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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vandevijvere, Stefanie, Mackay, Sally, Swinburn, Boyd
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