Search

Background: Enacting evidence-based public health policy can be challenging. One factor contributing to this challenge is a lack of public support for specific policies, which may stem from limited interest or conviction by policy arguments. This can happen when messaging strategies regarding policy do not resonate with the target group and/or policy narratives compete in public discourse. To understand how policy messaging can better resonate with a target audience, we examined the frames and narratives used by the Australian public when discussing nutrition policies.Methods: We conducted 76 street intercept interviews in urban and regional settings in Queensland, Australia. Quantitative data were analysed using mean agreement scores and t-tests, and the qualitative data were analysed using an adapted qualitative narrative policy framework (QNPF). The QNPF is used to illustrate how competing narratives vary in the way they define different elements. These elements often include setting, characters, plot, policy solution and belief systems.Results: Level of support for all nutrition policies was generally moderate to high, although nutrition policies perceived to be most intrusive to personal freedoms were the least popular among the public. The value of fairness was consistently invoked when participants discussed their support for or opposition to policy. Using the QNPF, two distinct settings were evident in the narratives: concern for the community or concern for self. Villains were identified as either "other individuals, in particular parents" or "Big Food". Victims were identified as "children" or "the food industry, in particular farmers". Frequently used plots focused on individuals making poor choices because they were uneducated, versus Big Food being powerful and controlling people and the government.Conclusions: The study examined the frames and narratives used by the Australian public when discussing nutrition policies. By examining these frames and narratives, we gained insight into multiple strategies which may increase public support for certain nutrition policies in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This case study describes the delivery and achievements of the public health nutrition programme in Queensland, Australia, over more than three decades. Analysis of publicly available documents related to statewide nutrition policy and programmes from 1983 to 2014 identified key inputs and programme impacts and outcomes, including an increase in fruit and vegetable intake by 1.1 serves per person per day and rates of exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months quadrupled. Mapping factors and milestones against a framework on determinants of political priority highlighted correlation with effective nutrition promotion policy and practice. Identified enablers included the influence of policy champions and advocates, quality of governance, focus on whole-of-population approaches, and periods of political will and economic prosperity. Key barriers included changes of ideology with government leadership; lack of commitment to long-term implementation and evaluation; and limited recognition of and support for preventive health and nutrition promotion. The case study shows that a coordinated, well-funded, intersectoral approach to improve nutrition and prevent chronic disease and malnutrition in all its forms can be achieved and produce promising impacts at state level, but that sustained effort is required to secure and protect investment. Political support for long-term investment in nutrition is essential to reduce the high cost of all diet-related diseases. Public health leadership to better prepare for risks around political cycles, secure adequate resources for evaluation, and better communicate impacts and outcomes may help protect future investments and achievements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The issue of public health and policy communities engaging with food sector companies has long caused tension and debate. Ralston and colleagues' article 'Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool' further examines this issue. They found widespread food industry opposition, not just to the details of the World Health Organization (WHO) tool, but to the very idea of it. In this commentary we reflect on this finding and the arguments for and against interacting with the food industry during different stages of the policy process. While involving the food industry in certain aspects of the policy process without favouring their business goals may seem like an intractable problem, we believe there are opportunities for progress that do not compromise our values as public health professionals. We suggest three key steps to making progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Generating political commitment for ending all forms of malnutrition represents a key challenge for the global nutrition community. Without commitment, the policies, programs, and resources needed to improve nutrition are unlikely to be adopted, effectively implemented, nor sustained. One essential driver of commitment is nutrition actor network (NAN) effectiveness, the web of individuals and organizations operating within a given country who share a common interest in improving nutrition and who act collectively to do so. To inform new thinking and action towards strengthening NAN effectiveness, we use a systems dynamics theoretical approach and literature review to build initial causal loop diagrams (CLDs) of political commitment and NAN effectiveness and a qualitative group model building (GMB) method involving an expert workshop to strengthen model validity. First, a "nutrition commitment system" CLD demonstrates how five interrelated forms of commitment—rhetorical, institutional, operational, embedded, and system‐wide—can dynamically reinforce or diminish one another over time. Second, we present CLDs demonstrating factors shaping NAN effectiveness organized into three categories: actor features, resources, and capacities; framing strategies, evidence, and norms; and institutional, political, and societal contexts. Together, these models generate hypotheses on how political commitment and NAN effectiveness could be strengthened in future and may provide potential starting points for country‐specific conversations for doing so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key to scientific integrity is ensuring that research findings are considered credible by scientific peers, practitioners, policymakers and the public. Industry sponsorship of nutritional research can result in bias and raises significant professional, public and media concern. Yet, there is no international consensus on how to prevent or manage conflicts of interest for researchers considering engaging with the food industry. This study aimed to determine internationally agreed principles to guide interactions between population health researchers and the food industry to prevent or manage conflicts of interest. We used a two-stage, online Delphi study for researchers (n = 100 in 28 countries), and an online survey for stakeholders (n = 84 in 26 countries). Levels of agreement were sought with 56 principles derived from a systematic review. Respondent comments were analysed using qualitative content analysis. High levels of agreement on principles were achieved for both groups (researchers 68%; stakeholders 65%). Highest levels of agreement were with principles concerning research methods and governance. More contentious were principles that required values-based decision-making, such as determining which elements of the commercial sector are acceptable to interact with. These results provide the basis for developing internationally-agreed guidelines for population health researchers governing interactions with the food industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: There is no explicit consensus amongst population health researchers regarding what constitutes acceptable or effective interactions with the food industry. This has led to confusion and disagreements over conflicts of interest, which can undermine the integrity of science. To clarify this issue, we aimed to systematically identify the key principles developed by population health researchers to prevent or minimize conflicts of interest when interacting with the food industry. Databases of peer‐reviewed literature were searched. In addition, an advanced Google search, a request to experts seeking related documents, and hand searching of references were undertaken. Thematic analysis of the extracted data was undertaken. We examined 54 eligible documents describing guidelines for population health researchers when interacting with the food industry. Fifty‐six principles were identified and synthesized in five themes. There were high levels of agreement in themes relating to research governance, transparency, and publication but less agreement and guidance on how principles should be applied in relation to funding and risk assessment. There is agreement on some of the general principles for preventing and minimizing conflicts of interests for population health researchers when interacting with the food industry. However, for issues such as assessing the appropriateness of an industry partner, greater clarity and consensus are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An unhealthy diet is a leading contributor to the increasing burden of overweight and obesity. Front-of-pack labelling (FOPL) is being recognized as a policy strategy to promote healthier choices yet there is limited evaluation of FOPL to suggest if it is effective for all population subgroups. This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of FOPL on consumer understanding and usage across socio-economic gradients. Six electronic databases were searched through a systematic search process using key terms for FOPL and socioeconomic status (SES) from 2011 to March 2022 to include studies evaluating the effectiveness of FOPL. A narrative synthesis was conducted and the results were assessed according to the effects of FOPL on consumer awareness, understanding, and usage across SES. The review included 36 articles. In general, people of all SES groups were aware of and more likely to pay attention towards FOPL than the nutrition information panel provided on the back of the package. However, the understanding and usage were relatively poor, particularly in low SES groups. While studies conducted in low SES populations suggest FOPL increased the purchase intention of healthy products, the stratified analysis across SES showed less beneficial effects in low SES individuals. The findings highlight simplified and easy-to-understand FOPLs such as Nutri-score and traffic light labelling are likely to be effective for all populations including low SES groups. Overall, the review suggests FOPLs are more visible than the nutrition information panel and may guide healthier food choices for people of all SES backgrounds. It is unclear whether FOPL influences actual purchasing and food intake as there are insufficient studies comparing the effects among higher and lower SES populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To progress nutrition policy change and develop more effective advocates, it is useful to consider real-world factors and practical experiences of past advocacy efforts to determine the key barriers to and enablers of nutrition policy change. The present review aimed to identify and synthesize the enablers of and barriers to public policy change within the field of nutrition.Design: Electronic databases were searched systematically for studies examining policy making in public health nutrition. An interpretive synthesis was undertaken.Setting: International, national, state and local government jurisdictions within high-income, democratic countries.Results: Sixty-three studies were selected for inclusion. Numerous themes were identified explaining the barriers to and enablers of policy change, all of which fell under the overarching category of 'political will', underpinned by a second major category, 'public will'. Sub-themes, including pressure from industry, neoliberal ideology, use of emotions and values, and being visible, were prevalent in describing links between public will, political will and policy change.Conclusions: The frustration around lack of public policy change in nutrition frequently stems from a belief that policy making is a rational process in which evidence is used to assess the relative costs and benefits of options. The findings from the present review confirm that evidence is only one component of influencing policy change. For policy change to occur there needs to be the political will, and often the public will, for the proposed policy problem and solution. The review presents a suite of enablers which can assist health professionals to influence political and public will in future advocacy efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]