Good practice recommendations on implementation evaluation for policies targeting diet, physical activity, and sedentary behaviour.

Health policies aim to achieve specific health goals through system-level changes, unlike common health interventions that focus on promoting specific health behaviors on individual level. However, reliable data on the feasibility and implementation of policy actions across Europe are lacking. Moreover, no practice-oriented guidance exists for policy makers and implementers on how to evaluate policy implementation.As part of the Policy Evaluation Network, we aimed to synthesise knowledge on how to evaluate the implementation of policies promoting healthy diets, physical activity, and reducing sedentary behaviours. The multidisciplinary working group comprised 16 researchers and conducted two scoping reviews, three systematic reviews, two meta-reviews, two qualitative case studies and one quantitative case study over three years. The target populations included the general population, those at risk for obesity, and school children. Based on these reviews and case studies, this article summarises and presents the findings and lessons learned regarding the implementation evaluation of policies in nine case reports.Drawing on these experiences, three critical requirements for policy implementation evaluation were set: 1) conduct a comprehensive policy implementation evaluation from a multi-level perspective, 2) use implementation frameworks to address processes, determinants, and outcomes, and 3) engage relevant stakeholders in policy implementation evaluation. Finally, the consensus process resulted in 10 steps for the implementation evaluation of policies to promote physical activity and a healthy diet and to reduce sedentary behaviours, which adhere to the requirements and resources of the targeted policy.The findings of an implementation evaluation can lead to a better understanding of why policies work or not and can serve as a basis for developing solutions. This practice-oriented guidance outlines factors that should be considered in policy implementation evaluation to address its complexity. In this way, involved researchers and practitioners are empowered to engage in the evaluation process to close the knowledge gap regarding policy implementation.

Acceptability of policies targeting dietary behaviours and physical activity: a systematic review of tools and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Successful implementation of health policies require acceptance from the public and policy-makers. This review aimed to identify tools used to assess the acceptability of policies targeting physical activity and dietary behaviour, and examine if acceptability differs depending on characteristics of the policy and of the respondents. METHODS: A systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42021232326) was conducted using three databases (Science Direct, PubMed and Web of Science). RESULTS: Of the initial 7780 hits, we included 48 eligible studies (n = 32 on dietary behaviour, n = 11 on physical activity and n = 5 on both), using qualitative and quantitative designs (n = 25 cross-sectional, quantitative; n = 15 qualitative; n = 5 randomized controlled trials; n = 3 mixed-methods design). Acceptability was analysed through online surveys (n = 24), interviews (n = 10), focus groups (n = 10), retrospective textual analysis (n = 3) and a taste-test experiment (n = 1). Notably, only 3 (out of 48) studies applied a theoretical foundation for their assessment. Less intrusive policies such as food labels and policies in a later stage of the implementation process received higher levels of acceptability. Women, older participants and respondents who rated policies as appropriate and effective showed the highest levels of acceptability. CONCLUSION: Highly intrusive policies such as taxations or restrictions are the least accepted when first implemented, but respondents' confidence in the relevance and effectiveness of the policy may boost acceptability over the course of implementation. Studies using validated tools and a theoretical foundation are needed to further examine opportunities to increase acceptability.

Social, economic, political, and geographical context that counts: meta-review of implementation determinants for policies promoting healthy diet and physical activity.

BACKGROUND: This meta-review investigated the context-related implementation determinants from seven domains (geographical, epidemiological, sociocultural, economic, ethics-related, political, and legal) that were systematically indicated as occurring during the implementation of obesity prevention policies targeting a healthy diet and a physically active lifestyle. METHODS: Data from nine databases and documentation of nine major stakeholders were searched for the purpose of this preregistered meta-review (#CRD42019133341). Context-related determinants were considered strongly supported if they were indicated in ≥60% of the reviews/stakeholder documents. The ROBIS tool and the Methodological Quality Checklist-SP were used to assess the quality-related risk of bias. RESULTS: Published reviews (k = 25) and stakeholder documents that reviewed the evidence of policy implementation (k = 17) were included. Across documents, the following six determinants from three context domains received strong support: economic resources at the macro (66.7% of analyzed documents) and meso/micro levels (71.4%); sociocultural context determinants at the meso/micro level, references to knowledge/beliefs/abilities of target groups (69.0%) and implementers (73.8%); political context determinants (interrelated policies supported in 71.4% of analyzed reviews/documents; policies within organizations, 69.0%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that sociocultural, economic, and political contexts need to be accounted for when formulating plans for the implementation of a healthy diet and physical activity/sedentary behavior policies.

Frameworks for implementation of policies promoting healthy nutrition and physically active lifestyle: systematic review.

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: 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: 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: 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: PROSPERO, #CRD42019133251.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of direct fruit and vegetables provision interventions in kindergartens and schools: a qualitative systematic review applying the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR).

BACKGROUND: Although children's intake of fruit and vegetables has seen a recent rise, almost half of adolescents do not eat even one piece of fruit or vegetables per day. One way to address this problem is through interventions that provide fruit and vegetables directly to children in kindergartens and schools. For such interventions to meet their intended goals, what is important to consider in addition to impact is implementation. Our objective is to systematically review qualitative results reporting on the determinants (barriers and facilitators) to implementation of interventions that entail direct provision of fruit and vegetables in kindergarten and school settings and conduct a framework analysis of those results using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS: A systematic search was designed and run in November 2019 for: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsychINFO (Ovid), ERIC (Ovid), Cochrane Library Reviews and Cochrane Library Trials. A keyword search of the journal Implementation Science was completed. Screening of titles and abstracts (n = 5427) and full texts (n = 227), led to 14 included articles. Coding and analysis were done using the framework method and CFIR. RESULTS: The following CFIR constructs were found relevant: 1) intervention characteristics domain: 'design quality and packaging', 'adaptability' 'cost'; 2) outer setting: 'cosmopolitanism', 'external policy and incentives' 'patients' needs and resources'; 3) inner setting: 'implementation climate', 'readiness for implementation' and 'structural characteristics'; 4) characteristics of individuals: 'individual stage of change', 'knowledge and beliefs about the intervention' 5) process: 'engaging', 'executing' and 'reflecting and evaluating'. The review stresses the dual role of parents as both supporting the implementation and targets of the intervention, which could have implications for the design and implementation of future fruit and vegetables interventions. Positive child perceptions of the value of the intervention and perceived behavior change due to the intervention were reported as relevant facilitators to implementation across several studies, and should be taken into consideration in future design efforts. CONCLUSIONS: CFIR offers a systematic way to identify and organize barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions in the kindergarten and school setting. Revisions are encouraged to allow adequate space for perceptions of various implementation actors and the target group. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42020167697.

Meta-review of implementation determinants for policies promoting healthy diet and physically active lifestyle: application of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

BACKGROUND: Although multiple systematic reviews indicate that various determinants (barriers and facilitators) occur in the implementation processes of policies promoting healthy diet, physical activity (PA), and sedentary behavior (SB) reduction, the overarching synthesis of such reviews is missing. Applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), this meta-review aims to (1) identify determinants that were systematically indicated as occurring during the implementation processes and (2) identify differences in the presence of determinants across reviews versus stakeholder documents on healthy diet/PA/SB policies, reviews/stakeholder documents addressing healthy diet policies versus PA/SB policies targeting any population/setting, and healthy diet/PA/SB policies focusing on school settings. METHODS: A meta-review of published systematic scoping or realist reviews (k = 25) and stakeholder documents (k = 17) was conducted. Data from nine bibliographic databases and documentation of nine major stakeholders were systematically searched. Included reviews (72%) and stakeholder documents (100%) provided qualitative synthesis of original research on implementation determinants of policies promoting healthy diet or PA or SB reduction, and 28% of reviews provided some quantitative synthesis. Determinants were considered strongly supported if they were indicated by ≥ 60.0% of included reviews/stakeholder documents. RESULTS: Across the 26 CFIR-based implementation determinants, seven were supported by 66.7-76.2% of reviews/stakeholder documents. These determinants were cost, networking with other organizations/communities, external policies, structural characteristics of the setting, implementation climate, readiness for implementation, and knowledge/beliefs of involved individuals. Most frequently, published reviews provided support for inner setting and individual determinants, whereas stakeholder documents supported outer and inner setting implementation determinants. Comparisons between policies promoting healthy diet with PA/SB policies revealed shared support for only three implementation determinants: cost, implementation climate, and knowledge/beliefs. In the case of healthy diet/PA/SB policies targeting school settings, 14 out of 26 implementation determinants were strongly supported. CONCLUSIONS: The strongly supported (i.e., systematically indicated) determinants may guide policymakers and researchers who need to prioritize potential implementation determinants when planning and monitoring the implementation of respective policies. Future research should quantitatively assess the importance or role of determinants and test investigate associations between determinants and progress of implementation processes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, # CRD42019133341.

Dynamics of the complex food environment underlying dietary intake in low-income groups: a systems map of associations extracted from a systematic umbrella literature review.

BACKGROUND: Inequalities in obesity pertain in part to differences in dietary intake in different socioeconomic groups. Examining the economic, social, physical and political food environment of low-income groups as a complex adaptive system - i.e. a system of multiple, interconnected factors exerting non-linear influence on an outcome, can enhance the development and assessment of effective policies and interventions by honouring the complexity of lived reality. We aimed to develop and apply novel causal loop diagramming methods in order to construct an evidence-based map of the underlying system of environmental factors that drives dietary intake in low-income groups. METHODS: A systematic umbrella review was conducted on literature examining determinants of dietary intake and food environments in low-income youths and adults in high/upper-middle income countries. Information on the determinants and associations between determinants was extracted from reviews of quantitative and qualitative studies. Determinants were organised using the Determinants of Nutrition and Eating (DONE) framework. Associations were synthesised into causal loop diagrams that were subsequently used to interpret the dynamics underlying the food environment and dietary intake. The map was reviewed by an expert panel and systems-based analysis identified the system paradigm, structure, feedback loops and goals. RESULTS: Findings from forty-three reviews and expert consensus were synthesised in an evidence-based map of the complex adaptive system underlying the food environment influencing dietary intake in low-income groups. The system was interpreted as operating within a supply-and-demand, economic paradigm. Five sub-systems ('geographical accessibility', 'household finances', 'household resources', 'individual influences', 'social and cultural influences') were presented as causal loop diagrams comprising 60 variables, conveying goals which undermine healthy dietary intake. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal how poor dietary intake in low-income groups can be presented as an emergent property of a complex adaptive system that sustains a food environment that increases the accessibility, availability, affordability and acceptability of unhealthy foods. In order to reshape system dynamics driving unhealthy food environments, simultaneous, diverse and innovative strategies are needed to facilitate longer-term management of household finances and socially-oriented practices around healthy food production, supply and intake. Ultimately, such strategies must be supported by a system paradigm which prioritises health.