↓ Skip to main content

A review of methods and tools to assess the implementation of government policies to create healthy food environments for preventing obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
278 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A review of methods and tools to assess the implementation of government policies to create healthy food environments for preventing obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0379-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sirinya Phulkerd, Mark Lawrence, Stefanie Vandevijvere, Gary Sacks, Anthony Worsley, Viroj Tangcharoensathien

Abstract

Policies to create healthy food environments are recognized as critical components of efforts to prevent obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. There has not been a systematic review of existing methods and tools used to assess the implementation of these government policies. The purpose of this study was to review methods and tools used for assessing the implementation of government policies to create healthy food environments. The study conducted a systematic literature search. Multiple databases as well as the grey literature were searched. All study designs and review papers on assessing the implementation of government policies to create healthy food environments were included. A quality assessment of the methods and tools identified from relevant studies was carried out using the following four criteria: comprehensiveness, relevance, generalizability and feasibility. This quality assessment was completed by two independent reviewers. The review identified 52 studies across different policy areas, levels and settings. Self-administered questionnaires and policy checklists were most commonly applied to assess the extent of policy implementation, whereas semi-structured interviews were most commonly used to evaluate the implementation process. Measures varied widely, with the existence of policy implementation the aspect most commonly assessed. The most frequently identified barriers and facilitators for policy implementation were infrastructure support, resources and stakeholder engagement. The assessment of policy implementation on food environments was usually undertaken in combination with other policy areas, particularly nutrition education and physical activity. Three tools/methods were rated 'high' quality and 13 tools/methods received 'medium' quality ratings. Harmonization of the available high-quality methods and tools is needed to ensure that assessment of government policy implementation can be compared across different countries and settings and over time. This will contribute to efforts to increase government accountability for their actions to improve the healthiness of food environments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 278 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Suriname 1 <1%
Unknown 275 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 11%
Student > Bachelor 31 11%
Researcher 27 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 8%
Other 50 18%
Unknown 67 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 49 18%
Social Sciences 33 12%
Psychology 9 3%
Unspecified 8 3%
Other 46 17%
Unknown 82 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2023.
All research outputs
#3,023,045
of 25,287,709 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#624
of 1,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,674
of 409,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#23
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,287,709 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,795 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 409,251 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.