Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27465746›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2016

Designing a Healthy Food Partnership: lessons from the Australian Food and Health Dialogue.

Alexandra Jones, Roger Magnusson, Boyd Swinburn, Jacqui Webster, Amanda Wood, Gary Sacks, Bruce Neal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 5 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. Systematic Review on International Salt Reduction Policy in Restaurants.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  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

7 authors.

Alexandra JonesThe George Institute for Global Health, Level 10, KGV Building, Missenden Rd, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. ajones@georgeinstitute.org.au.ORCID 0000-0001-5039-144X
Roger MagnussonSydney Law School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Boyd SwinburnUniversity of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Jacqui WebsterThe George Institute for Global Health, Level 10, KGV Building, Missenden Rd, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Amanda WoodUniversity of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Gary SacksWHO Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.
Bruce NealThe George Institute for Global Health, Level 10, KGV Building, Missenden Rd, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoor diets are a leading cause of disease burden worldwide. In Australia, the Federal Government established the Food and Health Dialogue (the Dialogue) in 2009 to address this issue, primarily through food reformulation. We evaluated the Dialogue's performance over its 6 years of operation and used these findings to develop recommendations for the success of the new Healthy Food Partnership.

methodsWe used information from the Dialogue website, media releases, communiqués, e-newsletters, materials released under freedom-of-information, and Parliamentary Hansard to evaluate the Dialogue's achievements from October 2013 to November 2015, using the RE-AIM (reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation and maintenance) framework. We also engaged closely with two former Dialogue members. Our findings update a prior assessment done in October 2013.

resultsLittle data is available to evaluate the Dialogue's recent achievements, with no information about progress against milestones released since October 2013. In the last 2 years, only one additional set of sodium reduction targets (cheese) was agreed and Quick Service Restaurant foods were added as an area for action. Some activity was identified in 12 of a possible 137 (9 %) areas of action within the Dialogue's mandate. Independent evaluation found targets were partially achieved in some food categories, with substantial variation in success between companies. No effects on the knowledge, behaviours or nutrient intake of the Australian population or evidence of impact on diet-related disease could be identified.

conclusionsThe new Healthy Food Partnership has similar goals to the Dialogue. While highly laudable and recognised globally as cost-effective, the mechanism for delivery in Australia has been woefully inadequate. Strong government leadership, adequate funding, clear targets and timelines, management of conflict of interest, comprehensive monitoring and evaluation, and a plan for responsive regulation in the event of missed milestones will be required if the new Healthy Food Partnership is to achieve its urgent public health goals.

Indexed as

AustraliaDietFoodFood IndustryGovernmentHealth PromotionHumansProgram EvaluationPublic HealthPublic PolicyRestaurants

Identifiers

PMID27465746
PMCPMC4964002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.