ArticleBMC public health2023
What works in advocating for food advertising policy change across an english region - a realist evaluation.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Overcoming doubt: developing CDoH Essentials, a practical tool to introduce the commercial determinants of health.Health promotion international · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith increasing recognition of the role of commercial determinants of health, local areas in England have sought to restrict the advertising of products high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) on council-owned spaces, as part of wider strategies to reduce obesity. While there is some evidence of the impact of such policy change on behaviour, little is known about what works in the process of implementing this policy change.
methodsGuided by a realist evaluation framework that explores the interaction between context, mechanism and outcomes, this study aims to investigate the factors that influence the restriction of outdoor advertising of HFSS products in one region in England. It refines a programme theory co-produced with stakeholders from 14 local authorities within a region and uses multiple data sources from each area with an in-depth examination of four case study sites. Data sources include longitudinal realist interviews, focus groups and surveys with policy advocates and policy stakeholders. Data were analysed retroductively to understand the causal link between context, mechanism and outcomes.
resultsOutcomes were driven by five dominant mechanisms: a strategic and staggered approach to stakeholder engagement, gathering intelligence, identifying policy champions, building relationships, reframing the issue; and two secondary mechanisms of amplifying the issue and increasing public will. These led to varied outcomes with no changes in formal policy position within the evaluation period but draft policy guidance in place and changes in political will demonstrated. Dominant context factors influencing change included having a named and resourced policy advocate in place supported by an external Community of Improvement and having existing aligned local objectives. Organisational complexity and change, financial concerns, lack of local examples, ideological positions and the pandemic were also influencing contextual factors.
conclusionEffecting policy change in this area requires the commitment of an extended period and the valuing of short-term policy outcomes, such as increasing political will. The importance of a resourced and well-supported policy advocate to lead this work is fundamental and the commercially sensitive nature of this policy change means that a complex interplay of mechanisms is required which may be dominated by a strategically staggered approach to stakeholder engagement.
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.