Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32580644›Full record

ReviewPerspectives in public health2021

Exploring the fast food and planning appeals system in England and Wales: decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS).

C L O'Malley, A A Lake, T G Townshend, H J Moore

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Perspectives in public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

C L O'MalleySchool of Health & Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK; Fuse, UKCRC Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5004-4568
A A LakeSchool of Health & Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BA, UK.
T G TownshendSchool of Architecture, Planning & Landscape, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6080-2238
H J MooreSchool of Social Sciences, Humanities & Law, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe National Planning Policy Framework advocates the promotion of 'healthy communities'. Controlling availability and accessibility of hot food takeaways is a strategy which the planning system may use to promote healthier environments. Under certain circumstances, for example, local authorities can reject applications for new hot food takeaways. However, these decisions are often subject to appeal. The National Planning Inspectorate decide appeals - by upholding or dismissing cases. The aim of this research is to explore and examine the National Planning Inspectorate's decision-making.

methodsThe appeals database finder was searched to identify hot food takeaway appeal cases. Thematic analysis of appeals data was carried out. Narrative synthesis provided an overview of the appeals process and explored factors that were seen to impact on the National Planning Inspectorate's decision-making processes.

resultsThe database search identified 52 appeals cases. Results suggest there is little research in this area and the appeals process is opaque. There appears to be minimal evidence to support associations between the food environment and health and a lack of policy guidance to inform local planning decisions. Furthermore, this research has identified non-evidence-based factors that influence the National Planning Inspectorate's decisions.

conclusionResults from this research will provide public health officers, policy planners and development control planners with applied public health research knowledge from which they can draw upon to make sound decisions in evaluating evidence to ensure they are successfully equipped to deal with and defend hot food takeaway appeal cases.

Indexed as

Fast FoodsPolicy MakingPublic HealthPublic PolicyEnglandHumansWalesenvironmenthealth policyobesitypublic healthpublic health policy

Identifiers

PMID32580644
PMCPMC8392781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.