Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
BMC Public Health ; 24(1): 641, 2024 Feb 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38424545

RESUMO

CONTEXT: Public health law is an important tool in non-communicable disease (NCD) prevention. There are different approaches available for achieving policy objectives, including government, co-, quasi- and self-regulation. However, it is often unclear what legal design features drive successes or failures in particular contexts. This scoping review undertakes a descriptive analysis, exploring the design characteristics of legal instruments that have been used for NCD prevention and implemented and evaluated in OECD countries. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted across four health and legal databases (Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, HeinOnline), identifying study characteristics, legal characteristics and regulatory approaches, and reported outcomes. Included studies focused on regulation of tobacco, alcohol, unhealthy foods and beverages, and environmental pollutants. FINDINGS: We identified 111 relevant studies evaluating 126 legal instruments. Evaluation measures most commonly assessed implementation, compliance and changes to the built and lived environment. Few studies evaluated health or economic outcomes. When examining the design and governance mechanisms of the included legal instruments, government regulation was most commonly evaluated (n = 90) and most likely to be reported effective (64%). Self-regulation (n = 27) and quasi-regulation (n = 5) were almost always reported to be ineffective (93% and 100% respectively). There were few co-regulated instruments evaluated (n = 4) with mixed effectiveness. When examining public health risks, food and beverages including alcohol were more likely to be self- or quasi-regulated and reported as ineffective more often. In comparison, tobacco and environmental pollutants were more likely to have government mandated regulation. Many evaluations lacked critical information on regulatory design. Monitoring and enforcement of regulations was inconsistently reported, making it difficult to draw linkages to outcomes and reported effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Food and alcohol regulation has tended to be less successful in part due to the strong reliance on self- and quasi-regulation. More work should be done in understanding how government regulation can be extended to these areas. Public health law evaluations are important for supporting government decision-making but must provide more detail of the design and implementation features of the instruments being evaluated - critical information for policy-makers.


POLICY POINTS: Government regulation is reported as more effective than co-regulation, quasi-regulation or self-regulation. Voluntary approaches, including voluntary government regulation, are reported less effective due to low uptake and limited accountability. In public health law mandated government regulation should be strived for.Food and alcohol sectors are more likely to adopt self- or quasi-regulation and are frequently reported as ineffective. More work should be done to support government regulation in these areas.Many public health law evaluations are lacking critical design information for policy makers. This may make it difficult to learn from successes or failures and replicate interventions in other jurisdictions.


Assuntos
Poluentes Ambientais , Doenças não Transmissíveis , Doenças não Transmissíveis/prevenção & controle , Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico , Políticas , Formulação de Políticas
2.
J Nutr ; 153(10): 3122-3130, 2023 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37741633

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Postsecondary education institutions, where hundreds of millions of people work and study globally, are a key setting for retail food environment interventions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to synthesize the evidence for the effectiveness of retail food environment interventions in improving the healthiness of dietary behavior of students and staff in postsecondary education settings. METHODS: Academic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies published until August 2023. Studies were eligible if they assessed the impact of a retail food environment intervention on healthiness of dietary behavior (purchases or consumption) in students or staff in postsecondary education settings and targeted one of the following food environment elements: placement, price, product, or promotion. Business-related outcomes (total sales, profit, or revenue) were included as secondary outcomes. Findings were synthesized in narrative form, organized by retail food environment element. Where comparable dietary outcome data were available from ≥10 interventions, findings were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 10,126 studies initially identified, 55 (76% quasi-experimental) were included, describing 71 separate interventions (n = 49 single-element and n = 22 multi-element). Two-thirds (n = 47, 66%) of interventions (n = 32 single-element and n = 15 multi-element) demonstrated significant improvements in dietary behavior. Single-element interventions targeting placement (n = 1) and price (n = 3) improved dietary behavior. Most (n = 9/10, 90%) interventions targeting product availability or convenience (product element) improved dietary behavior, while n = 19/35 (54%) targeting promotion did. Pooled findings from 12 interventions reporting changes in energy content demonstrated a significant decrease in purchased or consumed energy (-7.9%; 95% confidence interval: -10.3%, -5.6%). Almost all interventions (n = 11/12, 92%) that evaluated the impact on business-related outcomes found either a significant increase or no change following the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: We established encouraging evidence supporting the role of retail food environment interventions in postsecondary education settings to support healthy dietary behaviors of students and staff. REGISTRY: PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=295836; registration number CRD42022295836).

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA