Perceived impact and feasibility of strategies to improve access to healthy foods in Washington State, USA.

Donna B Johnson, Emilee L Quinn, Mary Podrabsky, Nadia Beckwith-Stanley, Nadine Chan, Amy Ellings, Tricia Kovacs, Claire Lane
Author Information
  1. Donna B Johnson: 1 Center for Public Health Nutrition, University of Washington, Box 353410, Seattle, WA 98195 USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The present study measured the perceived impact and political and implementation feasibility of state-level policy strategies related to increasing access to healthy foods and limiting unhealthy foods.
DESIGN: Potential state-level policy strategies to improve access to healthy foods were identified through a review of evidence-based literature and policy recommendations. Respondents rated the perceived impact and political and implementation feasibility of each policy on a five-point scale using online surveys.
SETTING: Washington State policy process.
SUBJECTS: Forty-nine content experts (national researchers and subject experts), forty policy experts (state elected officials or their staff, gubernatorial or legislative policy analysts) and forty-five other stakeholders (state-level advocates, programme administrators, food producers).
RESULTS: In aggregate, respondents rated policy impact and implementation feasibility higher than political feasibility. Policy experts rated policy strategies as less politically feasible compared with content experts (P < 0·02) or other stakeholders (P < 0·001). Eight policy strategies were rated above the median for impact and political and implementation feasibility. These included policies related to nutrition standards in schools and child-care facilities, food distribution systems, urban planning projects, water availability, joint use agreements and breast-feeding supports.
CONCLUSIONS: Although they may be perceived as potentially impactful, some policies will be more difficult to enact than others. Information about the potential feasibility of policies to improve access to healthy foods can be used to focus limited policy process resources on strategies with the highest potential for enactment, implementation and impact.

References

  1. Public Health Nutr. 2009 Jul;12(7):896-908 [PMID: 18662488]
  2. Health Promot Int. 2012 Jun;27(2):261-74 [PMID: 21421579]
  3. Am J Prev Med. 2009 Apr;36(4 Suppl):S161-5 [PMID: 19285208]
  4. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2007 Apr 04;4:10 [PMID: 17408494]
  5. Public Health Nutr. 2012 Aug;15(8):1497-502 [PMID: 22166373]
  6. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2012 Apr;37(2):181-200 [PMID: 22147948]
  7. Health Promot Int. 2010 Mar;25(1):123-33 [PMID: 20167827]
  8. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011 Mar;8(2):A33 [PMID: 21324247]
  9. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2009 Jul;4(3-4):225-240 [PMID: 23144671]
  10. Am J Public Health. 2011 Mar;101(3):425-31 [PMID: 21233428]
  11. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:E120 [PMID: 22742594]
  12. Lancet. 2011 Aug 27;378(9793):804-14 [PMID: 21872749]
  13. Prev Chronic Dis. 2009 Jan;6(1):A11 [PMID: 19080017]
  14. Public Health Nutr. 2012 Aug;15(8):1483-8 [PMID: 22115416]
  15. Obes Rev. 2012 Feb;13(2):162-73 [PMID: 21955783]
  16. Obes Rev. 2009 Jan;10(1):76-86 [PMID: 18761640]
  17. Lancet. 2011 Aug 27;378(9793):838-47 [PMID: 21872752]
  18. Public Health Nutr. 2012 Aug;15(8):1355-61 [PMID: 22269063]
  19. Am J Prev Med. 2012 Sep;43(3 Suppl 2):S102-8 [PMID: 22898158]
  20. J Nutr. 2010 Jun;140(6):1167-9 [PMID: 20410087]
  21. Nutrition. 2010 Jan;26(1):1-9 [PMID: 19804955]
  22. Public Health Nutr. 2010 Jun;13(6):886-92 [PMID: 20196907]
  23. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2009 Jul;4(3-4):477-485 [PMID: 23144680]
  24. Am J Public Health. 2012 Feb;102(2):222-9 [PMID: 22390436]

Grants

  1. U48 DP001911/NCCDPHP CDC HHS
  2. 5U48-DP001911/NCCDPHP CDC HHS

MeSH Term

Child
Data Collection
Diet
Food Services
Food Supply
Health Promotion
Humans
Nutrition Policy
Nutritive Value
Obesity
Perception
Politics
Program Evaluation
Schools
Washington

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0policyfeasibilityimpactstrategiesimplementationfoodsexpertspoliticalaccesshealthyratedperceivedstate-levelimprovepoliciesrelatedWashingtonStateprocesscontentstakeholdersfoodP<potentialOBJECTIVE:presentstudymeasuredincreasinglimitingunhealthyDESIGN:Potentialidentifiedreviewevidence-basedliteraturerecommendationsRespondentsfive-pointscaleusingonlinesurveysSETTING:SUBJECTS:Forty-ninenationalresearcherssubjectfortystateelectedofficialsstaffgubernatoriallegislativeanalystsforty-fiveadvocatesprogrammeadministratorsproducersRESULTS:aggregaterespondentshigherPolicylesspoliticallyfeasiblecompared0·020·001Eightmedianincludednutritionstandardsschoolschild-carefacilitiesdistributionsystemsurbanplanningprojectswateravailabilityjointuseagreementsbreast-feedingsupportsCONCLUSIONS:AlthoughmaypotentiallyimpactfulwilldifficultenactothersInformationcanusedfocuslimitedresourceshighestenactmentPerceivedUSA

Similar Articles

Cited By (3)