Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33464689›Full record

ArticleThe Milbank quarterly2021

Is Obesity Policy in England Fit for Purpose? Analysis of Government Strategies and Policies, 1992-2020.

Dolly R Z Theis, Martin White

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Milbank quarterly, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
27.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 168 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Dolly R Z TheisCentre for Diet and Activity Research and MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge.
Martin WhiteCentre for Diet and Activity Research and MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge.
MRC Epidemiology Unit · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/7Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/6Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Wellcome Trust 087636/Z/08/ZWellcome Trust ES/G007462/1Wellcome Trust MR/K023187/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Policy Points This analysis finds that government obesity policies in England have largely been proposed in a way that does not readily lead to implementation; that governments rarely commission evaluations of previous government strategies or learn from policy failures; that governments have tended to adopt less interventionist policy approaches; and that policies largely make high demands on individual agency, meaning they rely on individuals to make behavior changes rather than shaping external influences and are thus less likely to be effective or equitable. These findings may help explain why after 30 years of proposed government obesity policies, obesity prevalence and health inequities still have not been successfully reduced. If policymakers address the issues identified in this analysis, population obesity could be tackled more successfully, which has added urgency given the COVID-19 pandemic. CONTEXT: In England, the majority of adults, and more than a quarter of children aged 2 to 15 years live with obesity or excess weight. From 1992 to 2020, even though the government published 14 obesity strategies in England, the prevalence of obesity has not been reduced. We aimed to determine whether such government strategies and policies have been fit for purpose regarding their strategic focus, nature, basis in theory and evidence, and implementation viability.

methodWe undertook a mixed-methods study, involving a document review and analysis of government strategies either wholly or partially dedicated to tackling obesity in England. We developed a theory-based analytical framework, using content analysis and applied thematic analysis (ATA) to code all policies. Our interpretation drew on quantitative findings and thematic analysis.

findingsWe identified and analyzed 14 government strategies published from 1992 to 2020 containing 689 wide-ranging policies. Policies were largely proposed in a way that would be unlikely to lead to implementation; the majority were not interventionist and made high demands on individual agency, meaning that they relied on individuals to make behavior changes rather than shaping external influences, and are thus less likely to be effective or to reduce health inequalities.

conclusionsThe government obesity strategies' failure to reduce the prevalence of obesity in England for almost 30 years may be due to weaknesses in the policies' design, leading to a lack of effectiveness, but they may also be due to failures of implementation and evaluation. These failures appear to have led to insufficient or no policy learning and governments proposing similar or identical policies repeatedly over many years. Governments should learn from their earlier policy failures. They should prioritize policies that make minimal demands on individuals and have the potential for population-wide reach so as to maximize their potential for equitable impacts. Policies should be proposed in ways that readily lead to implementation and evaluation.

Indexed as

COVID-19EnglandGovernmentHealth PolicyHumansObesityPandemicsProgram EvaluationPublic HealthSARS-CoV-2governmentobesitypolicypolicymakingpublic health

Identifiers

PMID33464689
PMCPMC7984668
OpenAlexW3124780472

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.