Suchergebnisse

Addressing the translational gap between research evidence and state health policy requires an understanding of the current use of research evidence in the state policymaking process. In this study, we explore the use of research evidence to inform the legislative debate about restaurant nutrition labeling policy in California. In 2008, California was the first state to enact a mandatory menu calorie labeling policy in the U.S. Using a qualitative approach, we examine data sources and types of evidence used in legislative documents (n = 87) related to six menu labeling bills introduced in California's state legislature between 2003 and 2008. Federal- and state-level government agency reports were the most frequently cited sources of technical knowledge. Advocacy coalition members who were active participants involved in the policy debate were also cited as experts. Five of the six bills included evidence in related legislative documents. While documents included considerable evidence on the magnitude and severity of the obesity problem to justify policy enactment, there were a limited number of statements referring to policy effectiveness and only one statement identified attesting to implementation context and acceptability. Reference to evidence on related policy suggests policy precedence may also play an important role in policy decision making. There is a need to improve the dissemination of obesity policy effectiveness and implementation studies in a politically time sensitive manner to influence state health policy debates. Strategies are discussed to effectively integrate the use of research evidence in the state health policymaking process.

Policy Points In 2012, Colorado and Washington were the first states to legalize recreational marijuana through voter-initiated ballots. In these states, counties could restrict or ban local marijuana facilities through a variety of regulatory methods such as ordinances and zoning. County-level recreational marijuana policies in Washington and Colorado vary substantially, with 69.2% of Washington counties and 23.4% of Colorado counties allowing all types of recreational marijuana facilities as of April 1, 2019. After Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana, many counties modified their marijuana policies over time, with shifts in county policy often preceded by advocacy and information-seeking activities.ContextIn 2012, Colorado and Washington were the first states to legalize recreational marijuana. Both allowed local governments to further regulate the availability of marijuana facilities in their jurisdictions. As early adopters, these states are important quasi-natural experiments to examine local marijuana policy and policy change processes, including key stakeholders and arguments.MethodsWe conducted a policy scan of county-level recreational marijuana ordinances and regulations in Colorado and Washington. Data collected included policy documents from counties in both states and newspaper articles. We used a mixed-methods approach to describe the types of county-level recreational marijuana policies enacted by April 1, 2019; identify key policy stakeholders involved in local policy debates; and explore arguments used in support or opposition of county policies. We also selected four counties that represent three county policy environments (all marijuana facility types allowed, some marijuana facility types allowed, all marijuana facility types prohibited) and described the policy changes within these counties since recreational marijuana was legalized.FindingsBy April 1, 2019, Colorado counties were less likely than Washington counties to allow marijuana facilities-48.4% of Colorado counties prohibited recreational marijuana facilities in their jurisdiction compared to 23.1% of Washington counties. Since state legalization, several counties in both states have made substantial marijuana facility policy modifications, often preceded by information-seeking activities. Primary stakeholders involved in policy debates included elected officials, law enforcement, individual growers/farmers, marijuana business license applicants, parents, and residents. Proponents referenced local economic gain, reduced crime, and potential health benefits of marijuana as arguments in favor of permitting local facilities, whereas opponents pointed to economic loss, negative health and public health issues, public safety concerns, and existing federal law. Both sides referenced local public opinion data to support their position.ConclusionsBy early 2019, a patchwork of local marijuana policies was in place in Colorado and Washington. We identify key areas of policy and public health research needed to inform future local marijuana policy decisions, including the impact of legalization on public health outcomes (particularly for youth) and public safety.

Policy Points In 2012, Colorado and Washington were the first states to legalize recreational marijuana through voter-initiated ballots. In these states, counties could restrict or ban local marijuana facilities through a variety of regulatory methods such as ordinances and zoning. County-level recreational marijuana policies in Washington and Colorado vary substantially, with 69.2% of Washington counties and 23.4% of Colorado counties allowing all types of recreational marijuana facilities as of April 1, 2019. After Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana, many counties modified their marijuana policies over time, with shifts in county policy often preceded by advocacy and information-seeking activities.ContextIn 2012, Colorado and Washington were the first states to legalize recreational marijuana. Both allowed local governments to further regulate the availability of marijuana facilities in their jurisdictions. As early adopters, these states are important quasi-natural experiments to examine local marijuana policy and policy change processes, including key stakeholders and arguments.MethodsWe conducted a policy scan of county-level recreational marijuana ordinances and regulations in Colorado and Washington. Data collected included policy documents from counties in both states and newspaper articles. We used a mixed-methods approach to describe the types of county-level recreational marijuana policies enacted by April 1, 2019; identify key policy stakeholders involved in local policy debates; and explore arguments used in support or opposition of county policies. We also selected four counties that represent three county policy environments (all marijuana facility types allowed, some marijuana facility types allowed, all marijuana facility types prohibited) and described the policy changes within these counties since recreational marijuana was legalized.FindingsBy April 1, 2019, Colorado counties were less likely than Washington counties to allow marijuana facilities-48.4% of Colorado counties prohibited recreational marijuana facilities in their jurisdiction compared to 23.1% of Washington counties. Since state legalization, several counties in both states have made substantial marijuana facility policy modifications, often preceded by information-seeking activities. Primary stakeholders involved in policy debates included elected officials, law enforcement, individual growers/farmers, marijuana business license applicants, parents, and residents. Proponents referenced local economic gain, reduced crime, and potential health benefits of marijuana as arguments in favor of permitting local facilities, whereas opponents pointed to economic loss, negative health and public health issues, public safety concerns, and existing federal law. Both sides referenced local public opinion data to support their position.ConclusionsBy early 2019, a patchwork of local marijuana policies was in place in Colorado and Washington. We identify key areas of policy and public health research needed to inform future local marijuana policy decisions, including the impact of legalization on public health outcomes (particularly for youth) and public safety.

Purpose California's failed attempts to enact a statewide sugary beverage tax presents an opportunity to advance understanding of advocacy coalition behavior. We investigate the participation of advocacy coalitions in California's statewide sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax policy debate. Design Document analysis of legislative bills and newspaper articles collected in 2019. Setting California. Method A total of 11 SSB tax-related bills were introduced in California's legislature between 2001-2018 according to the state's legislative website. Data sources include legislative bill documents (n = 94) and newspaper articles (n = 138). Guided by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), we identify advocacy coalitions involved in California's SSB tax debate and explore strategies and arguments used to advance each coalitions' position. Results Two coalitions (public health, food/beverage industry) were involved in California's statewide SSB tax policy debate. The public health coalition had higher member participation and referred to scientific research evidence while the industry coalition used preemption and financial resources as primary advocacy strategies. The public health coalition frequently presented messaging on the health consequences and financial benefits of SSB taxes. The industry coalition responded by focusing on the potential negative economic impact of a tax. Conclusion Multiple attempts to enact a statewide SSB tax in California have failed. Our findings add insight into the challenges of enacting an SSB tax considering industry interference. Results can inform future efforts to pass evidence-based nutrition policies.

Advocacy coalitions often play an important role in the state health policymaking process, yet little is known about their structure, composition, and behavior. In 2008, California became the first state to enact a menu labeling law. Using the advocacy coalition framework, we examine different facets of the coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate. We use a qualitative research approach to identify coalition members and explore their expressed beliefs and policy arguments, resources, and strategies by analyzing legislative documents (n = 87) and newspaper articles (n = 78) produced between 1999 and 2009. Between 2003 and 2008, six menu labeling bills were introduced in the state's legislature. We found the issue received increasing media attention during this period. We identified two advocacy coalitions involved in the debate-a public health (PH) coalition and an industry coalition. State organizations acted as coalition leaders and participated for a longer duration than elected officials. The structure and composition of each coalition varied. PH coalition leadership and membership notably increased compared to the industry coalition. The PH coalition, led by nonprofit PH and health organizations, promoted a clear and consistent message around informed decision making. The industry coalition, led by a state restaurant association, responded with cost and implementation arguments. Each coalition used various resources and strategies to advance desired outcomes. PH coalition leaders were particularly effective at using resources and employing advocacy strategies, which included engaging state legislators as coalition members, using public opinion polls and information, and leveraging media resources to garner support. Policy precedence and a local policy push emerged as important policymaking strategies. Areas for future research on the state health policymaking process are discussed.

Advocacy coalitions often play an important role in the state health policymaking process, yet little is known about their structure, composition, and behavior. In 2008, California became the first state to enact a menu labeling law. Using the advocacy coalition framework, we examine different facets of the coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate. We use a qualitative research approach to identify coalition members and explore their expressed beliefs and policy arguments, resources, and strategies by analyzing legislative documents (n=87) and newspaper articles (n=78) produced between 1999 and 2009. Between 2003 and 2008, six menu labeling bills were introduced in the state's legislature. We found the issue received increasing media attention during this period. We identified two advocacy coalitions involved in the debate—a public health (PH) coalition and an industry coalition. State organizations acted as coalition leaders and participated for a longer duration than elected officials. The structure and composition of each coalition varied. PH coalition leadership and membership notably increased compared to the industry coalition. The PH coalition, led by nonprofit PH and health organizations, promoted a clear and consistent message around informed decision making. The industry coalition, led by a state restaurant association, responded with cost and implementation arguments. Each coalition used various resources and strategies to advance desired outcomes. PH coalition leaders were particularly effective at using resources and employing advocacy strategies, which included engaging state legislators as coalition members, using public opinion polls and information, and leveraging media resources to garner support. Policy precedence and a local policy push emerged as important policymaking strategies. Areas for future research on the state health policymaking process are discussed.

OBJECTIVE: The current study aimed to understand how moderate and severe food-insecure people living with HIV (PLHIV) in the Dominican Republic perceive a healthy diet and explore facilitators and barriers to engaging in healthy dietary behaviours as a means of HIV self-management. DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured interviews with PLHIV. We generated codes on food insecurity among PLHIV and used content analysis to organise codes for constant comparison between and within participants. SETTING: Two urban HIV clinics in the Dominican Republic. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two PLHIV participated in the interviews. RESULTS: Factors that contributed to dietary behaviours include individual factors, such as knowledge of nutrition, views and attitudes on healthy dietary behaviours, beliefs about dietary needs for PLHIV and diet functionality. Interpersonal factors, including assistance from family and peers in providing food or funds, were deemed critical along with community and organisational factors, such as food assistance from HIV clinics, accessibility to a variety of food store types and the availability of diverse food options at food stores. Policy-level factors that influenced dietary behaviours were contingent on respondents' participation in the labour market (i.e. whether they were employed) and consistent access to government assistance. Food insecurity influenced these factors through unpredictability and a lack of control. CONCLUSIONS: PLHIV who experience food insecurity face various barriers to engaging in healthy dietary behaviours. Their diets are influenced at multiple levels of influence ranging from individual to structural, requiring multi-level interventions that can address these factors concurrently.

Purpose: To implement a multilevel, church-based intervention with diverse disparity populations using community-based participatory research and evaluate feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness in improving obesity-related outcomes. Design: Cluster randomized controlled trial (pilot). Setting: Two midsized (∼200 adults) African American baptist and 2 very large (∼2000) Latino Catholic churches in South Los Angeles, California. Participants: Adult (18+ years) congregants (n = 268 enrolled at baseline, ranging from 45 to 99 per church). Intervention: Various components were implemented over 5 months and included 2 sermons by pastor, educational handouts, church vegetable and fruit gardens, cooking and nutrition classes, daily mobile messaging, community mapping of food and physical activity environments, and identification of congregational policy changes to increase healthy meals. Measures: Outcomes included objectively measured body weight, body mass index (BMI), and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), plus self-reported overall healthiness of diet and usual minutes spent in physical activity each week; control variables include sex, age, race–ethnicity, English proficiency, education, household income, and (for physical activity outcome) self-reported health status. Analysis: Multivariate linear regression models estimated the average effect size of the intervention, controlling for pair fixed effects, a main effect of the intervention, and baseline values of the outcomes. Results: Among those completing follow-up (68%), the intervention resulted in statistically significantly less weight gain and greater weight loss (−0.05 effect sizes; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.06 to −0.04), lower BMI (−0.08; 95% CI = −0.11 to −0.05), and healthier diet (−0.09; 95% CI = −0.17 to −0.00). There was no evidence of an intervention impact on BP or physical activity minutes per week. Conclusion: Implementing a multilevel intervention across diverse congregations resulted in small improvements in obesity outcomes. A longer time line is needed to fully implement and assess effects of community and congregation environmental strategies and to allow for potential larger impacts of the intervention.