disrupted the social aspect of school meals for their children and were pleased when social distancing protocols were lifted
Many caregivers disliked the way that COVID-19 social distancing protocols disrupted socialising during mealtime at school, and they perceived that their children also disliked this (Table 2, Theme 1b). For example, a caregiver explained, ‘I think the community that a group meal brings…is really beneficial to just the mental state of everyone and the kids being able to…I know during COVID, only eating in your classroom with just your classroom was such a bummer. It was so celebrated…the community aspect of the school is eating lunch together…’ (caregiver of a non-Hispanic/Latino white third-grade girl in Maine). Additionally, some caregivers stated that the social distancing protocols made their children feel isolated and depressed. One caregiver stated, ‘In fact, during the pandemic, they had them (the students) more closed off, they restricted their social circle, and in my daughter’s case, she fell into a great depression’ (caregiver of a Hispanic/Latino white eighth-grade girl in California). At the time of this study’s data collection, some schools in California and Maine had eased or eliminated social distancing protocols, which pleased many caregivers and students. Caregivers stated that it was hard for their children to adhere to social distancing protocols, such as eating with the same ‘lunch buddy’ every day. One caregiver explained, ‘So the pandemic time…it was hard for her. It was hard always having to have lunch with the same buddy every single day. So one thing she has been happy with is being able to sit with new friends or to have different people at her table…’ (caregiver of a non-Hispanic/Latino white tenth-grade girl in Maine). Many caregivers were happy that students had returned to pre-pandemic congregate eating settings.
Domain 2: Socialising can be an incentive for consuming meals at school
Theme 2a: Many students enjoy lunchtime, which creates a conducive setting for consuming their lunch
Many caregivers stated that their child’s favourite thing about lunchtime at school was socialising with their friends (Table 2, Theme 2a). A caregiver stated, ‘Hanging out with friends is probably the only reason why he’ll get interested in it (school lunch), yeah’ (caregiver of a white non-Hispanic/Latino sixth-grade boy in Maine). Several caregivers reported that their children could sit anywhere in the lunchroom (i.e. they did not have to sit with their classmates), enabling their children to socialise with other friends who were not in their class. One caregiver explained, ‘Well, of course what he likes the best is that he gets to hang out with his friends, or have a chance to sit and talk to kids from other classes that he don’t get a chance to see’ (caregiver of a non-Hispanic/Latino, black or African American second-grade boy in California). Overall, many caregivers reported that socialising contributed to positive perceptions of lunchtime for students, which created a conducive setting for consumption for both students who consumed school meals and for students who brought their lunch from home.
Theme 2b: Students like eating the same foods as their friends
Many caregivers reported that their children enjoyed eating school lunch because they ‘liked eating the same foods as their friends’ (Table 2, Theme 2b). One caregiver explained, ‘I do give her some snacks to take with her, but she likes to eat at school mainly because her friends like to eat it too, so they like to eat it together’ (caregiver of a non-Hispanic/Latino Asian first-grade girl in California). Additionally, some caregivers stated that eating the same meals as your friends made you part of the ‘in crowd.’ One caregiver of a non-Hispanic/Latino Asian first-grade girl in California also explained that eating school lunch reduced stigma for her daughter because she could eat the same foods as her friends, rather than bring food from home that was culturally different.
Theme 2c: Students eat school breakfast so they can socialise with their friends
Many caregivers reported that their child chose to eat school breakfast so they could socialise with their friends before school (Table 2, Theme 2c). One caregiver explained, ‘It’s (school breakfast) social. For her, it’s social. For other kids, it’s hunger. She has a little friend, in fact, I picked her up to go to the mall and she’s like, ‘Yeah, I go to school 07.30 every day. I’m part of the breakfast club’’ (caregiver of a non-Hispanic/Latino white tenth-grade girl in California). Several caregivers reported that their child would not eat school breakfast unless their friends specifically asked if they would accompany them. Other caregivers reported that their children would wake up earlier so they could arrive at school in enough time to eat breakfast with their friends.
Theme 2d: Students’ friends encourage them to try new foods
Many caregivers reported that their children were willing to try new foods during school lunch because of their friends’ encouragement (Table 2, Theme 2d). One caregiver stated, ‘Well, it’s (a packed lunch from home) his first option, but if they are serving something that he likes or a friend tells him to try it because it’s good, then he will try it’ (caregiver of a Hispanic/Latino ‘other race’ third-grade boy in California). Caregivers explained that their children would come home and excitedly recount what they tried at school and explained that their friends introduced them to the new food(s). This was primarily reported by caregivers of students in elementary school.
Domain 3: Socialising can be a barrier for consuming school meals
Theme 3a: When schools have short lunch periods or long lunch lines, many students forego eating and choose to socialise instead
When mealtime operational challenges were reported, such as long lunch lines or short lunch periods, caregivers reported that their child would rather socialise with their friends than eat lunch (Table 2, Theme 3a). Some caregivers reported that to eat the school lunch, their child would have to wait in long lunch lines, and they would, therefore, miss out on social time with their friends. Instead, students would skip lunch in order to sit with their friends and socialise, even if this resulted in not eating at all. This behaviour was reported most frequently by caregivers of older girls. Some caregivers of younger students also reported that their child was so busy socialising that they did not have time to finish eating their lunch. Additionally, many caregivers reported that their child rushed through lunch (or did not finish their lunch) because they wanted to go outside or go to the gym to play and socialise with their friends during recess. Caregivers explained that many schools provide a combined set amount of time for both lunch and recess; therefore, the less time a child spends at lunch, the more time available for recess. This was especially an issue for students who waited in long lunch lines, even when students were eligible for free and reduced-price meals. By the time the students received their school lunch and sat down at the lunch table, many of their friends had finished eating and were leaving for recess. Caregivers explained that their child would, therefore, just eat one or two items and then throw the rest of their food away so they could join their friends for recess.
Theme 3b: Some students feel anxious because of the cafeteria social environment and therefore may not participate in or eat school lunch or eat a lunch packed from home
Not all students enjoyed socialising during lunch; some caregivers (especially caregivers of students in middle and high school) reported that their children felt anxious during lunchtime (Table 2, Theme 3b). Reasons included a crowded cafeteria environment, feeling insecure about where to sit, feeling shy about eating in front of other people and general anxiety about standing in the lunch line. A caregiver explained, ‘My younger daughter, her anxiety got worse during the pandemic. She doesn’t like to go up to the lunch line. So she’ll make every excuse in the book not to go to lunch and not to eat because of the crowds’ (caregiver of a non-Hispanic/Latino white eighth-grade girl in Maine). Some caregivers explained that their children were afraid of standing alone in the lunch line, but they would stand in the lunch line if they had a friend go with them. One caregiver reported that her child and his friends skip lunch and go sit in their classroom with their teacher; she thought this could be due to social anxiety. Overall, these reported anxieties led to students skipping lunch or eating less at lunch.
Theme 3c: Caregivers suggested strategies to improve the social aspects of school meals and therefore consumption of school meals
Caregivers suggested multiple strategies for overcoming the barriers that socialising poses to school meal consumption for their children (Table 2, Theme 3c). For example, in schools with combined lunch and recess, caregivers suggested that schools should allocate a separate amount of time for lunch and recess. This way, students will not rush through or skip lunch to get to recess. Additionally, some caregivers stated that their children should be able to eat in other places besides the cafeteria, for example, outdoors or in classrooms with smaller groups of students. One caregiver also suggested that students with anxiety should be allowed to leave for lunch five minutes early so they can obtain their lunch in a calmer and quieter environment and before the crowds arrive.
Discussion
This study examined how caregivers perceive mealtime social experience using a qualitative approach that involved interviewing caregivers of students in California and Maine. The study’s primary finding was that caregivers perceive that peer socialising is an important benefit of school meals for their children. This is similar to findings from a 2022 qualitative study in Norway by Heim et al., which found that teachers and school administrators perceived that school meals provided important opportunities to create social relationships among students(Reference Heim, Thuestad and Molin20). Similarly, results from a 2021 national series of discussion boards and surveys in the U.S. found that 77 % of 1018 low and middle-income caregivers thought school meals allowed their child to ‘build community and friendship with other students’(Reference Meier, Brady and Askelson25). Caregivers may perceive that peer socialising is an important benefit of school meals for numerous reasons. Mealtime peer socialising could improve their child’s social competency, allow their child to form deeper bonds with their classmates (which could facilitate cooperation and better learning in the classroom), or refresh children by providing more energy and better prepare them to learn during their afternoon classes(12,42) . Future research should investigate this further.
The present study also found that COVID-19 social distancing protocols disrupted the positive social aspects of lunch and caused some students to feel isolated and depressed. Other studies have found associations between social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic more generally and depression among children(Reference Gruhn, Miller and Machlin43,Reference Madigan, Racine and Vaillancourt44) . Results from a U.S. COVID-19 longitudinal study of 133 children ages 4–11 found that child depression symptoms were highest following initial stay-at-home orders in North Carolina (April 2020), but then linearly decreased over a 15-month period(Reference Gruhn, Miller and Machlin43). Additionally, a meta-analysis of 53 longitudinal cohort studies found an increase in depression and anxiety symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic among children and adolescents(Reference Madigan, Racine and Vaillancourt44). Overall, results from this study and previous studies suggest that if schools implement social distancing protocols in the future, they should carefully design these protocols to allow for as much social interaction as safely as possible (e.g. students eat together, but outside). This may help minimise feelings and symptoms of depression among students, while also encouraging consumption of meals at school.
Additionally, this study found that socialising can facilitate consuming meals at school. Caregivers reported that their children enjoyed socialising during school lunch and breakfast and that this positive view of school mealtime created a conducive setting for consuming their meals (both meals brought from home and school meals). This is similar to results from a U.S. repeated cross-sectional study among 20 third and fourth-grade classrooms across 6 schools by Blondin et al., which found that listening, working and/or socialising (compared with only eating) was associated with a 10 % reduction in milk waste among children who selected milk(Reference Blondin, Goldberg and Cash30). Additionally, in the present study, caregivers reported their students enjoy eating the same foods as their friends and will sometimes try new foods at school because of their friends’ encouragement (especially younger students). Mumm et al. similarly found that increased social support provided by ‘other kids at school’ increased support for school breakfast consumption(Reference Aydin, Margerison and Worsley26). Additionally, similar to the present study, a 2012 study by Bruening et al. found positive associations between adolescents and their friend groups and best friends for breakfast eating(Reference Chapman, Gosliner and Olarte24). Also similar to the present study, a qualitative study of 47 adolescents eligible for the Supplemental Food and Nutrition Assistance Program ages 9–13 in Virginia, Hawaii and Montana found that students reported finishing their lunch when influenced to do so by their peers(Reference Zhao, Panizza and Fox17). Overall, findings from the present study and the aforementioned studies suggest that socialising provides a conducive setting for consumption of meals at school; when children relax, eat and socialise without feeling rushed, they may eat more of their food, enjoy their food more and may even try new and/or healthier foods(12). Additionally, role modelling or peer norms may be a mechanism for the relationship between socialising and consumption of meals at school, but future research should examine this further.
This study also found that students may prioritise socialising over eating and therefore, under specific circumstances (e.g. if time for lunch and recess are combined, time for lunch is inadequate or lunch lines are long), socialising may act as a barrier to consumption. These results are similar to results from a qualitative focus group study conducted among 64 adolescents in Los Angeles, which found that long cafeteria lines and time constraints were perceived barriers to eating school lunches(Reference Payán, Sloane and Illum45). Thus, schools should provide lunch periods that are long enough for students to walk to the cafeteria, wait in line and obtain their lunch, enjoy their meals and socialise with their friends. Previous studies demonstrate that having at least 20 min to eat lunch is associated with reduced plate waste and improved diet quality among students, and a lunch period of at least 30 min is likely to allow students to have this recommended 20 min of seated time(46–Reference Hildebrand, Millburg Ely and Betts48). Additionally, in the present study, caregivers of younger students reported that students prefer to play and socialise during recess, which causes them to rush through or reduce their consumption of lunch. Therefore, to prevent recess from acting as a barrier to school meal consumption, elementary schools could mandate time for lunch separate from the amount of time for recess to prevent students from rushing through lunch to arrive at recess faster. Further, elementary schools could schedule recess before lunch(Reference Cohen, Hecht and Hager49,Reference Chapman, Cohen and Canterberry50) .
Some caregivers, especially caregivers of older students, reported that the cafeteria social environment made students feel anxious and prevented them from consuming meals at school. This is similar to the previously described 2022 qualitative study of school teachers and administrators in Norway by Heim et al., which also found that some students feel anxious in the cafeteria environment (e.g. they feel anxious about finding a seat and deciding who to sit next to)(Reference Heim, Thuestad and Molin20). For students who experience mealtime anxiety and dislike the crowds and noisiness of the cafeteria, schools could allow students to bring their meals outdoors (weather permitting), into the school library, guidance counsellor’s office or other settings such as empty classrooms for a quieter and less stressful experience.
This study had several strengths. First, this study relied on a large sample of qualitative interview data, which provided rich and useful descriptions of caregivers’ perspectives regarding their children’s social experiences during school meals. Additionally, the study population included caregivers of elementary, middle and high-school students; thus, potential differences in caregiver responses by grade were likely captured.
This study also had limitations. Although the study’s sample was not nationally representative, it did contain data from caregivers in two states that vary greatly in terms of geography, urbanicity and population demographics. Future studies should be conducted in a greater number of states to determine if the results from this study are generalisable to the greater U.S. population. Additionally, the data collection method relied on self-reporting from caregivers who may have limited or inaccurate knowledge of their children’s experiences during school meals. The research team did not ask students about socialising during school meals due to the study’s original design, target sample and research questions regarding caregiver perceptions of school meals and the COVID-19 federal UFSM policy. However, understanding caregiver perspectives on various aspects of school meals is valuable and important because caregivers often represent their children in organisations such as Parent Teacher Associations and events such as school board meetings (in which policies impacting students are often made). Additionally, understanding caregiver perspectives is important because caregiver perceptions of school meals are associated with school meal participation rates(21). However, additional qualitative research conducted directly with students is warranted to ensure that caregivers are not perceiving their children’s mealtime social experiences at school inaccurately. Additionally, this study was a secondary analysis of qualitative data; the interview guide was not originally designed to answer this study’s research questions. While peer socialising during mealtime was not originally a primary focus of the study, this was a primary response from many caregivers when responding to questions from the interview guide. Future research studies should develop interview guides that specifically focus on this concept to determine if there are additional caregiver perceptions regarding the social aspects of school meals. An additional limitation is that while caregivers stated that it was important to them that their children have an opportunity to socialise during mealtime at school, they did not specifically state why. Future research should focus on school mealtime socialisation with detailed interview guides that can further probe about why caregivers find this important. Finally, data for this study were collected at the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, which could have affected the school meal operations and parental perceptions of mealtime at school. For example, peer socialising may have been deemed more important at lunchtime, since this may have represented one of the few opportunities for students to socialise during the pandemic. Future studies under ‘normal’ post-pandemic conditions are needed.
Overall, caregivers generally perceive that positive mealtime social experiences and social environments can promote the consumption of meals at school for their children. Strategies such as allowing enough time for both socialising and eating (at least 30 min) and holding recess before lunch may promote positive mealtime social experiences and increased school meal participation and consumption. An additional strategy that caregivers suggested (and that certain schools throughout the U.S. are implementing) included allowing students to eat in alternative locations (such as empty classrooms or libraries), although future research should determine whether these strategies are causally linked to improvements in mental health, social experience, school meal participation and meal consumption among students.
Supplementary material
For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980024002349
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the caregivers who participated in the study.
Authorship
Conceptualisation: J.F.W.C., L.D.R. and W.G.; Funding acquisition: J.F.W.C., C.E.H., K.H., L.D.R. and W.G.; Project administration: W.G.; Methodology: J.F.W.C., C.E.H., K.H., L.D.R. and W.G.; Formal analysis: L.E.C.; Writing – original draft: LEC; Writing – review and editing: all authors.
Financial support
This research was funded by California General Fund SB 170 and Share Our Strength.
Competing interests
There are no conflicts of interest.
Ethics of human subject participation
This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki, and all procedures involving research study participants were approved by the Merrimack College Institutional Review Board and the Institutional Review Board of the University of California, Davis. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects.
Open access
