Policy change to create supportive environments for physical activity and healthy eating : which options are the most realistic for local government?

The objective is to identify and test regulatory options for creating supportive environments for physical activity and healthy eating among local governments in Victoria, Australia. A literature review identified nine potential areas for policy intervention at local government level, including the walking environment and food policy. Discussion documents were drafted which summarized the public health evidence and legal framework for change in each area. Levels of support for particular interventions were identified through semi-structured interviews conducted with key informants from local government. We conducted 11 key informant interviews and found support for policy intervention to create environments supportive of physical activity but little support for policy changes to promote healthy eating. Participants reported lack of relevance and competing priorities as reasons for not supporting particular interventions. Promoting healthy eating environments was not considered a priority for local government above food safety. There is a real opportunity for action to prevent obesity at local government level (e.g. mandate the promotion of healthy eating environments). For local government to have a role in the promotion of healthy food environments, regulatory change and suitable funding are required.

Government regulation to promote healthy food environments : a view from inside state governments

Food policy interventions are an important component of obesity-prevention strategies and can potentially drive positive changes in obesogenic environments. This study sought to identify regulatory interventions targeting the food environment, and barriers/facilitators to their implementation at the Australian state government level. In-depth interviews were conducted with senior representatives from state/territory governments, statutory authorities and non-government organizations (n = 45) to examine participants’ (i) suggestions for regulatory interventions for healthier food environments and (ii) support for pre-selected regulatory interventions derived from a literature review. Data were analysed using thematic and constant comparative analyses. Interventions commonly suggested by participants were regulating unhealthy food marketing; limiting the density of fast food outlets; pricing reforms to decrease fruit/vegetable prices and increase unhealthy food prices; and improved food labelling. The most commonly supported preselected interventions were related to food marketing and service. Primary production and retail sector interventions were least supported. The dominant themes were the need for whole-of-government and collaborative approaches; the influence of the food industry; conflicting policies/agenda; regulatory challenges; the need for evidence of effectiveness; and economic disincentives. While interventions such as public sector healthy food service policies were supported by participants, marketing restrictions and fiscal interventions face substantial barriers including a push for deregulation and private sector opposition.

Creating healthy food environments through global benchmarking of government nutrition policies and food industry practices

Unhealthy processed food products are increasingly dominating over healthy foods, making food and nutrition environments unhealthier. Development and implementation of strong government healthy food policies is currently being circumvented in many countries by powerful food industry lobbying. In order to increase accountability of both governments and the private sector for their actions, and improve the healthiness of food environments, INFORMAS (the International Network for Food and Obesity/non-communicable diseases (NCDs) Research, Monitoring and Action Support) has recently been founded to systematically and comprehensively monitor food environments and policies in countries of varying size and income. This will enable INFORMAS to rank both governments and private sector companies globally according to their actions on food environments. Identification of those countries which have the healthiest food and nutrition policies and using them as international benchmarks against which national progress towards best practice can be assessed, should support reductions in global obesity and diet-related NCDs.

An accountability framework to promote healthy food environments

Objective
To review the available literature on accountability frameworks to construct a framework that is relevant to voluntary partnerships between government and food industry stakeholders.

Design
Between November 2012 and May 2013, a desk review of ten databases was conducted to identify principles, conceptual frameworks, underlying theories, and strengths and limitations of existing accountability frameworks for institutional performance to construct a new framework relevant to promoting healthy food environments.

Setting
Food policy contexts within high-income countries to address obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases.

Subjects Eligible resources (n 26) were reviewed and the guiding principles of fifteen interdisciplinary frameworks were used to construct a new accountability framework.

Results
Strengths included shared principles across existing frameworks, such as trust, inclusivity, transparency and verification; government leadership and good governance; public deliberations; independent bodies recognizing compliance and performance achievements; remedial actions to improve accountability systems; and capacity to manage conflicts of interest and settle disputes. Limitations of the three-step frameworks and ‘mutual accountability’ approach were an explicit absence of an empowered authority to hold all stakeholders to account for their performance.

Conclusions
We propose a four-step accountability framework to guide government and food industry engagement to address unhealthy food environments as part of a broader government-led strategy to address obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. An independent body develops clear objectives, a governance process and performance standards for all stakeholders to address unhealthy food environments. The empowered body takes account (assessment), shares the account (communication), holds to account (enforcement) and responds to the account (improvements).

Accountability for healthy food and eating environments

 Accountability is an important process and outcome for governments, private businesses and civil society groups in a democratic society. This PhD research undertook five studies between 2010 and 2013 to investigate institutional accountability processes and mechanisms required in the United States, England and globally to promote healthy food environments.

A Q methodology study of stakeholders' views about accountability for promoting healthy food environments in England through the responsibility deal food network

In March 2011, the United Kingdom's (UK's) Government launched five Public Health Responsibility Deal Networks to address public health priorities. The Networks used voluntary partnerships to influence peoples' choice architecture to move them toward healthier behaviors. The purpose of this research was to conduct an exploratory study of diverse stakeholders' perspectives about perceived responsibility and accountability expectations to improve food environments in England through the Food Network partnerships. A purposive sample of policy elites (n=31) from government, academia, food industry and non-government organizations sorted 48 statements related to improving food environments in England. Statements were grounded in three theoretical perspectives (i.e., legitimacy, nudge and public health law). PQMethod 2.33 statistical software program used factor analysis to identify viewpoints based on intra-individual differences for how participants sorted statements. The results revealed three distinct viewpoints, which explained 64% of the variance for 31 participants, and emphasized different expectations about responsibility. The food environment protectors (n=17) underscored government responsibility to address unhealthy food environments if voluntary partnerships are ineffective; the partnership pioneers (n=12) recognized government-industry partnerships as legitimate and necessary to address unhealthy food environments; and the commercial market defenders (n=1) emphasized individual responsibility for food choices and rejected government intervention to improve food environments. Consensus issues included: protecting children's right to health; food industry practices that can and should be changed; government working with industry on product reformulation; and building consumer support for economically viable healthy products. Contentious issues were: inadequacy of accountability structures and government inaction to regulate food marketing practices targeting children. We conclude that understanding different viewpoints is a step toward building mutual trust to strengthen accountability structures that may help stakeholders navigate ideologically contentious issues to promote healthy food environments in England.

An empirical study on accountability for promoting healthy food environments in England through the public health responsibility deal food network

Objective: In 2011, the United Kingdom launched five Public Health Responsibility Deal Networks inspired by ‘nudge theory’ to facilitate healthy-lifestyle behaviors. This study used Q methodology to examine stakeholders’ views about responsibility and accountability for healthy food environments to reduce obesity and diet-related chronic diseases. Design: A purposive sample of policy elites (n=31) from government, academia, food industry and civil society sorted 48 statements grounded in three theoretical perspectives (i.e., legitimacy, nudge and public health law). Factor analysis identified intra-individual statement sorting differences. Results: A three-factor solution explained 64 percent of the variance across three distinct viewpoints: food environment protectors (n=17) underscored government responsibility to address unhealthy food environments; partnership pioneers (n=12) recognized government-industry partnerships as legitimate; and the commercial market defenders (n=1) emphasized individual responsibility for food choices and rejected any government intervention. Conclusions: Building trust and strengthening accountability structures may help stakeholders navigate differences to engage in constructive actions. This research may inform efforts in other countries where voluntary industry partnerships are pursued to address unhealthy food environments.

Strengthening of accountability systems to create healthy food environments and reduce global obesity

To achieve WHO's target to halt the rise in obesity and diabetes, dramatic actions are needed to improve the healthiness of food environments. Substantial debate surrounds who is responsible for delivering effective actions and what, specifically, these actions should entail. Arguments are often reduced to a debate between individual and collective responsibilities, and between hard regulatory or fiscal interventions and soft voluntary, education-based approaches. Genuine progress lies beyond the impasse of these entrenched dichotomies. We argue for a strengthening of accountability systems across all actors to substantially improve performance on obesity reduction. In view of the industry opposition and government reluctance to regulate for healthier food environments, quasiregulatory approaches might achieve progress. A four step accountability framework (take the account, share the account, hold to account, and respond to the account) is proposed. The framework identifies multiple levers for change, including quasiregulatory and other approaches that involve government-specified and government-monitored progress of private sector performance, government procurement mechanisms, improved transparency, monitoring of actions, and management of conflicts of interest. Strengthened accountability systems would support government leadership and stewardship, constrain the influence of private sector actors with major conflicts of interest on public policy development, and reinforce the engagement of civil society in creating demand for healthy food environments and in monitoring progress towards obesity action objectives.

A review of methods and tools to assess the implementation of government policies to create healthy food environments for preventing obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases

BACKGROUND: Policies to create healthy food environments are recognized as critical components of efforts to prevent obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. There has not been a systematic review of existing methods and tools used to assess the implementation of these government policies. The purpose of this study was to review methods and tools used for assessing the implementation of government policies to create healthy food environments. The study conducted a systematic literature search. Multiple databases as well as the grey literature were searched. All study designs and review papers on assessing the implementation of government policies to create healthy food environments were included. A quality assessment of the methods and tools identified from relevant studies was carried out using the following four criteria: comprehensiveness, relevance, generalizability and feasibility. This quality assessment was completed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: The review identified 52 studies across different policy areas, levels and settings. Self-administered questionnaires and policy checklists were most commonly applied to assess the extent of policy implementation, whereas semi-structured interviews were most commonly used to evaluate the implementation process. Measures varied widely, with the existence of policy implementation the aspect most commonly assessed. The most frequently identified barriers and facilitators for policy implementation were infrastructure support, resources and stakeholder engagement. The assessment of policy implementation on food environments was usually undertaken in combination with other policy areas, particularly nutrition education and physical activity. Three tools/methods were rated 'high' quality and 13 tools/methods received 'medium' quality ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Harmonization of the available high-quality methods and tools is needed to ensure that assessment of government policy implementation can be compared across different countries and settings and over time. This will contribute to efforts to increase government accountability for their actions to improve the healthiness of food environments.

Level of implementation of best practice policies for creating healthy food environments: assessment by state and non-state actors in Thailand

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the level of implementation of policies for healthy food environments in Thailand with reference to international best practice by state and non-state actors.
DESIGN: Data on the current level of implementation of food environment policies were assessed independently using the adapted Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) by two groups of actors. Concrete actions were proposed for Thai Government. A joint meeting between both groups was subsequently held to reach consensus on priority actions.
SETTING: Thailand.
SUBJECTS: Thirty state actors and twenty-seven non-state actors.
RESULTS: Level of policy implementation varied across different domains and actor groups. State actors rated implementation levels higher than non-state actors. Both state and non-state actors rated level of implementation of monitoring of BMI highest. Level of implementation of policies promoting in-store availability of healthy foods and policies increasing tax on unhealthy foods were rated lowest by state and non-state actors, respectively. Both groups reached consensus on eleven priority actions for implementation, focusing on food provision in public-sector settings, food composition, food promotion, leadership, monitoring and intelligence, and food trade.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the implementation gaps identified and priority actions proposed varied between state and non-state actors, both groups achieved consensus on a comprehensive food policy package to be implemented by the Thai Government to improve the healthiness of food environments. This consensus is a platform for continued policy dialogue towards cross-sectoral policy coherence and effective actions to address the growing burden of non-communicable diseases and obesity in Thailand.

Community planning : integrating social and physical environments

This key planning textbook on designing healthy and sustainable communities informs planners about community life and the processes of planning and equips them with the essential knowledge and skills they need to organise change and improve the quality of urban living. The author examines the impacts of social and economic change on community life and organization and explores ways in which these changes can be planned and managed. Community planning is presented as a means to balance and integrate beneficial change with the maintenance of valued cultural traditions and life styles. This involves bringing together fields of study and practice including urban and regional planning, design, communication, housing, community organization, employment, transport, and governance. Links drawn between personal values, human activities, physical spaces and societal governance assist this process of synthesis. Establishing a common vocabulary to discuss planning - for urban and regional planners, including health planners; and open space planners - enables both students and practitioners to work with each other and with those for whom they provide services to create stronger, healthier and more sustainable communities. The aims and roles of community planning are explored and the key planning operations are explained, including the phases and applications of community planning method; the planning and location of community facilities; the roles of design in shaping responsive community spaces; and the capacity of different types of community governance to improve the relations between citizens and societies. The book is organized into two main parts: after the first three chapters have established the interests and scope of community planning, the next six each moves from an account of issues and theoretical concerns, through a review of case studies, to summaries of leading practice. This positive approach is intended to encourage readers to develop their own capacities for effective participation and action. The concluding chapter draws together the contributions of preceding ones to demonstrate the integrity of the community planning process

Developing a framework for planning healthy communities : the Logan Beaudesert health decision support system

In the last few decades, the focus on building healthy communities has grown significantly (Ashton, 2009). There is growing evidence that new approaches to planning are required to address the challenges faced by contemporary communities. These approaches need to be based on timely access to local information and collaborative planning processes (Murray, 2006; Scotch & Parmanto, 2006; Ashton, 2009; Kazda et al., 2009). However, there is little research to inform the methods that can support this type of responsive, local, collaborative and consultative health planning (Northridge et al., 2003). Some research justifies the use of decision support systems (DSS) as a tool to support planning for healthy communities. DSS have been found to increase collaboration between stakeholders and communities, improve the accuracy and quality of the decision-making process, and improve the availability of data and information for health decision-makers (Nobre et al., 1997; Cromley & McLafferty, 2002; Waring et al., 2005). Geographic information systems (GIS) have been suggested as an innovative method by which to implement DSS because they promote new ways of thinking about evidence and facilitate a broader understanding of communities. Furthermore, literature has indicated that online environments can have a positive impact on decision-making by enabling access to information by a broader audience (Kingston et al., 2001). However, only limited research has examined the implementation and impact of online DSS in the health planning field. Previous studies have emphasised the lack of effective information management systems and an absence of frameworks to guide the way in which information is used to promote informed decisions in health planning. It has become imperative to develop innovative approaches, frameworks and methods to support health planning. Thus, to address these identified gaps in the knowledge, this study aims to develop a conceptual planning framework for creating healthy communities and examine the impact of DSS in the Logan Beaudesert area. Specifically, the study aims to identify the key elements and domains of information that are needed to develop healthy communities, to develop a conceptual planning framework for creating healthy communities, to collaboratively develop and implement an online GIS-based Health DSS (i.e., HDSS), and to examine the impact of the HDSS on local decision-making processes. The study is based on a real-world case study of a community-based initiative that was established to improve public health outcomes and promote new ways of addressing chronic disease. The study involved the development of an online GIS-based health decision support system (HDSS), which was applied in the Logan Beaudesert region of Queensland, Australia. A planning framework was developed to account for the way in which information could be organised to contribute to a healthy community. The decision support system was developed within a unique settings-based initiative Logan Beaudesert Health Coalition (LBHC) designed to plan and improve the health capacity of Logan Beaudesert area in Queensland, Australia. This setting provided a suitable platform to apply a participatory research design to the development and implementation of the HDSS. Therefore, the HDSS was a pilot study examined the impact of this collaborative process, and the subsequent implementation of the HDSS on the way decision-making was perceived across the LBHC. As for the method, based on a systematic literature review, a comprehensive planning framework for creating healthy communities has been developed. This was followed by using a mixed method design, data were collected through both qualitative and quantitative methods. Specifically, data were collected by adopting a participatory action research (PAR) approach (i.e., PAR intervention) that informed the development and conceptualisation of the HDSS. A pre- and post-design was then used to determine the impact of the HDSS on decision-making. The findings of this study revealed a meaningful framework for organising information to guide planning for healthy communities. This conceptual framework provided a comprehensive system within which to organise existing data. The PAR process was useful in engaging stakeholders and decision-making in the development and implementation of the online GIS-based DSS. Through three PAR cycles, this study resulted in heightened awareness of online GIS-based DSS and openness to its implementation. It resulted in the development of a tailored system (i.e., HDSS) that addressed the local information and planning needs of the LBHC. In addition, the implementation of the DSS resulted in improved decision- making and greater satisfaction with decisions within the LBHC. For example, the study illustrated the culture in which decisions were made before and after the PAR intervention and what improvements have been observed after the application of the HDSS. In general, the findings indicated that decision-making processes are not merely informed (consequent of using the HDSS tool), but they also enhance the overall sense of ‗collaboration‘ in the health planning practice. For example, it was found that PAR intervention had a positive impact on the way decisions were made. The study revealed important features of the HDSS development and implementation process that will contribute to future research. Thus, the overall findings suggest that the HDSS is an effective tool, which would play an important role in the future for significantly improving the health planning practice.