[How do we make society less obesogenic? Lessons from the political and complexity sciences]. / Hoe maken we de samenleving minder obesogeen?

The adoption of prevention policies that address our obesogenic society remains deficient. We investigated how to overcome policy inertia, using qualitative literature review and theories and concepts from the political and complexity sciences. Our findings indicate that multiple self-reinforcing processes buttress the assumption that obesity is an individual problem, strengthening the biomedical and commercial weight-loss sectors' claim to ownership over solutions. 'Focusing events' can draw political attention to societal cause and consequences of obesity. The more attention such events generate and the clearer the failure of current policies, such as the failure to achieve goals set out in the Dutch 2018 Prevention Agreement, the more pressure builds for alternative policies. Collaboration with groups that emphasize societal aspects of obesity, such as anti-weight stigma activists, can help reframe obesity as a societal problem. Addressing our obesogenic society requires cooperation with policy organizations that influence obesogenic environments, like urban planning.

Why we struggle to make progress in obesity prevention and how we might overcome policy inertia: Lessons from the complexity and political sciences.

Despite evidence for the effectiveness of policies that target obesogenic environments, their adoption remains deficient. Using methods and concepts from complexity and political science (Stock-and-Flow analysis and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory) and a qualitative literature review, we developed system maps to identify feedback loops that hinder policymaking on mitigating obesogenic environments and feedback loops that could trigger and sustain policy change. We found numerous self-reinforcing feedback loops that buttress the assumption that obesity is an individual problem, strengthening the biomedical and commercial weight-loss sectors' claim to "ownership" over solutions. That is, improvements in therapies for individuals with obesity reinforces policymakers' reluctance to target obesogenic environments. Random events that focus attention on obesity (e.g., celebrities dismissing soda) could disrupt this cycle, when actors from outside the medical and weight-loss sector (e.g., anti-weight stigma activists) successfully reframe obesity as a societal problem, which requires robust and politically relevant engagement with affected communities prior to such events taking place. Sustained prioritization of policies targeting obesogenic environments requires shared problem ownership of affected communities and nonhealth government sectors, by emphasizing cobenefits of policies that target obesogenic environments (e.g., ultraprocessed food taxation for raising revenue) and solutions that are meaningful for affected communities.

Implementation approaches for leprosy prevention with single-dose rifampicin: A support tool for decision making.

BACKGROUND: In the past 15 years, the decline in annually detected leprosy patients has stagnated. To reduce the transmission of Mycobacterium leprae, the World Health Organization recommends single-dose rifampicin (SDR) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for contacts of leprosy patients. Various approaches to administer SDR-PEP have been piloted. However, requirements and criteria to select the most suitable approach were missing. The aims of this study were to develop an evidence-informed decision tool to support leprosy programme managers in selecting an SDR-PEP implementation approach, and to assess its user-friendliness among stakeholders without SDR-PEP experience. METHODOLOGY: The development process comprised two phases. First, a draft tool was developed based on a literature review and semi-structured interviews with experts from various countries, organisations and institutes. This led to: an overview of existing SDR-PEP approaches and their characteristics; understanding the requirements and best circumstances for these approaches; and, identification of relevant criteria to select an approach. In the second phase the tool's usability and applicability was assessed, through interviews and a focus group discussion with intended, inexperienced users; leprosy programme managers and non-governmental organization (NGO) staff. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Five SDR-PEP implementation approaches were identified. The levels of endemicity and stigma, and the accessibility of an area were identified as most relevant criteria to select an approach. There was an information gap on cost-effectiveness, while successful implementation depends on availability of resources. Five basic requirements, irrespective of the approach, were identified: stakeholder support; availability of medication; compliant health system; trained health staff; and health education. Two added benefits of the tool were identified: its potential value for advocacy and for training. CONCLUSION: An evidence-informed SDR-PEP decision tool to support the selection of implementation approaches for leprosy prevention was developed. While the tool was evaluated by potential users, more research is needed to further improve the tool, especially health-economic studies, to ensure efficient and cost-effective implementation of SDR-PEP.