Global Obesity Centre, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Geelong, VIC3125, Australia.
School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Public Health Nutr. 2022 Feb;25(2):488-497. doi: 10.1017/S136898002100447X. Epub 2021 Oct 28.
Despite broad agreement on the need for comprehensive policy action to improve the healthiness of food environments, implementation of recommended policies has been slow and fragmented. Benchmarking is increasingly being used to strengthen accountability for action. However, there have been few evaluations of benchmarking and accountability initiatives to understand their contribution to policy change. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) Australia initiative (2016-2020) that assessed Australian governments on their progress in implementing recommended policies for improving food environments.
A convergent mixed methods approach was employed incorporating data from online surveys (conducted in 2017 and 2020) and in-depth semi-structured interviews (conducted in 2020). Data were analysed against a pre-defined logic model.
Australia.
Interviews: twenty stakeholders (sixteen government, four non-government). Online surveys: fifty-three non-government stakeholders (52 % response rate) in 2017; thirty-four non-government stakeholders (36 % response rate) in 2020.
The Food-EPI process involved extensive engagement with government officials and the broader public health community across Australia. Food-EPI Australia was found to support policy processes, including as a tool to increase knowledge of good practice, as a process for collaboration and as an authoritative reference to support policy decisions and advocacy strategies.
Key stakeholders involved in the Food-EPI Australia process viewed it as a valuable initiative that should be repeated to maximise its value as an accountability mechanism. The highly collaborative nature of the initiative was seen as a key strength that could inform design of other benchmarking processes.
尽管人们广泛认为需要采取全面的政策行动来改善食品环境的健康状况，但建议政策的实施一直缓慢且分散。基准测试越来越多地被用于加强对行动的问责制。然而，对于基准测试和问责制倡议，很少有评估来了解它们对政策变革的贡献。本研究旨在评估 2016-2020 年澳大利亚健康食品环境政策指数（Food-EPI）倡议的影响，该倡议评估澳大利亚政府在实施改善食品环境的建议政策方面的进展。
采用收敛混合方法，结合在线调查（2017 年和 2020 年进行）和深入半结构化访谈（2020 年进行）的数据。根据预先确定的逻辑模型进行数据分析。
澳大利亚。
访谈：二十位利益相关者（十六位政府，四位非政府）。在线调查：2017 年 53 位非政府利益相关者（52%的回应率）；2020 年 34 位非政府利益相关者（36%的回应率）。
Food-EPI 过程涉及与澳大利亚政府官员和更广泛的公共卫生界的广泛接触。Food-EPI 澳大利亚被认为支持政策进程，包括作为增加对良好实践的认识的工具、作为合作的过程以及作为支持政策决策和倡导战略的权威参考。
参与 Food-EPI 澳大利亚进程的主要利益相关者认为这是一项有价值的倡议，应重复进行，以最大限度地发挥其作为问责机制的价值。倡议的高度协作性质被视为一个关键优势，可以为其他基准测试过程的设计提供信息。
