Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27034196›Full record

ReviewPublic health nutrition2016

Playing the policy game: a review of the barriers to and enablers of nutrition policy change.

Katherine Cullerton, Timothy Donnet, Amanda Lee, Danielle Gallegos

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Public health nutrition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Food Rx: Integrating horticulture research to improve nutrition and health.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Katherine Cullerton1School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences,Queensland University of Technology,Victoria Park Road,Kelvin Grove,QLD 4059,Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9517-6380
Timothy Donnet2School of Management,Queensland University of Technology,Brisbane,Queensland,Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2971-6814
Amanda Lee3School of Public Health and Social Work,Queensland University of Technology,Kelvin Grove,Queensland,Australia.
Danielle Gallegos1School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences,Queensland University of Technology,Victoria Park Road,Kelvin Grove,QLD 4059,Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo progress nutrition policy change and develop more effective advocates, it is useful to consider real-world factors and practical experiences of past advocacy efforts to determine the key barriers to and enablers of nutrition policy change. The present review aimed to identify and synthesize the enablers of and barriers to public policy change within the field of nutrition.

designElectronic databases were searched systematically for studies examining policy making in public health nutrition. An interpretive synthesis was undertaken.

settingInternational, national, state and local government jurisdictions within high-income, democratic countries.

resultsSixty-three studies were selected for inclusion. Numerous themes were identified explaining the barriers to and enablers of policy change, all of which fell under the overarching category of 'political will', underpinned by a second major category, 'public will'. Sub-themes, including pressure from industry, neoliberal ideology, use of emotions and values, and being visible, were prevalent in describing links between public will, political will and policy change.

conclusionsThe frustration around lack of public policy change in nutrition frequently stems from a belief that policy making is a rational process in which evidence is used to assess the relative costs and benefits of options. The findings from the present review confirm that evidence is only one component of influencing policy change. For policy change to occur there needs to be the political will, and often the public will, for the proposed policy problem and solution. The review presents a suite of enablers which can assist health professionals to influence political and public will in future advocacy efforts.

Indexed as

Nutrition PolicyPolicy MakingPublic HealthHumansAdvocacyNutritionPolicy making

Identifiers

PMID27034196
PMCPMC10271040

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.