Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42583714›Full record

ReviewHealth promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals2026

Comparative Policy Analysis of Healthcare Healthy Eating Policies in Canada.

Laura J Kennedy, Sara F L Kirk, Alisson Dykeman, Meaghan Sim, Jeanna Parsons Leigh, Catherine L Mah

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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
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

6 authors.

Laura J KennedySchool of Health Administration, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4279-4307
Sara F L KirkSchool of Health and Human Performance, Healthy Populations Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2146-4448
Alisson DykemanThe Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.
Meaghan SimResearch and Innovation, IWK Health, Halifax, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4477-3833
Jeanna Parsons LeighSchool of Health Administration, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Catherine L MahSchool of Health Administration, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7294-2035

Funding

Canada Research ChairsKillam Memorial Chairs programNova Scotia Graduate Scholarship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthy eating policies are of growing importance to the management of retail food environments in healthcare (e.g., hospital cafeterias). Several researchers have begun to analyse health promoting benchmarks within these policies. However, little is understood about the relationship between policy and continuous quality improvement (CQI) for health promotion in healthcare. Furthering our understanding of benchmarks within these policies could provide insight into how we can measure and create standards in health promotion. This policy analysis examined publicly accessible healthcare healthy eating policies in Canadian health authority jurisdictions, up until November 22, 2022.

methodsData was extracted using a monitoring and evaluation framework for evaluating nutrition policies in publicly funded institutions, with adaptations based on organisational CQI concepts. Policy components analysed included: policy design, nutrient profiling systems, nutrition standards, evaluation, and monitoring. A second reviewer independently extracted data and peer debriefing was completed on the extractions.

resultsThis analysis identified five healthy eating policies meeting the inclusion criteria, from Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Winnipeg, Manitoba. Policies included nutrient profiling, including benchmarks for selling healthy, moderately healthy, and less healthy food and beverages. Other benchmarks were mentioned but contained fewer indicators (e.g., fundraising, catering, and advertising). Policies included benchmarks about product and placement (e.g., healthier items in visible places) but less about price. The included policies promoted collaboration amongst healthcare providers but lacked details about evaluation and monitoring.

conclusionThis policy analysis suggests that different healthcare settings may require different benchmarks, tailored to their contexts. Furthermore, standardisation may not be optimal if further experimentation is needed to identify benchmarks for health promotion practices, as is common in healthcare CQI. Policy implementation requires a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches, and collaboration with multiple partners may be necessary for success. Benchmarking processes are a potential strategy for understanding improvements to other aspects of the food environment beyond nutrient standards. SO WHAT: CQI and retail food environments each focus on customer satisfaction and costs, thus sharing alignments. CQI benchmarking processes are a potential strategy for understanding improvements to other aspects of the food environment beyond nutrient standards. Further exploration is needed to implement and monitor benchmarks over time.

Indexed as

Diet, HealthyHealth PromotionNutrition PolicyPolicy MakingBenchmarkingCanadaHumansQuality Improvementcontinuous quality improvementhealthcarehealthy eatinghealthy eating policyretail food environments

Identifiers

PMID42583714
PMCPMC13463216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.