Title |
Effective advocacy strategies for influencing government nutrition policy: a conceptual model
|
---|---|
Published in |
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, August 2018
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12966-018-0716-y |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Katherine Cullerton, Timothy Donnet, Amanda Lee, Danielle Gallegos |
Abstract |
Influencing public policy change can be difficult and complex, particularly for those with limited power and resources. For any one issue there may be several groups, including the commercial sector and public health advocates advocating from different policy perspectives. However, much of the public health advocacy literature and tools available for those wanting to improve their practice is based on research from one specific perspective of an issue. This approach deprives advocates of potential insight into the most effective levers for this complex and difficult process. To provide a more comprehensive insight into effective levers for influencing public health policy change, a conceptual model for poorly-resourced advocates was developed. The model was developed through the integration and synthesis of policy process and network theories with the results from three studies conducted previously by the authors: a systematic literature review; a social network analysis of influential actors in Australian nutrition policy; plus in-depth interviews with a sample of these actors who had diverse perspectives on influencing nutrition policy. Through understanding the key steps in this model advocates will be better equipped to increase political and public will, and affect positive policy change. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Australia | 46 | 33% |
United Kingdom | 17 | 12% |
New Zealand | 7 | 5% |
Ireland | 7 | 5% |
United States | 5 | 4% |
Finland | 3 | 2% |
Canada | 3 | 2% |
Austria | 2 | 1% |
Curaçao | 2 | 1% |
Other | 12 | 9% |
Unknown | 36 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 52 | 37% |
Scientists | 47 | 34% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 41 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 254 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 38 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 33 | 13% |
Researcher | 17 | 7% |
Other | 14 | 6% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 5% |
Other | 39 | 15% |
Unknown | 100 | 39% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 38 | 15% |
Social Sciences | 34 | 13% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 11% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 3% |
Unspecified | 6 | 2% |
Other | 41 | 16% |
Unknown | 100 | 39% |