Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Lobczowska, Karolina
• Banik, Anna
• Romaniuk, Piotr
• Forberger, Sarah
• Kubiak, Thomas
• Meshkovska, Biljana
• Neumann-Podczaska, Agnieszka
• Kaczmarek, Krzysztof
• Scheidmeir, Marie
• Wendt, Janine
• Scheller, Daniel A
• Wieczorowska-Tobis, Katarzyna
• Steinacker, Juergen M
• Zeeb, Hajo
• Luszczynska, Aleksandra

Titel

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

Ist Teil von

• The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2022-02, Vol.19 (1), p.16-16, Article 16

Ort / Verlag

England: BioMed Central Ltd

Erscheinungsjahr

2022

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• 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. 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. 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). 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. PROSPERO, #CRD42019133251.