Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28161674›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2017

Advocacy coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate: Exploring coalition structure, policy beliefs, resources, and strategies.

Denise D Payán, LaVonna B Lewis, Michael R Cousineau, Michael B Nichol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Regulating the Fast-Food Landscape: Canadian News Media Representation of the Healthy Menu Choices Act.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Denise D PayánDepartment of Health Policy and Management, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA; RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA. Electronic address: ddpayan@ucla.edu.
LaVonna B LewisSol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Michael R CousineauSol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Michael B NicholSol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

UCLA/RAND HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH TRAINING PROGRAMT32HS000046 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI EISENBERG, DANIEL · 1992 to 2024
$8.7M
AHRQ HHS T32 HS000046
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advocacy coalitions often play an important role in the state health policymaking process, yet little is known about their structure, composition, and behavior. In 2008, California became the first state to enact a menu labeling law. Using the advocacy coalition framework, we examine different facets of the coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate. We use a qualitative research approach to identify coalition members and explore their expressed beliefs and policy arguments, resources, and strategies by analyzing legislative documents (n = 87) and newspaper articles (n = 78) produced between 1999 and 2009. Between 2003 and 2008, six menu labeling bills were introduced in the state's legislature. We found the issue received increasing media attention during this period. We identified two advocacy coalitions involved in the debate-a public health (PH) coalition and an industry coalition. State organizations acted as coalition leaders and participated for a longer duration than elected officials. The structure and composition of each coalition varied. PH coalition leadership and membership notably increased compared to the industry coalition. The PH coalition, led by nonprofit PH and health organizations, promoted a clear and consistent message around informed decision making. The industry coalition, led by a state restaurant association, responded with cost and implementation arguments. Each coalition used various resources and strategies to advance desired outcomes. PH coalition leaders were particularly effective at using resources and employing advocacy strategies, which included engaging state legislators as coalition members, using public opinion polls and information, and leveraging media resources to garner support. Policy precedence and a local policy push emerged as important policymaking strategies. Areas for future research on the state health policymaking process are discussed.

Indexed as

Policy MakingCaliforniaConsumer AdvocacyFood LabelingHealth Care CoalitionsHealth PolicyHumansPublic HealthQualitative ResearchRestaurantsAdvocacy coalitionCaliforniaMenu labelingObesity policyState policymaking

Identifiers

PMID28161674
PMCPMC5598761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.