Faculty of Public Health Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Faculty of Public Health Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Adv Nutr. 2024 Nov;15(11):100306. doi: 10.1016/j.advnut.2024.100306. Epub 2024 Sep 23.
There has been increasing pressure to implement policies for promoting healthy food environments worldwide. We conducted an evidence map to critically explore the breadth and nature of primary research from 2010-2020 that evaluated the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, development, and implementation of mandatory and voluntary food environment policies. Fourteen databases and 2 websites were searched for "real-world" evaluations of international, national, and state level policies promoting healthy food environments. We documented the policy and evaluation characteristics, including the World Cancer Research Fund International NOURISHING framework's policy categories and 10 equity characteristics using the PROGRESS-Plus framework. Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics and visuals. We screened 27,958 records, of which 482 were included. Although these covered 70 countries, 81% of publications focused on only 12 countries (United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, France, Spain, Denmark, New Zealand, and South Africa). Studies from these countries employed more robust quantitative methods and included most of the evaluations of policy development, implementation, and cost-effectiveness. Few publications reported on Africa (n = 12), Central and South Asia (n = 5), and the Middle East (n = 6) regions. Few also assessed public-private partnerships (PPPs, n = 31, 6%) compared to voluntary approaches by the private sector (n = 96, 20%), the public sector (n = 90, 19%), and mandatory approaches (n = 288, 60%). Most evaluations of PPPs reported on the same 2 partnerships. Only 50% of publications assessing policy effectiveness compared outcomes between population groups stratified by an equity characteristic, and this proportion has decreased over time. There are striking inequities in the origin, scope, and design of these studies, suggesting that research capacity and funding lies in the hands of a few expert teams worldwide. The small number of studies on PPPs questions the evidence base underlying the international push for PPPs to promote health. Policy evaluations should consider impacts on equity more consistently. This study was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42020170963.
在全球范围内实施促进健康食品环境政策的压力越来越大。我们进行了一项证据图谱研究,批判性地探讨了 2010 年至 2020 年期间评估强制性和自愿性食品环境政策的有效性、成本效益、制定和实施情况的主要研究的广度和性质。为了评估国际、国家和州级政策对促进健康食品环境的实际效果,我们在 14 个数据库和 2 个网站上搜索了“真实世界”评估。我们记录了政策和评估特征,包括世界癌症研究基金会国际滋养框架的政策类别和使用 PROGRESS-Plus 框架的 10 个公平特征。使用描述性统计和可视化方法对数据进行综合分析。我们筛选了 27958 条记录,其中 482 条被纳入。尽管这些研究涵盖了 70 个国家,但 81%的出版物仅关注 12 个国家(美国、英国、澳大利亚、加拿大、墨西哥、巴西、智利、法国、西班牙、丹麦、新西兰和南非)。这些国家的研究采用了更可靠的定量方法,并包括了大部分政策制定、实施和成本效益评估。关于非洲(n=12)、中美洲和南亚(n=5)以及中东(n=6)地区的出版物很少。与私营部门的自愿方法(n=96,20%)、公共部门(n=90,19%)和强制性方法(n=288,60%)相比,评估公私合作伙伴关系(PPP,n=31,6%)的出版物也很少。对 PPP 的大多数评估都报告了相同的 2 个伙伴关系。只有 50%的评估政策效果的出版物比较了按公平特征分层的人群的结果,而且这一比例随着时间的推移而下降。这些研究在起源、范围和设计上存在明显的不公平现象,这表明研究能力和资金掌握在全球少数几个专家团队手中。关于公私合作伙伴关系的研究数量较少,这对国际推动公私合作伙伴关系促进健康的证据基础提出了质疑。政策评估应更一致地考虑公平问题。本研究已在 PROSPERO 上注册,注册号为 CRD42020170963。