Inequalities in Research on Food Environment Policies: An Evidence Map of Global Evidence from 2010-2020

IF 8 1区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Laurence Blanchard , Stephanie Ray , Cherry Law , María Jesús Vega-Salas , Harry Rutter , Matt Egan , Mark Petticrew , Monique Potvin Kent , Claire Bennett , Patricia J Lucas , Cécile Knai
{"title":"Inequalities in Research on Food Environment Policies: An Evidence Map of Global Evidence from 2010-2020","authors":"Laurence Blanchard ,&nbsp;Stephanie Ray ,&nbsp;Cherry Law ,&nbsp;María Jesús Vega-Salas ,&nbsp;Harry Rutter ,&nbsp;Matt Egan ,&nbsp;Mark Petticrew ,&nbsp;Monique Potvin Kent ,&nbsp;Claire Bennett ,&nbsp;Patricia J Lucas ,&nbsp;Cécile Knai","doi":"10.1016/j.advnut.2024.100306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>There has been increasing pressure to implement policies for promoting healthy food environments worldwide. We conducted an evidence map to critically explore the breadth and nature of primary research from 2010–2020 that evaluated the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, development, and implementation of mandatory and voluntary food environment policies. Fourteen databases and 2 websites were searched for “real-world” evaluations of international, national, and state level policies promoting healthy food environments. We documented the policy and evaluation characteristics, including the World Cancer Research Fund International NOURISHING framework’s policy categories and 10 equity characteristics using the PROGRESS-Plus framework. Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics and visuals. We screened 27,958 records, of which 482 were included. Although these covered 70 countries, 81% of publications focused on only 12 countries (United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, France, Spain, Denmark, New Zealand, and South Africa). Studies from these countries employed more robust quantitative methods and included most of the evaluations of policy development, implementation, and cost-effectiveness. Few publications reported on Africa (<em>n</em> = 12), Central and South Asia (<em>n</em> = 5), and the Middle East (<em>n</em> = 6) regions. Few also assessed public-private partnerships (PPPs, <em>n</em> = 31, 6%) compared to voluntary approaches by the private sector (<em>n</em> = 96, 20%), the public sector (<em>n</em> = 90, 19%), and mandatory approaches (<em>n</em> = 288, 60%). Most evaluations of PPPs reported on the same 2 partnerships. Only 50% of publications assessing policy effectiveness compared outcomes between population groups stratified by an equity characteristic, and this proportion has decreased over time. There are striking inequities in the origin, scope, and design of these studies, suggesting that research capacity and funding lies in the hands of a few expert teams worldwide. The small number of studies on PPPs questions the evidence base underlying the international push for PPPs to promote health. Policy evaluations should consider impacts on equity more consistently.</div><div>This study was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42020170963.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7349,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Nutrition","volume":"15 11","pages":"Article 100306"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831324001406","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There has been increasing pressure to implement policies for promoting healthy food environments worldwide. We conducted an evidence map to critically explore the breadth and nature of primary research from 2010–2020 that evaluated the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, development, and implementation of mandatory and voluntary food environment policies. Fourteen databases and 2 websites were searched for “real-world” evaluations of international, national, and state level policies promoting healthy food environments. We documented the policy and evaluation characteristics, including the World Cancer Research Fund International NOURISHING framework’s policy categories and 10 equity characteristics using the PROGRESS-Plus framework. Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics and visuals. We screened 27,958 records, of which 482 were included. Although these covered 70 countries, 81% of publications focused on only 12 countries (United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, France, Spain, Denmark, New Zealand, and South Africa). Studies from these countries employed more robust quantitative methods and included most of the evaluations of policy development, implementation, and cost-effectiveness. Few publications reported on Africa (n = 12), Central and South Asia (n = 5), and the Middle East (n = 6) regions. Few also assessed public-private partnerships (PPPs, n = 31, 6%) compared to voluntary approaches by the private sector (n = 96, 20%), the public sector (n = 90, 19%), and mandatory approaches (n = 288, 60%). Most evaluations of PPPs reported on the same 2 partnerships. Only 50% of publications assessing policy effectiveness compared outcomes between population groups stratified by an equity characteristic, and this proportion has decreased over time. There are striking inequities in the origin, scope, and design of these studies, suggesting that research capacity and funding lies in the hands of a few expert teams worldwide. The small number of studies on PPPs questions the evidence base underlying the international push for PPPs to promote health. Policy evaluations should consider impacts on equity more consistently.
This study was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42020170963.
食品环境政策研究中的不平等现象:2010-2020 年全球证据图。
背景全世界实施促进健康食品环境政策的压力越来越大:本证据图对 2010-2020 年间评估强制性和自愿性食品环境政策的有效性、成本效益、制定和实施的主要研究的广度和性质进行了批判性探讨。方法:我们在 14 个数据库和两个网站上搜索了 2010-2020 年间发布的国际、国家和州一级促进健康食品环境政策的 "真实世界 "评估。我们使用 PROGRESS-Plus 框架记录了政策和评估特征,包括国际 WCRF 营养框架的政策类别和十个公平特征。我们使用描述性统计和视觉效果对数据进行了综合:我们筛选了 27 958 条记录,其中 482 条被纳入。尽管这些研究涵盖了 70 个国家,但 81% 的出版物仅关注了 12 个国家(美国、英国、澳大利亚、加拿大、墨西哥、巴西、智利、法国、西班牙、丹麦、新西兰和南非)。来自这些国家的研究采用了更加可靠的定量方法,并包括了大部分政策制定、实施和成本效益评估。报告非洲(12 篇)、中亚和南亚(5 篇)以及中东(6 篇)地区情况的出版物很少。与私营部门(96 人,20%)、公共部门(90 人,19%)和强制性方法(288 人,60%)相比,评估公私合作伙伴关系(PPPs,31 人,6%)的出版物也很少。对公私伙伴关系的大多数评估都是关于两个伙伴关系的。在评估政策有效性的出版物中,只有 50%的出版物对按公平特征分层的人群之间的结果进行了比较,而且随着时间的推移,这一比例有所下降:结论:这些研究在来源、范围和设计方面存在明显的不平等,表明研究能力和资金掌握在全球少数专家团队手中。有关公私伙伴关系的研究数量很少,这对国际上推动公私伙伴关系促进健康的证据基础提出了质疑。政策评估应更加一致地考虑对公平的影响:CRD42020170963。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Advances in Nutrition
Advances in Nutrition 医学-营养学
CiteScore
17.40
自引率
2.20%
发文量
117
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: Advances in Nutrition (AN/Adv Nutr) publishes focused reviews on pivotal findings and recent research across all domains relevant to nutritional scientists and biomedical researchers. This encompasses nutrition-related research spanning biochemical, molecular, and genetic studies using experimental animal models, domestic animals, and human subjects. The journal also emphasizes clinical nutrition, epidemiology and public health, and nutrition education. Review articles concentrate on recent progress rather than broad historical developments. In addition to review articles, AN includes Perspectives, Letters to the Editor, and supplements. Supplement proposals require pre-approval by the editor before submission. The journal features reports and position papers from the American Society for Nutrition, summaries of major government and foundation reports, and Nutrient Information briefs providing crucial details about dietary requirements, food sources, deficiencies, and other essential nutrient information. All submissions with scientific content undergo peer review by the Editors or their designees prior to acceptance for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信