Search

Objective: To investigate whether financial constraint and perceived stress modify the effects of food-related taxes on the healthiness of food purchases. Design: Moderation analyses were conducted with data from a trial where participants were randomly exposed to: a control condition with regular food prices, an sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax condition with a two-tiered levy on the sugar content in SSB (5-8 g/100 ml: €0·21 per l and ≥8 g/100 ml: €0·28 per l) or a nutrient profiling tax condition where products with Nutri-Score D or E were taxed at a 20 percent level. Outcome measures were overall healthiness of food purchases (%), energy content (kcal) and SSB purchases (litres). Effect modification was analysed by adding interaction terms between conditions and self-reported financial constraint or perceived stress in regression models. Outcomes for each combination of condition and level of effect modifier were visualised. Setting: Virtual supermarket. Participants: Dutch adults (n 386). Results: Financial constraint or perceived stress did not significantly modify the effects of food-related taxes on the outcomes. Descriptive analyses suggest that in the control condition, the overall healthiness of food purchases was lowest, and SSB purchases were highest among those with moderate/high levels of financial constraint. Compared with the control condition, in a nutrient profiling tax condition, the overall healthiness of food purchases was higher and SSB purchases were lower, especially among those with moderate/high levels of financial constraint. Such patterns were not observed for perceived stress. Conclusion: Further studies with larger samples are recommended to assess whether food-related taxes differentially affect food purchases of subgroups.

The European Policy Evaluation Network (PEN), initiated in autumn 2018, aimed at advancing the evidence base for public policies impacting dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviours in Europe. This is needed because non-communicable diseases-the leading cause of global mortality-are substantially caused by physical inactivity and unhealthy dietary behaviours, which in turn are driven by upstream factors that have not yet been addressed effectively by prevention approaches. Thus, successful policy interventions are required that target entire populations and tackle the 'causes of the causes'. To advance our knowledge on the effective implementation of policies and their impact in terms of improving health behaviours, PEN focused on five research tasks: (i) Adaptation and implementation of a Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) and development of a Physical Activity Environment Policy Index (PA-EPI); (ii) Mapping of health-related indicators needed for policy evaluation and facilitating a harmonized pan-European approach for surveillance to assess the impact of policy interventions; (iii) Refining quantitative methods to evaluate the impact of public policies; (iv) Identifying key barriers and facilitators of implementation of policies; and (v) Advance understanding the equity impact of the development, implementation and evaluation of policies aimed at promoting physical activity and a healthy diet. Finally, and in order to provide concrete evidence for policymaking, existing exemplary policies, namely sugar-sweetened beverages taxation, active transport policies and school policies on nutrition and physical activity were assessed in consideration of these five tasks. At the end of the PEN project's formal runtime, considerable advancements have been made. Here, we present an overview of the most important learnings and outputs.

BACKGROUND: An upsurge in policy evaluation research within public health sciences has led to multi-disciplinary research networks like the 'Policy Evaluation Network' (PEN). This multi-disciplinary collaboration highlighted the need for consensus on clear, common terminology and definitions to facilitate the multi-disciplinary research. This article outlines the development process of the PEN definitions glossary tool, with a focus on the key domains of policy design, implementation and outcomes as they apply to physical activity, sedentary behaviour and dietary behaviours.METHODS: A project specific participatory process was undertaken, involving PEN researchers (n = 48) from seven European countries across various disciplinary backgrounds. All involved researchers were invited to identify and collate definitions that were commonly used in their research field. Terms and definitions were discussed and debated during three online workshops. Subsequently, the definitions were discussed and refined until consensus was reached.RESULTS: Consensus definitions for 93 terms related to the evaluation of policy design, implementation and outcomes are provided. Consensus was reached on a range of terms where the terms were understood and used differently across represented disciplines (e.g. 'Outcome' and 'Impact'). A conceptual 'Inter-relations in policy-related concepts' diagram was developed to enable navigation through an online database with key terms.CONCLUSIONS: The definitions resulting from this participatory process has supported PEN researchers and practitioners across disciplines to reach a shared understanding of different terms related to policy evaluation. Thus, providing a platform for avoiding conflicting use of the same terms in differing contexts over the course of the PEN work programme, facilitating clear and consistent communication, and allowing for clarity within collaborative multi-disciplinary projects and in public-facing mes

BACKGROUND: Active mobility and public transport increase physical activity (PA) levels. With varying intensity and effectiveness, European cities implement Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) to spur transport-related PA. Therefore, we aim to examine drivers and barriers to SUMP implementation and assess its influence on PA across European cities.METHODS: We screened policy reports to gain insights into SUMP implementation in one Danish, two German and two Polish cities. Further, we conducted semi-structured interviews with SUMP stakeholders in these cities to explore their experiences with SUMP implementation. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts was applied to identify similarities and differences across cities. To assess the effect of SUMP implementation on PA, we searched for data on indicators of transport-related PA.RESULTS: All investigated cities are committed to sustainable mobility. Nonetheless, complex institutional structures, the dominant role of motorized traffic as well as complex regional and local policy integration hamper SUMP implementation. Danish, German and Polish cities face different contexts in terms of financing, national guidelines and the prominence of sustainability as a policy objective. Each city adopts unique indicators for monitoring the effects of SUMPs on transport-related PA. The variety of indicators and limited data availability impede a comparative evaluation across cities. Constrained by this restriction, we identified motorization rate, modal split and public transport ridership as suitable indicators.CONCLUSIONS: Local idiosyncrasies need to be accounted for when assessing the implementation of SUMPs. Nonetheless, consistent indicators and data transparency are essential for comparing the effectiveness of SUMPs and their impact on PA.

Government policies that promote healthy food environments are considered promising to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in diet. Empirical evidence of effects on these inequalities, however, is relatively scarce and, with a few exceptions, tends to be inconclusive. We use two contemporary theories that help to understand socioeconomic inequalities in health and health-related behaviours (Bourdieu's capital theory and Mullainathan and Shafir's scarcity theory) to reason how policies influencing food environments may differentially impact lower and higher socioeconomic groups. In essence, these theories enable us to understand how specific elements of broader daily living conditions (e.g. social practices that lead to habitus formation, material conditions that shape experiences of scarcity) may lead to a greater benefit of certain food environment policies for the healthfulness of diets of lower or higher socioeconomic groups. We conclude that the application of theories on the mechanisms underlying socioeconomic inequalities in health can help to guide future empirical studies in testing theory-based hypotheses on differential effects of policies, and thereby enhance the development of effective policies tackling socioeconomic inequalities in dietary intakes.

BACKGROUND: Pressing issues, like financial concerns, may outweigh the importance people attach to health. This study tested whether health, compared to other life domains, was considered more important by people in high versus low socioeconomic positions, with future focus and financial strain as potential explanatory factors.METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2019 among N=1,330 Dutch adults. Participants rated the importance of two health-related domains (not being ill, living a long life) and seven other life domains (e.g., work, family) on a five-point scale. A latent class analysis grouped participants in classes with similar patterns of importance ratings. Differences in class membership according to socioeconomic position (indicated by income and education) were examined using structural equation modelling, with future focus and financial strain as mediators.RESULTS: Three classes were identified, which were defined as: neutralists, who found all domains neutral or unimportant (3.5% of the sample); hedonists, who found most domains important except living a long life, work, and religion (36.2%); and maximalists, who found nearly all domains important, including both health domains (60.3%). Of the neutralists, 38% considered not being ill important, and 30% considered living a long life important. For hedonists, this was 92% and 39%, respectively, and for maximalists this was 99% and 87%, respectively. Compared to belonging to the maximalists class, a low income predicted belonging to the neutralists, and a higher educational level and unemployment predicted belonging to the hedonists. No mediation pathways via future focus or financial strain were found.CONCLUSIONS: Lower income groups were less likely to consider not being ill important. Those without paid employment and those with a higher educational level were less likely to consider living a long life important. Neither future focus nor financial strain explained t