Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32605547›Full record

ReviewBMC public health2020

A comprehensive overview and qualitative analysis of government-led nutrition policies in Australian institutions.

Emalie Rosewarne, Annet C Hoek, Gary Sacks, Luke Wolfenden, Jason Wu, Jenny Reimers, Kirstan Corben, Michael Moore, Cliona Ni Mhurchu, Jacqui Webster

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Comparative Policy Analysis of Healthcare Healthy Eating Policies in Canada.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Comparative analysis of school food policies in Australian jurisdictions: Insights for more effective policy action.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

10 authors.

Emalie RosewarneThe George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. erosewarne@georgeinstitute.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5748-3953
Annet C HoekThe George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Gary SacksDeakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, 3125, Australia.
Luke WolfendenUniversity of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Jason WuThe George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Jenny ReimersVictorian Health Promotion Foundation, 15-31 Pelham Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3053, Australia.
Kirstan CorbenVictorian Health Promotion Foundation, 15-31 Pelham Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3053, Australia.
Michael MooreThe George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Cliona Ni MhurchuThe George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Jacqui WebsterThe George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.

Funding

Health Research Council of New Zealand 18/672; 16/443National Health and Medical Research Council #1052555; #1111457National Health and Medical Research Council #1117300National Health and Medical Research Council #1128348National Health and Medical Research Council #1152968National Heart Foundation of Australia #101175National Heart Foundation of Australia #102035; #101175; #102039University of New South Wales #00889665Victorian Health Promotion Foundation #20122
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInstitutions are a recommended setting for dietary interventions and nutrition policies as these provide an opportunity to improve health by creating healthy food environments. In Australia, state and territory governments encourage or mandate institutions in their jurisdiction to adopt nutrition policies. However, no work has analysed the policy design across settings and jurisdictions. This study aimed to compare the design and components of government-led institutional nutrition policies between Australian states and territories, determine gaps in existing policies, and assess the potential for developing stronger, more comprehensive policies.

methodsGovernment-led institutional nutrition policies, in schools, workplaces, health facilities and other public settings, were identified by searching health and education department websites for each Australian state and territory government. This was supplemented by data from other relevant stakeholder websites and from the Food Policy Index Australia website. A framework for monitoring and evaluating nutrition policies in publicly-funded institutions was used to extract data and a qualitative analysis of the design and content of institutional nutrition policies was performed. Comparative analyses between the jurisdictions and institution types were conducted, and policies were assessed for comprehensiveness.

resultsTwenty-seven institutional nutrition policies were identified across eight states and territories in Australia. Most policies in health facilities and public schools were mandatory, though most workplace policies were voluntary. Twenty-four included nutrient criteria, and 22 included guidelines for catering/fundraising/advertising. While most included implementation guides or tools and additional supporting resources, less than half included tools/timelines for monitoring and evaluation. The policy design, components and nutrient criteria varied between jurisdictions and institution types, though all were based on the Australian Dietary Guidelines.

conclusionsNutrition policies in institutions present an opportunity to create healthy eating environments and improve population health in Australia. However, the design of these policies, including lack of key components such as accountability mechanisms, and jurisdictional differences, may be a barrier to implementation and prevent the policies having their intended impact.

Indexed as

GovernmentNutrition PolicyAustraliaHealth FacilitiesHumansQualitative ResearchSchoolsWorkplaceAustraliaFood policyInstitutionsNutrition standardsQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID32605547
PMCPMC7325668

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.