Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33481898›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Understanding the dynamics of obesity prevention policy decision-making using a systems perspective: A case study of Healthy Together Victoria.

Brydie Clarke, Janelle Kwon, Boyd Swinburn, Gary Sacks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Causal Loop Diagrams of Food Systems, Diet, and Obesity: A Scoping Review of Methods, Contextual Factors, and Outcomes.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Using a systems thinking approach to map the global rise of ultra-processed foods in population diets.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. An analysis of current obesity strategies for adolescents in NSW against best practice recommendations: Implications for researchers, policymakers and practitioners.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Trial collaborators' perceptions of the process of delivering Healthy Beginnings advice via telephone calls or text messages.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2022
    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.

Brydie ClarkeGlobal Obesity Centre, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Janelle KwonGlobal Obesity Centre, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6997-9139
Boyd SwinburnSchool of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Gary SacksGlobal Obesity Centre, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9736-1539

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite global recommendations for governments to implement a comprehensive suite of policies to address obesity, policy adoption has been deficient globally. This paper utilised political science theory and systems thinking methods to examine the dynamics underlying decisions regarding obesity prevention policy adoption within the context of the Australian state government initiative, Healthy Together Victoria (HTV) (2011-2016). The aim was to understand key influences on policy processes, and to identify potential opportunities to increase the adoption of recommended policies.

methodsData describing government processes in relation to the adoption of six policy interventions considered as part of HTV were collected using interviews (n = 57), document analyses (n = 568) and field note observations. The data were analysed using multiple political science theories. A systematic method was then used to develop a Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) for each policy intervention. A simplified meta-CLD was generated from synthesis of common elements across each of the six policy interventions.

resultsThe dynamics of policy change could be explained using a series of feedback loops. Five interconnected balancing loops served to reduce the propensity for policy change. These pertained to an organisational norm of risk aversion, and the complexity resulting from a whole-of-government policy approach and in-depth stakeholder consultation. However, seven virtuous reinforcing loops helped overcome policy resistance through policy actor capabilities that were improved over time as policy actors gained experience in advocating for change.

conclusionPolicy processes for obesity prevention are complex and resistant to change. In order to increase adoption of recommended policies, several capabilities of policy actors, including policy skills, political astuteness, negotiation skills and consensus building, should be fostered and strengthened. Strategies to facilitate effective and broad-based consultation, both across and external to government, need to be implemented in ways that do not result in substantial delays in the policy process.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth PolicyPolicy MakingSystems AnalysisAustraliaHealth PromotionHumansObesity

Identifiers

PMID33481898
PMCPMC7822316

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.