The development of the NOURISHING and MOVING benchmarking tools to monitor and evaluate national governments' nutrition and physical activity policies to address obesity in the European region.

Despite assurances of government action, the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and overweight and obesity is continuing to grow at an alarming rate both globally and in Europe. The NOURISHING and MOVING policy frameworks outline a comprehensive set of policy actions across 6 domains and 16 policy areas in which national governments should take action to promote healthy diets and physical activity. Monitoring and benchmarking these policies is important for assessing progress on obesity and NCD prevention. This paper describes the participatory process for developing benchmarking tools structured around the policy areas of the NOURISHING and MOVING policy frameworks. They consist of a set of indicators and policy attributes that assess government support in promoting healthy nutrition and physical activity. They are adolescent relevant as they capture policy actions that target or impact adolescents. The benchmarking tools are designed to monitor progress on national government action on nutrition and physical activity based on aspirational standards. They will be applied in 27 European countries initially and are aimed at policymakers, researchers, and civil society, to track progress, develop the research infrastructure on effectiveness of NCD prevention policies at population level, and support advocacy efforts.

Scan of physical activity policy actions in Europe: Lessons learned from populating the MOVING database.

Adequate levels of physical activity are important for population health. Policy databases can track, monitor, and compare the development and implementation of physical activity policy actions and are populated by different methods. The new MOVING database, developed through the Confronting Obesity: Co-creating Policy with Youth (CO-CREATE) project, collates governmental policy actions designed to increase physical activity and is populated by an in-depth scan of implemented national policy actions. This paper presents lessons learned from conducting the policy scan across 27 European countries. Policy actions were identified using a structured search protocol from preselected sources, assessed against pre-specified inclusion criteria and verified by an in-country expert. 625 eligible national implemented policy actions were identified. Challenges included policy actions falling out of scope, a lack of available information on policy actions, difficulty in identifying policy actions using specific search terms, and increased resource requirements for translation of policy actions into English. The scan indicated improvements, which informed protocol modifications. Identifying the challenges and opportunities around conducting a policy scan is necessary to understand and assess the reliability, validity, and utility of a policy database. The policy scan will help to deliver a comprehensive picture of physical activity policy actions across Europe.

Promoting Physical Activity Policy: The Development of the MOVING Framework.

BACKGROUND: Considering the large health burden of physical inactivity, effective physical activity promotion is a "best buy" for noncommunicable disease and obesity prevention. The MOVING policy framework was developed to promote and monitor government policy actions to increase physical activity as part of the EU Horizon 2020 project "Confronting Obesity: Co-creating policy with youth (CO-CREATE)." METHOD: A scanning exercise, documentary review of key international policy documents, and thematic analysis of main recommendations were conducted. Themes were reviewed as part of a consultation with physical activity experts. RESULTS: There were 6 overarching policy framework areas: M-make opportunities and initiatives that promote physical activity in schools, the community, and sport and recreation; O-offer physical activity opportunities in the workplace and training in physical activity promotion across multiple professions; V-visualize and enact structures and surroundings that promote physical activity; I-implement transport infrastructure and opportunities that support active societies; N-normalize and increase physical activity through public communication that motivates and builds behavior change skills; and G-give physical activity training, assessment, and counseling in health care settings. CONCLUSIONS: The MOVING framework can identify policy actions needed, tailor options suitable for populations, and assess whether approaches are sufficiently comprehensive.

Trends in International Cancer Research Investment 2006-2018.

The International Cancer Research Partnership (ICRP) is an active network of cancer research funding organizations, sharing information about funded research projects in a common database. Data are publicly available to enable the cancer research community to find potential collaborators and avoid duplication. This study presents an aggregated analysis of projects funded by 120 partner organizations and institutes in 2006-2018, to highlight trends in cancer research funding. Overall, the partners' funding for cancer research increased from $5.562 billion (bn) US dollars (USD) in 2006 to $8.511bn USD in 2018, an above-inflation increase in funding. Analysis by the main research focus of projects using Common Scientific Outline categories showed that Treatment was the largest investment category in 2018, followed by Early Detection, Diagnosis, and Prognosis; Cancer Biology; Etiology; Control, Survivorship, and Outcomes; and Prevention. Over the 13 years covered by this analysis, research funding into Treatment and Early Detection, Diagnosis, and Prognosis had increased in terms of absolute investment and as a proportion of the portfolio. Research funding in Cancer Biology and Etiology declined as a percentage of the portfolio, and funding for Prevention and Control, Survivorship and Outcomes remained static. In terms of cancer site-specific research, funding for breast cancer and colorectal cancer had increased in absolute terms but declined as a percentage of the portfolio. By contrast, investment for brain cancer, lung cancer, leukemia, melanoma, and pancreatic cancer increased both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the portfolio.

Developing the WCRF International/University of Bristol Methodology for Identifying and Carrying Out Systematic Reviews of Mechanisms of Exposure-Cancer Associations.

Background: Human, animal, and cell experimental studies; human biomarker studies; and genetic studies complement epidemiologic findings and can offer insights into biological plausibility and pathways between exposure and disease, but methods for synthesizing such studies are lacking. We, therefore, developed a methodology for identifying mechanisms and carrying out systematic reviews of mechanistic studies that underpin exposure-cancer associations.Methods: A multidisciplinary team with expertise in informatics, statistics, epidemiology, systematic reviews, cancer biology, and nutrition was assembled. Five 1-day workshops were held to brainstorm ideas; in the intervening periods we carried out searches and applied our methods to a case study to test our ideas.Results: We have developed a two-stage framework, the first stage of which is designed to identify mechanisms underpinning a specific exposure-disease relationship; the second stage is a targeted systematic review of studies on a specific mechanism. As part of the methodology, we also developed an online tool for text mining for mechanism prioritization (TeMMPo) and a new graph for displaying related but heterogeneous data from epidemiologic studies (the Albatross plot).Conclusions: We have developed novel tools for identifying mechanisms and carrying out systematic reviews of mechanistic studies of exposure-disease relationships. In doing so, we have outlined how we have overcome the challenges that we faced and provided researchers with practical guides for conducting mechanistic systematic reviews.Impact: The aforementioned methodology and tools will allow potential mechanisms to be identified and the strength of the evidence underlying a particular mechanism to be assessed. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(11); 1667-75. ©2017 AACR.