# Towards a comprehensive school food environment audit tool in Canada: a systematic review of school food environment measurements and nutrition determinants

**Authors:** Hayun Jeong, Emma Wedekind, Dilothi Selvarajah, Mavra Ahmed, Chelsea McPherson, Daniel W. Sellen, Mary R. L’Abbe

PMC · DOI: 10.1186/s12889-025-24937-w · BMC Public Health · 2025-10-28

## TL;DR

This paper reviews existing tools for measuring school food environments in Canada to help develop a comprehensive tool aligned with the new National School Food Policy.

## Contribution

The study identifies gaps in current measurement tools and proposes a framework for a new audit tool aligned with Canada’s National School Food Policy.

## Key findings

- Most tools focus on the physical dimension of school food environments, with limited coverage of economic factors.
- Only 26% of tools measured the economic dimension, and staff role modeling was rarely included.
- None of the seven Canadian tools fully captured all six principles of the National School Food Policy.

## Abstract

School food programs (SFPs) support children’s health, learning, and well-being, yet Canada remains one of the few high-income countries without a nationally coordinated SFP. Instead, a patchwork of independent programs has created disparities in access, funding, and quality. In 2024, the federal government released Canada’s first National School Food Policy built on principles of accessibility, health promotion, inclusivity, flexibility, sustainability, and accountability, and committed $1 billion over five years. However, no clear frameworks exist for implementation or evaluation. This review examines existing measurement tools to identify captured dimensions of school food environments and student nutrition determinants, and assess alignment with Canada’s National School Food Policy to inform the development of a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation tool for Canada’s forthcoming national SFP.

A systematic search of peer reviewed literature published prior to 2024 was conducted to identify measurement tools used to assess school food environments. Tools were categorized using three complementary frameworks: INFORMAS (food environment), the CDC School Nutrition Environment Framework (school policies/practices), and the Graziose Framework (student behaviors). A sub-analysis of Canadian tools assessed alignment with the National School Food Policy.

Of 695 articles screened, 101 met the inclusion criteria. Most tools used quantitative methods (61%), while others used qualitative (15%) or mixed (34%) methods. No single tool captured all relevant dimensions of school food environments or factors influencing students’ nutrition behaviors. The physical dimension was most commonly captured (92%) and the economic dimension the least (26%). School meals (75%) and Smart snacks (60%) were commonly measured, while staff role modelling was rarely included (10%). Most studies measured school policy (83%) and meal-specific factors (72%). Of the 7 Canadian tools, none captured all six principles of Canada’s National School Food Policy. Most tools were rated as ‘medium’ (48%) or ‘low’ quality (35%).

Existing tools show methodological gaps and are limited coverage, highlighting the need for more comprehensive and high-quality audit tools. For Canada, such a tool must also capture all six principles of the National School Food Policy to support implementation, evaluation, and accountability of the forthcoming national SFP.

CRD42023492602

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-025-24937-w.

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** chronic (MESH:D002908), non-communicable Diseases (MESH:D000073296), food insecurity (MESH:D005517), Obesity (MESH:D009765)
- **Chemicals:** water (MESH:D014867), drinking water (MESH:D060766)
- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12570449/full.md

## Figures

2 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12570449/full.md

## References

27 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12570449/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12570449