The George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, 3125, Australia.
BMC Public Health. 2020 Jun 30;20(1):1038. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09160-z.
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.
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.
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.
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.
机构是饮食干预和营养政策的推荐场所,因为这些场所提供了通过创造健康的食物环境来改善健康的机会。在澳大利亚,州和地区政府鼓励或强制其管辖范围内的机构采用营养政策。然而,没有工作分析过跨环境和司法管辖区的政策设计。本研究旨在比较澳大利亚各州和地区政府主导的机构营养政策在设计和组成方面的差异,确定现有政策中的差距,并评估制定更有力、更全面政策的潜力。
通过搜索每个澳大利亚州和地区政府的卫生和教育部网站,确定了政府主导的机构营养政策,包括学校、工作场所、卫生设施和其他公共场所。此外,还从其他相关利益攸关方网站以及澳大利亚食品政策指数网站获取了数据。使用监测和评估公共资助机构营养政策的框架提取数据,并对机构营养政策的设计和内容进行了定性分析。对司法管辖区和机构类型进行了比较分析,并对政策的全面性进行了评估。
在澳大利亚的八个州和地区共确定了 27 项机构营养政策。大多数卫生设施和公立学校的政策是强制性的,而大多数工作场所的政策是自愿的。24 项政策包括营养标准,22 项政策包括餐饮/筹款/广告指南。虽然大多数政策包括实施指南或工具以及其他支持资源,但不到一半的政策包括监测和评估的工具/时间表。政策设计、组成部分和营养标准在司法管辖区和机构类型之间存在差异,但所有政策都基于澳大利亚膳食指南。
机构中的营养政策为创造健康的饮食环境和改善澳大利亚人口健康提供了机会。然而,这些政策的设计,包括缺乏问责机制等关键组成部分,以及司法管辖区之间的差异,可能是实施的障碍,并阻止政策产生预期的影响。