The effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and policy processes of regulatory, voluntary and partnership policies to improve food environments: an evidence synthesis.

ABSTRACT

Background: Dietary factors are among the largest and costliest drivers of chronic diseases in England. As a response, the government implements a range of population interventions to promote healthy diets by targeting food environments. Objectives: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and policy process of real-world evaluations of national and state policies on improving food environments, with a focus on whether they were regulatory, voluntary or partnership approaches. Data sources Fourteen relevant English-language databases were searched in November 2020 for studies published between 2010 and 2020. Methods: Six separate evidence reviews were conducted to assess the evidence of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and policy processes of policies to improve food environments. Results: A total of 483 primary research evaluations and 14 evidence syntheses were included. The study reveals considerable geographic, methodological and other imbalances across the literature, with, for example, 81% of publications focusing only on 12 countries. The systematic reviews also reveal the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of reviewed regulatory approaches designed to improve health, consumer behaviour and food environment outcomes while public-private partnerships and voluntary approaches to improve diets via reformulation, advertising and promotion restrictions or other changes to the environment were limited in their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The study also revealed key enabling and impeding factors across regulatory, voluntary and public-private partnership approaches. Conclusion: From the available evidence reviewed, this study finds that regulatory approaches appear most effective at improving the food environment, and voluntary agreements and partnerships have limited effectiveness. These findings should be carefully considered in future public health policy development, as should the findings of geographic imbalance in the evidence and inadequate representation of equity dimensions across the policy evaluations. We find that food policies are at times driven by factors other than the evidence and shaped by compromise and pragmatism. Food policy should be first and foremost designed and driven by the evidence of greatest effectiveness to improve food environments for healthier diets. Limitations: This was a complex evidence synthesis due to its scope and some policy evaluations may have been missed as the literature searches did not include specific policy names. The literature was limited to studies published in English from 2010 to 2020, potentially missing studies of interest. Future work Priorities include the need for guidance for appraising risk of bias and quality of non-clinical studies, for reporting policy characteristics in evaluations, for supporting evaluations of real-world policies equitably across geographic regions, for capturing equity dimensions in policy evaluations, and for guideline development for quality and risk of bias of policy evaluations. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020170963. Funding: This award project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref NIHR128607) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 8. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Poor diet is a leading cause of death, globally, including in the United Kingdom. It also causes many types of illness and is one of the biggest drains on the United Kingdom National Health Service budget. Governments act in various ways to promote healthy diets by improving food environments these are the physical and social surroundings that influence what and how much people eat. Some actions are regulated by government, for example, to control food production, marketing and promotions. Other actions are led by, or with, food businesses, making voluntary changes to the foods they produce, for example, by reducing salt content; this can be done by businesses alone or in partnership with government (referred to as 'public­private partnerships'). The six reviews of published research look at whether, and how, these actions to improve diets work, and whether they can provide value for money. Most regulations appear to be effective at supporting better diets. However, voluntary changes led by businesses had limited success. There were not many evaluations that assessed the effectiveness of public­private partnerships. Of those that did, partnerships with the food industry had limited effectiveness, resulting in largely unchanged outcomes. When looking at how these actions improve diets, we found that clear leadership, public support for the policy, the use of the best evidence and of local expertise helped with getting actions implemented. Factors that appear to make it harder to implement policy actions include a lack of evidence specific to the context, conflicting beliefs about what works, limited human or financial resources, lack of engagement by key people. Although the findings may help us to think about the ways forward to improve diets, more research is needed to understand whether actions to reduce diet-related ill health work, and provide value for money.