Frameworks for implementation of policies promoting healthy nutrition and physically active lifestyle: systematic review.
Diet
Framework
Implementation
Nutrition
Physical activity
Policy
Sedentary behavior
Systematic review
Theory
Journal
The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity
ISSN: 1479-5868
Titre abrégé: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101217089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Feb 2022
12 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
02
07
2021
accepted:
23
12
2021
entrez:
13
2
2022
pubmed:
14
2
2022
medline:
8
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Policy frameworks focusing on policy implementation may vary in terms of their scope, included constructs, relationships between the constructs, and context factors. Although multiple policy implementation frameworks exist, the overarching synthesis characterizing differences between the frameworks is missing. This study investigated frameworks guiding implementation of policies aiming at healthy nutrition, physical activity promotion, and a reduction of sedentary behavior. In particular, we aimed at examining the scope of the frameworks and the content of included constructs (e.g., referring to implementation processes, determinants, or implementation evaluation), the level at which these constructs operate (e.g., the individual level, the organizational/community level), relationships between the constructs, and the inclusion of equity factors. A systematic review (the PROSPERO registration no. CRD42019133251) was conducted using 9 databases and 8 stakeholder websites. The content of 38 policy implementation frameworks was coded and analyzed. Across the frameworks, 47.4% (18 in 38) addressed three aims: description of the process, determinants, and the evaluation of implementation. The majority of frameworks (65.8%; 25 in 38) accounted for constructs from three levels: individual, organizational/community, and the system level. System-level constructs were included less often (76.3%; 29 in 38) than individual-level or organizational/community-level constructs (86.8% [33 in 38 frameworks] and 94.7% [36 in 38 frameworks] respectively). The majority of frameworks (84.2%, 32 in 38) included at least some sections that were solely of descriptive character (a list of unassociated constructs); 50.0% (19 in 38) included sections of prescriptive character (general steps of implementation); 60.5% (23 in 38) accounted for explanatory sections (assuming bi- or uni-directorial associations). The complex system approach was accounted for only in 21.1% (8 in 38) of frameworks. More than half (55.3%; 21 in 38) of frameworks did not account for any equity constructs (e.g., socioeconomic status, culture). The majority of policy implementation frameworks have two or three aims (combining processes, determinants and/or the evaluation of implementation), include multi-level constructs (although the system-level determinants are less frequently included than those from the individual- or organizational/community-level), combine sections of purely descriptive character with sections accounting for prescriptive and/or explanatory associations, and are likely to include a little or no equity constructs. PROSPERO, #CRD42019133251.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Policy frameworks focusing on policy implementation may vary in terms of their scope, included constructs, relationships between the constructs, and context factors. Although multiple policy implementation frameworks exist, the overarching synthesis characterizing differences between the frameworks is missing. This study investigated frameworks guiding implementation of policies aiming at healthy nutrition, physical activity promotion, and a reduction of sedentary behavior. In particular, we aimed at examining the scope of the frameworks and the content of included constructs (e.g., referring to implementation processes, determinants, or implementation evaluation), the level at which these constructs operate (e.g., the individual level, the organizational/community level), relationships between the constructs, and the inclusion of equity factors.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic review (the PROSPERO registration no. CRD42019133251) was conducted using 9 databases and 8 stakeholder websites. The content of 38 policy implementation frameworks was coded and analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Across the frameworks, 47.4% (18 in 38) addressed three aims: description of the process, determinants, and the evaluation of implementation. The majority of frameworks (65.8%; 25 in 38) accounted for constructs from three levels: individual, organizational/community, and the system level. System-level constructs were included less often (76.3%; 29 in 38) than individual-level or organizational/community-level constructs (86.8% [33 in 38 frameworks] and 94.7% [36 in 38 frameworks] respectively). The majority of frameworks (84.2%, 32 in 38) included at least some sections that were solely of descriptive character (a list of unassociated constructs); 50.0% (19 in 38) included sections of prescriptive character (general steps of implementation); 60.5% (23 in 38) accounted for explanatory sections (assuming bi- or uni-directorial associations). The complex system approach was accounted for only in 21.1% (8 in 38) of frameworks. More than half (55.3%; 21 in 38) of frameworks did not account for any equity constructs (e.g., socioeconomic status, culture).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of policy implementation frameworks have two or three aims (combining processes, determinants and/or the evaluation of implementation), include multi-level constructs (although the system-level determinants are less frequently included than those from the individual- or organizational/community-level), combine sections of purely descriptive character with sections accounting for prescriptive and/or explanatory associations, and are likely to include a little or no equity constructs.
REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
PROSPERO, #CRD42019133251.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35151330
doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01242-4
pii: 10.1186/s12966-021-01242-4
pmc: PMC8841124
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
16Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014 Dec 06;11:147
pubmed: 25480391
Prev Chronic Dis. 2014 Oct 30;11:E190
pubmed: 25357258
Annu Rev Public Health. 2012 Apr;33:7-40
pubmed: 22224876
Curr Dev Nutr. 2018 Oct 13;3(3):nzy080
pubmed: 30864563
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
BMJ. 2000 Sep 16;321(7262):694-6
pubmed: 10987780
Child Obes. 2015 Feb;11(1):48-57
pubmed: 25423618
Lancet. 2017 Dec 9;390(10112):2602-2604
pubmed: 28622953
BMC Public Health. 2020 Jun 26;20(1):1000
pubmed: 32586301
BMC Public Health. 2015 Dec 17;15:1250
pubmed: 26678996
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2010 Jun 1;7(2):57-8
pubmed: 20492634
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2010 Feb;18 Suppl 1:S13-6
pubmed: 20107455
J Appl Psychol. 2018 Jun;103(6):591-613
pubmed: 29369654
Public Policy. 1978 Spring;26(2):157-84
pubmed: 10308532
Implement Sci. 2017 Nov 3;12(1):125
pubmed: 29100551
Health Res Policy Syst. 2015 Mar 14;13:16
pubmed: 25885055
Implement Sci. 2015 Apr 21;10:53
pubmed: 25895742
Qual Health Care. 1998 Sep;7(3):149-58
pubmed: 10185141
Am J Prev Med. 2012 Sep;43(3):337-50
pubmed: 22898128
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008 Apr;34(4):228-43
pubmed: 18468362
BMC Public Health. 2012 Aug 07;12:619
pubmed: 22871020
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Mar;83:37-47
pubmed: 27498377
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014 Dec;1332:39-59
pubmed: 24934307
Implement Sci. 2020 Mar 12;15(1):17
pubmed: 32164692
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Mar 25;19(1):189
pubmed: 30909897
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Jan;38(1):4-23
pubmed: 21197565
Am J Community Psychol. 2008 Jun;41(3-4):327-50
pubmed: 18322790
Int J Equity Health. 2019 May 31;18(1):80
pubmed: 31151452
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
Implement Sci. 2017 Jun 21;12(1):77
pubmed: 28637486
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 08;10(7):e0129683
pubmed: 26153893
Prev Med. 1999 Dec;29(6 Pt 1):563-70
pubmed: 10600438
Health Educ Res. 2009 Apr;24(2):292-305
pubmed: 18469319
Am J Community Psychol. 2008 Jun;41(3-4):171-81
pubmed: 18302018
Adv Sch Ment Health Promot. 2008 Jul;1(3):6-28
pubmed: 27182282
Am J Public Health. 1999 Sep;89(9):1322-7
pubmed: 10474547
Implement Sci. 2013 Apr 18;8:46
pubmed: 23597122
BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Jul 07;6:86
pubmed: 16827928
Implement Sci. 2015 Oct 28;10:149
pubmed: 26510493
Am J Public Health. 1984 Sep;74(9):979-83
pubmed: 6380323
Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-629
pubmed: 15595944
Lancet. 2018 Nov 10;392(10159):1923-1994
pubmed: 30496105
Bull World Health Organ. 2019 Feb 1;97(2):162-165
pubmed: 30728623
Implement Sci. 2017 Feb 15;12(1):21
pubmed: 28202031
PLoS Med. 2005 Jul;2(7):e166
pubmed: 15913387
Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2017 Sep;37(9):303-312
pubmed: 28902479
Global Health. 2017 Sep 5;13(1):69
pubmed: 28870225
BMC Public Health. 2010 Jan 15;10:17
pubmed: 20078858
Can J Nurs Res. 2004 Jun;36(2):89-103
pubmed: 15369167
Am J Community Psychol. 2012 Dec;50(3-4):462-80
pubmed: 22644083
BMC Public Health. 2009 Sep 22;9:355
pubmed: 19772598