Strength of EU-level food environment policies and priority recommendations to create healthy food environments.

BACKGROUND: Food environments impact on diets, obesity and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Government policies are essential to create healthy food environments. This study aimed to assess the strength of European Union (EU)-level policies, and identify and prioritize actions for the EU to create healthy food environments. METHODS: The Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) was applied. The Food-EPI included 26 policy and 24 infrastructure support indicators. Independent experts (n = 31) rated the strength of EU-level policies and infrastructure support for each of these indicators (on a 5-point scale, from very weak to very strong) and identified and prioritized actions to improve food environments. RESULTS: For 65% of the 26 policy indicators, EU-level policies were rated as weak and for 23% as very weak. For 63% of the 24 infrastructure support indicators, EU-level policies were rated as moderate and for 33% as weak. The experts recommended 18 policy and 19 infrastructure support actions to the EU. The Top 5 prioritized policy actions included three actions in the food composition domain (e.g. setting mandatory food composition targets), one action in the food prices domain and one action in the food promotion domain. The Top 5 prioritized infrastructure support actions included three actions in the leadership domain (e.g. developing a high-level NCDs Prevention Strategy) and two actions in the monitoring domain. CONCLUSIONS: There is large potential for the EU to strengthen its policies and infrastructure support in order to improve food environments. This study specifies priority actions for the EU to create healthy food environments.

Towards a harmonized European surveillance for dietary and physical activity indicators in young and adult populations.

BACKGROUND: The Policy Evaluation Network proposes a consolidated approach to measure comparable health indicators across European health surveillance systems to evaluate effectiveness of policy action. METHODS: In a stepwise approach, questionnaire items used by the systems for measuring diet and physical activity data to describe health indicators were identified based on their validity, reliability, and suitability to monitor achievement of health recommendations. They were collated to unified questionnaire modules and discussed bilaterally with representatives of these systems to explore barriers and facilitators for implementation. Also, establishment of a methodological competence platform was proposed, in which the surveillance and monitoring systems agree on the priorities and common quality standards for the harmonization process and to coordinate the integration of questionnaire modules into existing systems. RESULTS: In total, seven questionnaire modules were developed, of which two diet and two physical activity modules were proposed for implementation. Each module allows measurement of data reflecting only partial aspects of national and WHO recommendations related to diet and physical activity. Main barriers were the requirements of systems to monitor temporal trends and to minimize costs. Main facilitator for implementation was the systems' use of questionnaire items that were comparable to the unified modules. Representatives agreed to participate in a methodological competence platform. CONCLUSION: We successfully took first steps in the realization of the roadmap towards a harmonization of European surveillance by introducing unified questionnaire modules allowing the collection of comparable health indicators and by initiating the establishment of a competence platform to guide this process.

Health surveillance indicators for diet and physical activity: what is available in European data sets for policy evaluation?

BACKGROUND: Policies targeting diet and physical activity have the potential to improve health and well-being at a population level. However, the impact of these policies in Europe is currently unknown. Based on existing data, as well as on a needs assessment, we derived a catalogue of indicators that can be employed to evaluate such policies. These indicators may also inform the further development and harmonization of surveillance systems. METHODS: Forty EU experts agreed on a list of key indicators and ranked their priority for future surveillance. We mapped these indicators onto variables provided by ongoing European surveillance systems. Using a Likert scale (well matched, somewhat matched, poorly matched, unmatched), we assessed the suitability of these variables as measures for the indicators. RESULTS: Key indicators included behaviour outcome indicators relating to diet (n = 72) and physical activity and sedentary behaviour (n = 67) as well as upstream determinants of these behaviours. It was possible to map 72% of diet indicators and 86% of physical activity and sedentary behaviour indicators onto at least one variable in an ongoing surveillance system. CONCLUSIONS: Current monitoring and surveillance systems focus mainly on measuring 'downstream' indicators, while gaps exist in policy and environmental level data in dimensions such as inequality, funding and resources and governance.

Selection of key indicators for European policy monitoring and surveillance for dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour.

BACKGROUND: A pan-European approach to evaluate policy impact on health behaviour requires the employment of a consensus set of established and relevant indicators. METHODS: As part of the Joint Programming Initiative on a Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life, the Policy Evaluation Network PEN identified key indicators of health behaviours and their determinants. These key indicators are already, or have the potential to be, adopted by large European Union surveillance systems for the assessment of policy impact. The iterative selection process included consultations in two rounds via email prior to a 2-days expert workshop. The experts collated a list of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour indicators for European policy monitoring in young and adult populations based on existing frameworks and literature reviews. The expert panel was composed of researchers, policy makers and representatives of major European surveillance systems and related initiatives, as well as, representatives of organisations providing monitoring data, such as the European Commission and Eurostat. RESULTS: The process provided two lists of key indicators including 37 diet 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for dietary behaviour and their 'determinants'; as well as 32 physical activity 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for physical activity, sedentary behaviour and their 'determinants'. CONCLUSION: A total of 139 key indicators related to the individual, the setting and the population level, and suitable for the assessment of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour were prioritised by policy makers and researchers with the ultimate aim to embed policy evaluation measures in existing surveillance systems across the European Union. In a next step, data sources and suitable instruments will be identified to assess these key indicators.

Waist circumference-to-height ratio and body mass index for obesity classification in Irish children.

AIM: Waist circumference-to-height ratio (WHt) has been proposed as an alternative measure to BMI due to its focus on central weight distribution and its basic threshold for increased cardiometabolic risk. This study aimed to compare prevalence of overweight including obesity using BMI and WHt, and assess 10-year trends of WHt prevalence, in a representative sample of Irish children. METHODS: Children measured during rounds 2-5 of the Childhood Obesity Surveillance Initiative (n = 20037) were classified as healthy weight or overweight including obesity (International Obesity Task Force age and sex BMI cut-offs), and low or high WHt (WHt ≥ 0.5). Differences in prevalence of BMI and WHt classifications were determined for round five in younger (<9 years) and older (≥9 years) children. The prevalence of high WHt was assessed across rounds. RESULTS: Differences in prevalence between overweight including obesity and high WHt were apparent in younger (BMI: 16.7%, WHt: 8.9%; p < .001) and older (BMI: 21.3%, WHt: 12.1%; p < .001) children. An inverse trend for prevalence of high WHt was identified across rounds (p < .001). CONCLUSION: BMI overestimates overweight including obesity prevalence compared to WHt. Given its ease of use, consideration of the WHt as an additional measure in childhood surveillance and screening is warranted.

Adherence and acceptability of community-based distribution of micronutrient powders in Southern Mali.

Home fortification with micronutrient powders (MNP) has been shown to reduce anaemia, with high overall acceptability and adherence, but there is limited evidence from West Africa. Around 80% of children younger than 5 years are anaemic in Mali, and new interventions are needed. This paper reports on the adherence and acceptability of a community-led MNP intervention targeting children aged 6-59 months in Southern Mali. The MNP were delivered by a multidisciplinary group of community volunteers using community-based preschools, cooking demonstrations, and traditional communication networks to promote MNP, nutrition, hygiene, and child stimulation. The MNP were delivered alongside early childhood development interventions and seasonal malaria chemoprevention. Adherence and acceptability were evaluated through two cross-sectional surveys in 2014 and 2016 and a qualitative evaluation in 2015. Over 80% of parents reported ever having given MNP to their child, with 65% having given MNP for four or more days in the last week. Likely contributors to uptake include: perceived positive changes in the children following MNP use, the selection of a food vehicle that was already commonly given to children (morning porridge or bouillie) and the community driven, decentralized and integrated delivery approach. These findings support recommendations from recent reviews of MNP implementation to use community-based delivery approaches and behaviour change components.