What we know about the actual implementation process of public physical activity policies: results from a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity rates have remained high worldwide since 2001. Public policies are an essential upstream lever to target individual physical activity (PA) behaviour. However, implementers have different strategies and face implementation challenges that are poorly understood. The present study analyzes the implementation processes of public policies to promote PA in terms of: (i) the policies covered and their legal quality, (ii) the actors and stakeholders involved in the implementation process and (iii) the used implementation strategies (vertical, horizontal or a mix). METHODS: A scoping review was systematically conducted (registered Open Science Framework: osf.io/7w84q/), searching 10 databases and grey literature until March 2022. Of the 7741 titles and abstracts identified initially, 10 studies were included. RESULTS: The current evidence includes high-income countries (USA, n = 7; UK, New Zealand and Oman, n = 1 each). Policy areas covered are education (school sector) and PA promotion in general (national PA plans or city-wide approaches). The legal classification ranges from laws (school sector) to coordination and budgeting to non-legally binding recommendations. The jurisdictions covered were federal (n = 4), state (n = 1), county (n = 1), school district (n = 1) and city (n = 3). Implementation strategies for city-wide approaches are characterized by a coordinated approach with vertical and horizontal integration; federal PA policies by a mix of implementation strategies; and the school sector by a strict horizontal top-down integration without the involvement of other actors. CONCLUSION: Implementation strategies differ by policy field. Therefore, continuous evaluation of the implementation process is necessary to align policy implementation with policy goals to promote individual PA behaviour.

Sugar-sweetened beverage tax implementation processes: results of a scoping review.

Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) is seen as a win-win situation for governments. It is argued that SSB taxes are relatively easy to implement from a practical perspective compared to for example other nutrition policies. However, the implementation of SSB taxation laws does not happen by itself. Therefore, this work examines implementation processes for SSB taxation in terms of (1) pre-implementation context, (2) taxation instruments used and (3) interactions in the implementation process. Ten databases and grey literature were systematically searched for studies reporting on SSB taxation implementation processes up to February 2020. All studies (N = 1248) were screened independently by two reviewers according to predefined criteria. The selection of variables to be extracted was based on the policy cycle heuristic and informed by intervention implementation research. Information on the process of implementing SSB taxation is limited. Only six cases based on three publications were identified, indicating a gap in this research area. SSB taxation implementation was accomplished by hiring a subcontractor for the implementation or using pre-existing tax collection structures. Political and public support within the implementation process seems to be supportive for the city of Berkeley and for Portugal but was not reported for the Pacific Islands. However, the existing data are very limited, and further research on SSB taxation implementation processes is needed to determine whether the aim of the policy and the envisaged outcome are linked in practice. Registration The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF) (osf.io/7w84q/).

[Evidence-based primary prevention and health promotion: methods and procedures in 5 research consortia]. / Evidenzbasierung in Primärprävention und Gesundheitsförderung: Methoden und Vorgehensweisen in 5 Forschungsverbünden.

Between 2014 and 2022, the 5 German research networks AEQUIPA, CAPITAL4HEALTH, HLCA, PartKommPlus, and SMARTACT are investigating topics of primary prevention and health promotion with the aim of further deepening the evidence base in these areas. The work of the 5 research networks for primary prevention and health promotion is presented, analysed, and discussed from an internal perspective. A model of evidence-based public health serves as a structuring framework.The 5 research networks use a variety of access routes for the generation of evidence with regard to the participation of nonacademic, civil society actors and users. There is a wide range of study designs - from randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews to diverse qualitative designs. The use of models and theories supports the evidence base. Beyond evidence generation, all research networks focus on at least exemplary implementation of new evidence.Due to the diversity of methods, a diversified evidence-based approach can be realised, taking into account network-specific aspects. Structural circumstances limit the further systematic strengthening of the evidence base. In particular, the involvement of nonacademic, civil society actors for the work with hard-to-reach target groups often cannot be financed or is considered too time consuming under the given circumstances. The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the importance of a flexible spectrum of methods, employing both digital and analogue methods in a meaningful way.

A survey of international addiction researchers' views on implications of brain-based explanations of addiction and the responsibility of affected persons.

Aim: To complement existing stakeholder surveys by exploring addiction researchers' views on the implications of brain-based explanations of addiction and the responsibilities of addicted persons. Methods: A total of 190 researchers from 29 countries (13.2%) participated in a LimeSurvey. Their perspectives on implications of brain-based explanations of addiction were explored qualitatively using open-ended questions. In addition, respondents could indicate their views on the responsibility of addicted individuals for their condition and actions using a Likert scale and a free-text field ("mixed methods light"). Qualitative analyses inductively identified the most frequent themes and deductively assessed the overall impact (positive, negative or both/ambivalent). Quantitative analyses included frequencies and proportions. Results: The major themes mentioned were medicalisation and the neglect of other factors, better treatment options and access, (reduced) stigma and (impaired) agency of affected persons. The overall evaluation yielded 46% positive, 33% negative and 16% ambivalent views. Approximately 60% of the participants considered addicted persons to be responsible for their condition and 80% for their actions. Conclusions: According to researchers, a brain-based approach to addictions has positive and negative implications. In particular, the neglect of factors other than biomedical seems to be of concern. Thus, a re-consideration of research priorities as well as affected individuals' agency and role in treatment and care seems warranted.

Using financial incentives to increase physical activity among employees as a strategy of workplace health promotion: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Shifts towards sedentary occupations in high-income countries (HIC) over the last decades and the health burden associated with physical inactivity have led to innovative strategies to promote physical activity (PA) among the working population. Financial rewards have been proposed to incentivise participation in programmes promoting PA or the achievement of PA-related goals. This review will assess (1) effects of financial incentives provided by employers to promote PA on programme adherence/compliance, PA and closely linked outcomes (eg, days of sick leave), (2) effects according to age, gender, implementation and study quality and (3) intervention costs and cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search for relevant studies in eight academic databases, two grey literature resources, two trial registers and on five organisational websites (oldest record/content to present). We will include (cluster) randomised controlled studies with a financial incentive to promote PA as intervention (≥1 months), conducted among employees in HIC and reporting data on at least one primary outcome in stages of screening (title/abstract, full text). To assess study quality and potential bias, we will use the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). We will extract study data into prepiloted extraction sheets. Each task in screening, quality assessment and data extraction will be done by two authors independently. If a sufficient number of studies provide homogeneous data (ie, similar follow-up) for primary outcomes, meta-analyses will be carried out. We will report GRADE ratings to provide information on the certainty of the evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: For this review, no ethical approval will be required because only data of studies in which informed consent was obtained will be considered and analysed. The final review manuscript will be published in an Open Access journal. To ensure effective promotion of this review project, we will disseminate major findings through relevant communication channels. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020184345.