Examining the Role and Strategies of Advocacy Coalitions in California's Statewide Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Debate (2001-2018).

PURPOSE: California's failed attempts to enact a statewide sugary beverage tax presents an opportunity to advance understanding of advocacy coalition behavior. We investigate the participation of advocacy coalitions in California's statewide sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax policy debate. DESIGN: Document analysis of legislative bills and newspaper articles collected in 2019. SETTING: California. METHOD: A total of 11 SSB tax-related bills were introduced in California's legislature between 2001-2018 according to the state's legislative website. Data sources include legislative bill documents (n = 94) and newspaper articles (n = 138). Guided by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), we identify advocacy coalitions involved in California's SSB tax debate and explore strategies and arguments used to advance each coalitions' position. RESULTS: Two coalitions (public health, food/beverage industry) were involved in California's statewide SSB tax policy debate. The public health coalition had higher member participation and referred to scientific research evidence while the industry coalition used preemption and financial resources as primary advocacy strategies. The public health coalition frequently presented messaging on the health consequences and financial benefits of SSB taxes. The industry coalition responded by focusing on the potential negative economic impact of a tax. CONCLUSION: Multiple attempts to enact a statewide SSB tax in California have failed. Our findings add insight into the challenges of enacting an SSB tax considering industry interference. Results can inform future efforts to pass evidence-based nutrition policies.

Telemedicine Implementation for Safety Net Populations: A Systematic Review.

Background: Telemedicine systems were rapidly implemented in response to COVID-19. However, little is known about their effectiveness, acceptability, and sustainability for safety net populations. This study systematically reviewed primary care telemedicine implementation and effectiveness in safety net settings. Methods: We searched PubMed for peer-reviewed articles on telemedicine implementation from 2013 to 2021. The search was done between June and December 2021. Included articles focused on health care organizations that primarily serve low-income and/or rural populations in the United States. We screened 244 articles from an initial search of 343 articles and extracted and analyzed data from N = 45 articles. Results: Nine (20%) of 45 articles were randomized controlled trials. N = 22 reported findings for at least one marginalized group (i.e., racial/ethnic minority, 65 years+, limited English proficiency). Only n = 19 (42%) included African American/Black patients in demographics descriptions, n = 14 (31%) LatinX/Hispanic patients, n = 4 (9%) Asian patients, n = 4 (9%) patients aged 65+ years, and n = 4 (9%) patients with limited English proficiency. Results show telemedicine can provide high-quality primary care that is more accessible and affordable. Fifteen studies assessed barriers and facilitators to telemedicine implementation. Common barriers were billing/administrative workflow disruption (n = 9, 20%), broadband access/quality (n = 5, 11%), and patient preference for in-person care (n = 4, 9%). Facilitators included efficiency gains (n = 6, 13%), patient acceptance (n = 3, 7%), and enhanced access (n = 3, 7%). Conclusions: Telemedicine is an acceptable care modality to deliver primary care in safety net settings. Future studies should compare telemedicine and in-person care quality and test strategies to improve telemedicine implementation in safety net settings.

Nutrition Environment Gaps and Distribution Challenges in Rural Food Pantries During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Food insecurity disproportionately affects low-income, racially marginalized, and rural communities. The COVID-19 pandemic led to higher demand for emergency food distribution, potentially impacting food pantry operations and services. Limited research exists assessing consumer nutrition environments of pantries in rural regions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the consumer nutrition environment of rural food pantries and report challenges and adaptations encountered during the pandemic. DESIGN: A mixed-methods, cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING: Nineteen food pantry representatives from California's San Joaquin Valley were surveyed between August 2020 and June 2021. Representatives were eligible if their pantry served the general population and was open at least once a week. Nine were church-based pantries, and 10 were from other settings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Nutrition Environment Food Pantry Assessment Tool (NEFPAT) measured the nutrition food environment and scored pantries as bronze (0-15), silver (16-31), or gold (32-47) categories. Eleven items were developed to explore pandemic-related challenges. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Independent χ2 tests assessed the relationship between the organization type and NEFPAT scores and food supply sources. Fisher's exact test explored associations between food pantry type, NEFPAT category, and challenges. Nonparametric tests were run on non-normally distributed data. Inductive content analysis was used to examine open-ended pandemic-related questions. RESULTS: The nutrition environment of most pantries was suboptimal, because no pantry scored in the "gold" category based on total NEFPAT scores (median, 18 of 47). No statistically significant differences were found in the NEFPAT scores by organization type. Most pantries did not provide healthy food nudges or culturally diverse foods. Key COVID-19 challenges encountered consisted of supply- and demand-side issues, including reduced personnel, capacity, and resources, and increased client quantity and demand for food. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing the nutrition environment of rural food pantries revealed gaps and strategies for improvement, including the use of healthy nudges and increasing the availability of culturally diverse foods.

United for health to improve urban food environments across five underserved communities: a cross-sector coalition approach.

BACKGROUND: Cross-sector coalitions can be a powerful vehicle to promote adoption and implementation of evidence-based programs and policies across diverse racial/ethnic communities with a high chronic disease burden. Few studies have examined coalition composition, function, or capacity to promote learning among members. METHODS: We used a mixed methods approach to examine the United for Health coalition's implementation of multiple food environment interventions across five low-income communities of color in Los Angeles, California (USA). At the coalition-level, key measures included the collaborative environment, membership characteristics, process and structure, communication, resources, strengths, challenges/barriers, and community impact. At the organizational- and individual-levels, we collected data on participation, leadership development, intraorganizational change, perceived benefits, and learning outcomes. FINDINGS: Overall, the United for Health coalition produced five community gardens, three pop-up produce markets, and one farmers' market; members also expanded Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) access at three existing farmers' markets. Findings indicate early coalition strengths included having a mutual purpose, which was maintained throughout the study period. Coalition participation and engagement was consistently high, while coalition and inter-organizational communication improved over time. Strengths were membership diversity and the availability of learning opportunities. Benefits included leadership development and strategic alignment across organizations. Members demonstrated an increased awareness of the importance of culturally adapted interventions and knowledge of community health planning topics. Key implementation challenges were a lack of resources and social context barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Examining coalition function and maturation in a real-world context reveals important lessons for scholars and practitioners committed to addressing nutrition-related health disparities in marginalized and historically underserved communities. Future work should investigate the sustainability of externally funded cross-sector coalitions after funding ceases.

County-Level Recreational Marijuana Policies and Local Policy Changes in Colorado and Washington State (2012-2019).

Policy Points In 2012, Colorado and Washington were the first states to legalize recreational marijuana through voter-initiated ballots. In these states, counties could restrict or ban local marijuana facilities through a variety of regulatory methods such as ordinances and zoning. County-level recreational marijuana policies in Washington and Colorado vary substantially, with 69.2% of Washington counties and 23.4% of Colorado counties allowing all types of recreational marijuana facilities as of April 1, 2019. After Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana, many counties modified their marijuana policies over time, with shifts in county policy often preceded by advocacy and information-seeking activities. CONTEXT: In 2012, Colorado and Washington were the first states to legalize recreational marijuana. Both allowed local governments to further regulate the availability of marijuana facilities in their jurisdictions. As early adopters, these states are important quasi-natural experiments to examine local marijuana policy and policy change processes, including key stakeholders and arguments. METHODS: We conducted a policy scan of county-level recreational marijuana ordinances and regulations in Colorado and Washington. Data collected included policy documents from counties in both states and newspaper articles. We used a mixed-methods approach to describe the types of county-level recreational marijuana policies enacted by April 1, 2019; identify key policy stakeholders involved in local policy debates; and explore arguments used in support or opposition of county policies. We also selected four counties that represent three county policy environments (all marijuana facility types allowed, some marijuana facility types allowed, all marijuana facility types prohibited) and described the policy changes within these counties since recreational marijuana was legalized. FINDINGS: By April 1, 2019, Colorado counties were less likely than Washington counties to allow marijuana facilities-48.4% of Colorado counties prohibited recreational marijuana facilities in their jurisdiction compared to 23.1% of Washington counties. Since state legalization, several counties in both states have made substantial marijuana facility policy modifications, often preceded by information-seeking activities. Primary stakeholders involved in policy debates included elected officials, law enforcement, individual growers/farmers, marijuana business license applicants, parents, and residents. Proponents referenced local economic gain, reduced crime, and potential health benefits of marijuana as arguments in favor of permitting local facilities, whereas opponents pointed to economic loss, negative health and public health issues, public safety concerns, and existing federal law. Both sides referenced local public opinion data to support their position. CONCLUSIONS: By early 2019, a patchwork of local marijuana policies was in place in Colorado and Washington. We identify key areas of policy and public health research needed to inform future local marijuana policy decisions, including the impact of legalization on public health outcomes (particularly for youth) and public safety.

Feasibility and acceptability of a mobile messaging program within a church-based healthy living intervention for African Americans and Latinos.

Church-based programs can act on multiple levels to improve dietary and physical activity behaviors among African Americans and Latinos. However, the effectiveness of these interventions may be limited due to challenges in reaching all congregants or influencing behavior outside of the church setting. To increase intervention impact, we sent mobile messages (text and email) in English or Spanish to congregants (n = 131) from predominantly African American or Latino churches participating in a multi-level, church-based program. To assess feasibility and acceptability, we collected feedback throughout the 4-month messaging intervention and conducted a process evaluation using the messaging platform. We found that the intervention was feasible to implement and acceptable to a racially ethnically diverse study sample with high obesity and overweight rates. While the process evaluation had some limitations (e.g. low response rate), we conclude that mobile messaging is a promising, feasible addition to church-based programs aiming to improve dietary and physical activity behaviors.

Catalyzing Implementation of Evidence-Based Interventions in Safety Net Settings: A Clinical-Community Partnership in South Los Angeles.

This study is a process evaluation of a clinical-community partnership that implemented evidence-based interventions in clinical safety net settings. Adoption and implementation of evidence-based interventions in these settings can help reduce health disparities by improving the quality of clinical preventive services in health care settings with underserved populations. A clinical-community partnership model is a possible avenue to catalyze adoption and implementation of interventions amid organizational barriers to change. Three Federally Qualified Health Centers in South Los Angeles participated in a partnership led by a local community-based organization (CBO) to implement hypertension interventions. Qualitative research methods were used to evaluate intervention selection and implementation processes between January 2014 and June 2015. Data collection tools included a key participant interview guide, health care provider interview guide, and protocol for taking meeting minutes. This case study demonstrates how a CBO acted as an external facilitator and employed a collaborative partnership model to catalyze implementation of evidence-based interventions in safety net settings. The study phases observed included initiation, planning, and implementation. Three emergent categories of organizational facilitators and barriers were identified (personnel capacity, professional development capacity, and technological capacity). Key participants and health care providers expressed a high level of satisfaction with the collaborative and the interventions, respectively. The CBO's role as a facilitator and catalyst is a replicable model to promote intervention adoption and implementation in safety net settings. Key lessons learned are provided for researchers and practitioners interested in partnering with Federally Qualified Health Centers to implement health promotion interventions.

Advocacy coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate: Exploring coalition structure, policy beliefs, resources, and strategies.

Advocacy coalitions often play an important role in the state health policymaking process, yet little is known about their structure, composition, and behavior. In 2008, California became the first state to enact a menu labeling law. Using the advocacy coalition framework, we examine different facets of the coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate. We use a qualitative research approach to identify coalition members and explore their expressed beliefs and policy arguments, resources, and strategies by analyzing legislative documents (n = 87) and newspaper articles (n = 78) produced between 1999 and 2009. Between 2003 and 2008, six menu labeling bills were introduced in the state's legislature. We found the issue received increasing media attention during this period. We identified two advocacy coalitions involved in the debate-a public health (PH) coalition and an industry coalition. State organizations acted as coalition leaders and participated for a longer duration than elected officials. The structure and composition of each coalition varied. PH coalition leadership and membership notably increased compared to the industry coalition. The PH coalition, led by nonprofit PH and health organizations, promoted a clear and consistent message around informed decision making. The industry coalition, led by a state restaurant association, responded with cost and implementation arguments. Each coalition used various resources and strategies to advance desired outcomes. PH coalition leaders were particularly effective at using resources and employing advocacy strategies, which included engaging state legislators as coalition members, using public opinion polls and information, and leveraging media resources to garner support. Policy precedence and a local policy push emerged as important policymaking strategies. Areas for future research on the state health policymaking process are discussed.