Search

Abstract Health policies aim to achieve specific health goals through system-level changes, unlike common health interventions that focus on promoting specific health behaviors on individual level. However, reliable data on the feasibility and implementation of policy actions across Europe are lacking. Moreover, no practice-oriented guidance exists for policy makers and implementers on how to evaluate policy implementation. As part of the Policy Evaluation Network, we aimed to synthesise knowledge on how to evaluate the implementation of policies promoting healthy diets, physical activity, and reducing sedentary behaviours. The multidisciplinary working group comprised 16 researchers and conducted two scoping reviews, three systematic reviews, two meta-reviews, two qualitative case studies and one quantitative case study over three years. The target populations included the general population, those at risk for obesity, and school children. Based on these reviews and case studies, this article summarises and presents the findings and lessons learned regarding the implementation evaluation of policies in nine case reports. Drawing on these experiences, three critical requirements for policy implementation evaluation were set: 1) conduct a comprehensive policy implementation evaluation from a multi-level perspective, 2) use implementation frameworks to address processes, determinants, and outcomes, and 3) engage relevant stakeholders in policy implementation evaluation. Finally, the consensus process resulted in 10 steps for the implementation evaluation of policies to promote physical activity and a healthy diet and to reduce sedentary behaviours, which adhere to the requirements and resources of the targeted policy. The findings of an implementation evaluation can lead to a better understanding of why policies work or not and can serve as a basis for developing solutions. This practice-oriented guidance outlines factors that should be considered in policy implementation evaluation to address its complexity. In this way, involved researchers and practitioners are empowered to engage in the evaluation process to close the knowledge gap regarding policy implementation.

Abstract Background This meta-review investigated the context-related implementation determinants from seven domains (geographical, epidemiological, sociocultural, economic, ethics-related, political, and legal) that were systematically indicated as occurring during the implementation of obesity prevention policies targeting a healthy diet and a physically active lifestyle. Methods Data from nine databases and documentation of nine major stakeholders were searched for the purpose of this preregistered meta-review (#CRD42019133341). Context-related determinants were considered strongly supported if they were indicated in ≥60% of the reviews/stakeholder documents. The ROBIS tool and the Methodological Quality Checklist-SP were used to assess the quality-related risk of bias. Results Published reviews (k = 25) and stakeholder documents that reviewed the evidence of policy implementation (k = 17) were included. Across documents, the following six determinants from three context domains received strong support: economic resources at the macro (66.7% of analyzed documents) and meso/micro levels (71.4%); sociocultural context determinants at the meso/micro level, references to knowledge/beliefs/abilities of target groups (69.0%) and implementers (73.8%); political context determinants (interrelated policies supported in 71.4% of analyzed reviews/documents; policies within organizations, 69.0%). Conclusions These findings indicate that sociocultural, economic, and political contexts need to be accounted for when formulating plans for the implementation of a healthy diet and physical activity/sedentary behavior policies.

Abstract Background Policy frameworks focusing on policy implementation may vary in terms of their scope, included constructs, relationships between the constructs, and context factors. Although multiple policy implementation frameworks exist, the overarching synthesis characterizing differences between the frameworks is missing. This study investigated frameworks guiding implementation of policies aiming at healthy nutrition, physical activity promotion, and a reduction of sedentary behavior. In particular, we aimed at examining the scope of the frameworks and the content of included constructs (e.g., referring to implementation processes, determinants, or implementation evaluation), the level at which these constructs operate (e.g., the individual level, the organizational/community level), relationships between the constructs, and the inclusion of equity factors. Methods A systematic review (the PROSPERO registration no. CRD42019133251) was conducted using 9 databases and 8 stakeholder websites. The content of 38 policy implementation frameworks was coded and analyzed. Results Across the frameworks, 47.4% (18 in 38) addressed three aims: description of the process, determinants, and the evaluation of implementation. The majority of frameworks (65.8%; 25 in 38) accounted for constructs from three levels: individual, organizational/community, and the system level. System-level constructs were included less often (76.3%; 29 in 38) than individual-level or organizational/community-level constructs (86.8% [33 in 38 frameworks] and 94.7% [36 in 38 frameworks] respectively). The majority of frameworks (84.2%, 32 in 38) included at least some sections that were solely of descriptive character (a list of unassociated constructs); 50.0% (19 in 38) included sections of prescriptive character (general steps of implementation); 60.5% (23 in 38) accounted for explanatory sections (assuming bi- or uni-directorial associations). The complex system approach was accounted for only in 21.1% (8 in 38) of frameworks. More than half (55.3%; 21 in 38) of frameworks did not account for any equity constructs (e.g., socioeconomic status, culture). Conclusions The majority of policy implementation frameworks have two or three aims (combining processes, determinants and/or the evaluation of implementation), include multi-level constructs (although the system-level determinants are less frequently included than those from the individual- or organizational/community-level), combine sections of purely descriptive character with sections accounting for prescriptive and/or explanatory associations, and are likely to include a little or no equity constructs. Registration PROSPERO, #CRD42019133251.

Abstract Background Although multiple systematic reviews indicate that various determinants (barriers and facilitators) occur in the implementation processes of policies promoting healthy diet, physical activity (PA), and sedentary behavior (SB) reduction, the overarching synthesis of such reviews is missing. Applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), this meta-review aims to (1) identify determinants that were systematically indicated as occurring during the implementation processes and (2) identify differences in the presence of determinants across reviews versus stakeholder documents on healthy diet/PA/SB policies, reviews/stakeholder documents addressing healthy diet policies versus PA/SB policies targeting any population/setting, and healthy diet/PA/SB policies focusing on school settings. Methods A meta-review of published systematic scoping or realist reviews (k = 25) and stakeholder documents (k = 17) was conducted. Data from nine bibliographic databases and documentation of nine major stakeholders were systematically searched. Included reviews (72%) and stakeholder documents (100%) provided qualitative synthesis of original research on implementation determinants of policies promoting healthy diet or PA or SB reduction, and 28% of reviews provided some quantitative synthesis. Determinants were considered strongly supported if they were indicated by ≥ 60.0% of included reviews/stakeholder documents. Results Across the 26 CFIR-based implementation determinants, seven were supported by 66.7–76.2% of reviews/stakeholder documents. These determinants were cost, networking with other organizations/communities, external policies, structural characteristics of the setting, implementation climate, readiness for implementation, and knowledge/beliefs of involved individuals. Most frequently, published reviews provided support for inner setting and individual determinants, whereas stakeholder documents supported outer and inner setting implementation determinants. Comparisons between policies promoting healthy diet with PA/SB policies revealed shared support for only three implementation determinants: cost, implementation climate, and knowledge/beliefs. In the case of healthy diet/PA/SB policies targeting school settings, 14 out of 26 implementation determinants were strongly supported. Conclusions The strongly supported (i.e., systematically indicated) determinants may guide policymakers and researchers who need to prioritize potential implementation determinants when planning and monitoring the implementation of respective policies. Future research should quantitatively assess the importance or role of determinants and test investigate associations between determinants and progress of implementation processes. Trial registration PROSPERO, # CRD42019133341

Abstract The establishment of the Determinants of Diet and Physical Activity (DEDIPAC) Knowledge Hub, 2013–2016, was the first action taken by the ‘Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life’ European Joint Programming Initiative. DEDIPAC aimed to provide better insight into the determinants of diet, physical activity and sedentary behaviour across the life course, i.e. insight into the causes of the causes of important, non-communicable diseases across Europe and beyond. DEDIPAC was launched in late 2013, and delivered its final report in late 2016. In this paper we give an overview of what was achieved in terms of furthering measurement and monitoring, providing overviews of the state-of-the-art in the field, and building toolboxes for further research and practice. Additionally, we propose some of the next steps that are now required to move forward in this field, arguing in favour of 1) sustaining the Knowledge Hub and developing it into a European virtual research institute and knowledge centre for determinants of behavioural nutrition and physical activity with close links to other parts of the world; 2) establishing a cohort study of families across all regions of Europe focusing specifically on the individual and contextual determinants of major, non-communicable disease; and 3) furthering DEDIPAC’s work on nutrition, physical activity, and sedentary behaviour policy evaluation and benchmarking across Europe by aligning with other international initiatives and by supporting harmonisation of pan-European surveillance.