ArticlePublic health nutrition2022
Benchmarking for accountability on obesity prevention: evaluation of the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) in Australia (2016-2020).
Article in Public health nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging the gap in obesity research: A consensus statement from the European Society for Clinical Investigation.European journal of clinical investigation · 2025Review
- The implementation of physical activity policies in the Netherlands: a study applying the Physical Activity Environment Policy Index (PA-EPI).Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Development of the Local Food Systems Policy Index (Local Food-EPI+) tool and assessment process to benchmark the implementation of local government policies for creating healthy, equitable and environmentally sustainable food systems.Public health nutrition · 2024Article
- Development of the University Food Environment Assessment (Uni-Food) Tool and Process to Benchmark the Healthiness, Equity, and Environmental Sustainability of University Food Environments.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDespite broad agreement on the need for comprehensive policy action to improve the healthiness of food environments, implementation of recommended policies has been slow and fragmented. Benchmarking is increasingly being used to strengthen accountability for action. However, there have been few evaluations of benchmarking and accountability initiatives to understand their contribution to policy change. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) Australia initiative (2016-2020) that assessed Australian governments on their progress in implementing recommended policies for improving food environments.
designA convergent mixed methods approach was employed incorporating data from online surveys (conducted in 2017 and 2020) and in-depth semi-structured interviews (conducted in 2020). Data were analysed against a pre-defined logic model.
settingAustralia.
participantsInterviews: twenty stakeholders (sixteen government, four non-government). Online surveys: fifty-three non-government stakeholders (52 % response rate) in 2017; thirty-four non-government stakeholders (36 % response rate) in 2020.
resultsThe Food-EPI process involved extensive engagement with government officials and the broader public health community across Australia. Food-EPI Australia was found to support policy processes, including as a tool to increase knowledge of good practice, as a process for collaboration and as an authoritative reference to support policy decisions and advocacy strategies.
conclusionsKey stakeholders involved in the Food-EPI Australia process viewed it as a valuable initiative that should be repeated to maximise its value as an accountability mechanism. The highly collaborative nature of the initiative was seen as a key strength that could inform design of other benchmarking processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.