Literature DB >> 18662488

Policy options for obesity in Europe: a comparison of public health specialists with other stakeholders.

Laura I González-Zapata1, Carlos Alvarez-Dardet, Rocio Ortiz-Moncada, Vicente Clemente, Erik Millstone, Michelle Holdsworth, Katerina Sarri, Giulio Tarlao, Zoltanne Horvath, Tim Lobstein, Savvas Savva.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore policy options that public health specialists (PHS) consider appropriate for combating obesity in Europe, and compare their preferences with those of other stakeholders (non-PHS).
DESIGN: Structured interviews using multicriteria mapping, a computer-based, decision-support tool.
SETTING: Nine European countries.
SUBJECTS: A total of 189 stakeholders. Twenty-seven interviewees were PHS and non-PHS included food, sports and health sectors. MEASUREMENTS: A four-step approach was taken, i.e. selecting options, defining criteria, scoring options quantitatively and weighting the criteria to provide overall rankings of options. Interviews were recorded and transcribed to yield qualitative data.
RESULTS: The PHS concur with other stakeholders interviewed, as all emphasised the importance of educational initiatives in combating obesity, followed by policies to improve community sports facilities, introduce mandatory food labelling and controlling food and drink advertising. Further analyses revealed several significant differences. The non-PHS from the private sector ranked institutional reforms favourably; the PHS from non-Mediterranean countries supported the option of medicines to prevent obesity; and those PHS from Mediterranean countries endorsed the use of activity monitoring devices such as pedometers. As far as appraisal criteria were concerned, PHS considered efficacy and the economic impact on the public sector to be the most important.
CONCLUSION: There is clear consensus among PHS and other stakeholders concerning the need for a package of policy options, which suggests that European-wide implementation could be successful. However, it would be advisable to avoid more contentious policy options such as taxation until future changes in public opinion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18662488     DOI: 10.1017/S136898000800308X

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Nutr        ISSN: 1368-9800            Impact factor:   4.022


  5 in total

Review 1.  Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Kevin Marsh; Tereza Lanitis; David Neasham; Panagiotis Orfanos; Jaime Caro
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Addressing rural health disparities through policy change in the stroke belt.

Authors:  Stephanie B Jilcott Pitts; Tosha W Smith; Linden Maya Thayer; Sarah Drobka; Cassandra Miller; Thomas C Keyserling; Alice S Ammerman
Journal:  J Public Health Manag Pract       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec

Review 3.  Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: quantifying preferences for healthcare through citizens' juries.

Authors:  Paul A Scuffham; Julie Ratcliffe; Elizabeth Kendall; Paul Burton; Andrew Wilson; Kalipso Chalkidou; Peter Littlejohns; Jennifer A Whitty
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 4.  Organizational aspect in healthcare decision-making: a literature review.

Authors:  Amélie Dubromel; Marie-Audrey Duvinage-Vonesch; Loïc Geffroy; Claude Dussart
Journal:  J Mark Access Health Policy       Date:  2020-08-31

5.  Nutrition Labeling to Prevent Obesity: Reviewing the Evidence from Europe.

Authors:  Stefan Storcksdieck Genannt Bonsmann; Josephine M Wills
Journal:  Curr Obes Rep       Date:  2012-06-26
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.