Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24564894›Full record

ReviewPublic health nutrition2014

An accountability framework to promote healthy food environments.

Vivica I Kraak, Boyd Swinburn, Mark Lawrence, Paul Harrison

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Public health nutrition, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The Effectiveness of Partnerships With Commercial Actors to Improve Food Environments: A Systematic Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Sustainable diets: where from and where to?Journal of nutritional science · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Vivica I Kraak1World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention,Deakin Population Health Strategic Research Centre,School of Health and Social Development,Faculty of Health,Deakin University,221 Burwood Highway,Melbourne,Victoria 3125,Australia.
Boyd Swinburn2Population Nutrition and Global Health,University of Auckland,Auckland,New Zealand.
Mark Lawrence3Public Health Nutrition,School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences,Faculty of Health,Deakin University,Burwood,Victoria,Australia.
Paul Harrison4School of Business,Faculty of Business and Law,Deakin University,Burwood,Victoria,Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo review the available literature on accountability frameworks to construct a framework that is relevant to voluntary partnerships between government and food industry stakeholders.

designBetween November 2012 and May 2013, a desk review of ten databases was conducted to identify principles, conceptual frameworks, underlying theories, and strengths and limitations of existing accountability frameworks for institutional performance to construct a new framework relevant to promoting healthy food environments.

settingFood policy contexts within high-income countries to address obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. SUBJECTS: Eligible resources (n 26) were reviewed and the guiding principles of fifteen interdisciplinary frameworks were used to construct a new accountability framework.

resultsStrengths included shared principles across existing frameworks, such as trust, inclusivity, transparency and verification; government leadership and good governance; public deliberations; independent bodies recognizing compliance and performance achievements; remedial actions to improve accountability systems; and capacity to manage conflicts of interest and settle disputes. Limitations of the three-step frameworks and 'mutual accountability' approach were an explicit absence of an empowered authority to hold all stakeholders to account for their performance.

conclusionsWe propose a four-step accountability framework to guide government and food industry engagement to address unhealthy food environments as part of a broader government-led strategy to address obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. An independent body develops clear objectives, a governance process and performance standards for all stakeholders to address unhealthy food environments. The empowered body takes account (assessment), shares the account (communication), holds to account (enforcement) and responds to the account (improvements).

Indexed as

Health PromotionPublic HealthSocial EnvironmentSocial ResponsibilityConflict of InterestDatabases, FactualGovernmentHumansLeadershipNutrition PolicyObesity

Identifiers

PMID24564894
PMCPMC10282457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.