Richardson M B, Williams M S, Fontaine K R, Allison D B
Department of Population Health Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Nutrition Obesity Research Center, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Int J Obes (Lond). 2017 Jun;41(6):840-848. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2017.71. Epub 2017 Mar 15.
Potential obesity-related policy approaches have recently been receiving more attention. Although some have been implemented and others only proposed, few have been formally evaluated. We discuss the relevance, and in some cases irrelevance, of some of the types of evidence that are often brought to bear in considering obesity-related policy decisions. We discuss major methods used to generate such evidence, emphasizing study design and the varying quality of the evidence obtained. Third, we consider what the standards of evidence should be in various contexts, who ought to set those standards, as well as the inherent subjectivity involved in making policy decisions. Finally, we suggest greater transparency from both academics and policymakers in the acknowledgment of subjectivities so they can distinguish and communicate the roles of empirical evidence and subjective values in the formulation of policy.
与肥胖相关的潜在政策方法最近受到了更多关注。尽管有些已经实施,有些只是提出,但很少有得到正式评估的。我们讨论了在考虑与肥胖相关的政策决策时经常使用的一些证据类型的相关性,以及在某些情况下的不相关性。我们讨论了用于生成此类证据的主要方法,强调研究设计以及所获得证据的不同质量。第三,我们考虑在各种情况下证据的标准应该是什么,谁应该设定这些标准,以及在做出政策决策时所涉及的内在主观性。最后,我们建议学者和政策制定者在承认主观性方面都提高透明度,以便他们能够区分并传达经验证据和主观价值观在政策制定中的作用。