Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: Interventions to reduce population salt intake are feasible and cost-effective. The Victorian Salt Reduction Partnership implemented a complex, multi-faceted salt reduction intervention between 2014 and 2020 in the Australian state of Victoria. This study aimed to understand stakeholder perspectives on the effectiveness of the Victorian Salt Reduction Partnership. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Partnership and food industry stakeholders. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was adapted for the Partnership intervention and used to guide the qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen Partnership and seven food industry stakeholders were interviewed. The Partnership was viewed as essential for intervention planning and decision-making and an enabler for intervention delivery. The goals of capacity building and collaborative action were perceived to have been achieved. The implementation team executed intended intervention activities and outputs, with some adaptations to strategy. Barriers and enablers to implementation were identified by interviewees, such as compatibility of individual, organisational and Partnership values and building positive relationships between the Partnership and food industry, respectively. Legal, political, social, environmental, technological and economic factors affecting intervention design, delivery and outcomes were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing a Partnership with diverse skills and experience facilitated collaborative action, capacity building and execution of the intervention. Monitoring and evaluating implementation informed strategy adaptations, which allowed optimisation of Partnership strategy. The importance of developing strong communication networks between strategic and implementation-levels was a key lesson.

BACKGROUND: Institutions are a recommended setting for dietary interventions and nutrition policies as these provide an opportunity to improve health by creating healthy food environments. In Australia, state and territory governments encourage or mandate institutions in their jurisdiction to adopt nutrition policies. However, no work has analysed the policy design across settings and jurisdictions. This study aimed to compare the design and components of government-led institutional nutrition policies between Australian states and territories, determine gaps in existing policies, and assess the potential for developing stronger, more comprehensive policies. METHODS: Government-led institutional nutrition policies, in schools, workplaces, health facilities and other public settings, were identified by searching health and education department websites for each Australian state and territory government. This was supplemented by data from other relevant stakeholder websites and from the Food Policy Index Australia website. A framework for monitoring and evaluating nutrition policies in publicly-funded institutions was used to extract data and a qualitative analysis of the design and content of institutional nutrition policies was performed. Comparative analyses between the jurisdictions and institution types were conducted, and policies were assessed for comprehensiveness. RESULTS: Twenty-seven institutional nutrition policies were identified across eight states and territories in Australia. Most policies in health facilities and public schools were mandatory, though most workplace policies were voluntary. Twenty-four included nutrient criteria, and 22 included guidelines for catering/fundraising/advertising. While most included implementation guides or tools and additional supporting resources, less than half included tools/timelines for monitoring and evaluation. The policy design, components and nutrient criteria varied between jurisdictions and institution types, though all were based on the Australian Dietary ...

Background: Institutions are a recommended setting for dietary interventions and nutrition policies as these provide an opportunity to improve health by creating healthy food environments. In Australia, state and territory governments encourage or mandate institutions in their jurisdiction to adopt nutrition policies. However, no work has analysed the policy design across settings and jurisdictions. This study aimed to compare the design and components of government-led institutional nutrition policies between Australian states and territories, determine gaps in existing policies, and assess the potential for developing stronger, more comprehensive policies. Methods: Government-led institutional nutrition policies, in schools, workplaces, health facilities and other public settings, were identified by searching health and education department websites for each Australian state and territory government. This was supplemented by data from other relevant stakeholder websites and from the Food Policy Index Australia website. A framework for monitoring and evaluating nutrition policies in publicly-funded institutions was used to extract data and a qualitative analysis of the design and content of institutional nutrition policies was performed. Comparative analyses between the jurisdictions and institution types were conducted, and policies were assessed for comprehensiveness. Results: Twenty-seven institutional nutrition policies were identified across eight states and territories in Australia. Most policies in health facilities and public schools were mandatory, though most workplace policies were voluntary. Twenty-four included nutrient criteria, and 22 included guidelines for catering/fundraising/advertising. While most included implementation guides or tools and additional supporting resources, less than half included tools/timelines for monitoring and evaluation. The policy design, components and nutrient criteria varied between jurisdictions and institution types, though all were based on the Australian Dietary Guidelines. Conclusions: Nutrition policies in institutions present an opportunity to create healthy eating environments and improve population health in Australia. However, the design of these policies, including lack of key components such as accountability mechanisms, and jurisdictional differences, may be a barrier to implementation and prevent the policies having their intended impact.

Background: To advance active transport, robust policy-relevant evidence is needed to understand how to change behaviour and to support decision-making by policy makers and practitioners. Currently, however, priority research questions that are most critical for advancing active transport have not been identified. To this end, we aimed to inform an active transport research priority agenda for Australia to guide research, funding, policy making and practice to enhance active transport. Methods: We designed and conducted a novel priority setting exercise to identify and set research priorities for the advancement of active transport in Australia. The process consisted of three phases: 1) generation and collection of research questions from a diverse reference group consisting of experts and key members representing academia, government, private and not-for-profit organisations (n = 259 respondents); 2) thematic analysis and consolidation of research questions to a final list of 50 questions; and 3) prioritisation of research questions by the reference group (n = 140 respondents). Results: The top ranked questions included the evidence to support policy changes to increase active transport, identifying and overcoming community resistance to active transport infrastructure, road space re-allocation and lower urban speed limits, evidence on the needs of children, enhanced governance and funding, and improving how the benefits of active transport are best measured and communicated. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first priority setting exercise in active transport globally. The identified research priorities can be used to identify new policy-relevant areas of research, contribute to the active transport research agenda in Australia and guide research funding. Focusing on these research priorities will address stakeholder and academic priorities and provide the evidence required to support the advancement of active transport in Australia. Future research could use the same approach to identify research ...