Cargando…
Measuring and stimulating progress on implementing widely recommended food environment policies: the New Zealand case study
BACKGROUND: Monitoring the degree of implementation of widely recommended food environment policies by national governments is an important part of stimulating progress towards better population nutritional health. METHODS: The Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) was applied for the sec...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5785861/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29370804 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0278-0 |
_version_ | 1783295688375795712 |
---|---|
author | Vandevijvere, Stefanie Mackay, Sally Swinburn, Boyd |
author_facet | Vandevijvere, Stefanie Mackay, Sally Swinburn, Boyd |
author_sort | Vandevijvere, Stefanie |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Monitoring the degree of implementation of widely recommended food environment policies by national governments is an important part of stimulating progress towards better population nutritional health. METHODS: The Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) was applied for the second time in New Zealand in 2017 (initially applied in 2014) to measure progress on implementation of widely recommended food environment policies. A national panel of 71 independent (n = 48) and government (n = 23) public health experts rated the extent of implementation of 47 policy and infrastructure support good practice indicators by the Government against international best practice, using an extensive evidence document verified by government officials. Experts proposed and prioritised concrete actions needed to address the critical implementation gaps identified. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was good (Gwet’s AC2 > 0.8). Approximately half (47%) of the indicators were rated as having ‘low’ or ‘very little, if any’ implementation compared to international benchmarks, a decrease since 2014 (60%). A lower proportion of infrastructure support (29%) compared to policy (70%) indicators were rated as having ‘low’ or ‘very little, if any’ implementation. The experts recommended 53 actions, prioritising nine for immediate implementation; three of those prioritised actions were the same as in 2014. The vast majority of experts agreed that the Food-EPI is likely to contribute to beneficial policy change and increased their knowledge about food environments and policies. CONCLUSION: The Food-EPI has the potential to increase accountability of governments to implement widely recommended food environment policies and reduce the burden of obesity and diet-related diseases. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0278-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5785861 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57858612018-02-07 Measuring and stimulating progress on implementing widely recommended food environment policies: the New Zealand case study Vandevijvere, Stefanie Mackay, Sally Swinburn, Boyd Health Res Policy Syst Research BACKGROUND: Monitoring the degree of implementation of widely recommended food environment policies by national governments is an important part of stimulating progress towards better population nutritional health. METHODS: The Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) was applied for the second time in New Zealand in 2017 (initially applied in 2014) to measure progress on implementation of widely recommended food environment policies. A national panel of 71 independent (n = 48) and government (n = 23) public health experts rated the extent of implementation of 47 policy and infrastructure support good practice indicators by the Government against international best practice, using an extensive evidence document verified by government officials. Experts proposed and prioritised concrete actions needed to address the critical implementation gaps identified. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was good (Gwet’s AC2 > 0.8). Approximately half (47%) of the indicators were rated as having ‘low’ or ‘very little, if any’ implementation compared to international benchmarks, a decrease since 2014 (60%). A lower proportion of infrastructure support (29%) compared to policy (70%) indicators were rated as having ‘low’ or ‘very little, if any’ implementation. The experts recommended 53 actions, prioritising nine for immediate implementation; three of those prioritised actions were the same as in 2014. The vast majority of experts agreed that the Food-EPI is likely to contribute to beneficial policy change and increased their knowledge about food environments and policies. CONCLUSION: The Food-EPI has the potential to increase accountability of governments to implement widely recommended food environment policies and reduce the burden of obesity and diet-related diseases. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0278-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5785861/ /pubmed/29370804 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0278-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Vandevijvere, Stefanie Mackay, Sally Swinburn, Boyd Measuring and stimulating progress on implementing widely recommended food environment policies: the New Zealand case study |
title | Measuring and stimulating progress on implementing widely recommended food environment policies: the New Zealand case study |
title_full | Measuring and stimulating progress on implementing widely recommended food environment policies: the New Zealand case study |
title_fullStr | Measuring and stimulating progress on implementing widely recommended food environment policies: the New Zealand case study |
title_full_unstemmed | Measuring and stimulating progress on implementing widely recommended food environment policies: the New Zealand case study |
title_short | Measuring and stimulating progress on implementing widely recommended food environment policies: the New Zealand case study |
title_sort | measuring and stimulating progress on implementing widely recommended food environment policies: the new zealand case study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5785861/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29370804 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0278-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vandevijverestefanie measuringandstimulatingprogressonimplementingwidelyrecommendedfoodenvironmentpoliciesthenewzealandcasestudy AT mackaysally measuringandstimulatingprogressonimplementingwidelyrecommendedfoodenvironmentpoliciesthenewzealandcasestudy AT swinburnboyd measuringandstimulatingprogressonimplementingwidelyrecommendedfoodenvironmentpoliciesthenewzealandcasestudy |