Tamara Elliott1, Helen Trevena2, Gary Sacks3, Elizabeth Dunford2, Jane Martin4, Jacqui Webster2, Boyd Swinburn3, A Rob Moodie5, Bruce C Neal2. 1. The George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. bneal@georgeinstitute.org.au. 2. The George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. WHO Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. Obesity Policy Coalition, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the Food and Health Dialogue (the Dialogue), established by the Australian Government in 2009, is having an impact on reducing premature death and disability caused by poor diet in Australia. DESIGN AND SETTING: We used information derived from the Dialogue website, media releases, communiqués and e-newsletters to evaluate the Dialogue's achievements from October 2009 to September 2013, using the RE-AIM (reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation and maintenance) framework. Data describing the processed foods marketed in Australia were extracted from an existing food composition database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Achievements of the Dialogue (goals, targets, actions and health outcomes). RESULTS: The primary goal of the Dialogue was identified as "raising the nutritional profile of foods" to be achieved "through reformulation, consumer education and portion standardisation". Employing a public-private partnership model, the Dialogue has established a framework for collaboration between government, public health groups and industry. In the first 4 years, targets were set for 11 (8.9%) of a total of 124 possible action areas for food reformulation and portion standardisation. None were yet due to have been achieved. There was no evidence that any education programs had been implemented by the Dialogue. There are no indicators of the extent to which population exposure to target nutrients has changed or whether any positive or negative health impacts have ensued. CONCLUSIONS: The Dialogue has highly creditable goals but the mechanism for delivering on them has proved inadequate. Explicit processes and the outcomes to be delivered within defined timelines are required, along with a clear plan for remediation if they are not achieved.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the Food and Health Dialogue (the Dialogue), established by the Australian Government in 2009, is having an impact on reducing premature death and disability caused by poor diet in Australia. DESIGN AND SETTING: We used information derived from the Dialogue website, media releases, communiqués and e-newsletters to evaluate the Dialogue's achievements from October 2009 to September 2013, using the RE-AIM (reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation and maintenance) framework. Data describing the processed foods marketed in Australia were extracted from an existing food composition database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Achievements of the Dialogue (goals, targets, actions and health outcomes). RESULTS: The primary goal of the Dialogue was identified as "raising the nutritional profile of foods" to be achieved "through reformulation, consumer education and portion standardisation". Employing a public-private partnership model, the Dialogue has established a framework for collaboration between government, public health groups and industry. In the first 4 years, targets were set for 11 (8.9%) of a total of 124 possible action areas for food reformulation and portion standardisation. None were yet due to have been achieved. There was no evidence that any education programs had been implemented by the Dialogue. There are no indicators of the extent to which population exposure to target nutrients has changed or whether any positive or negative health impacts have ensued. CONCLUSIONS: The Dialogue has highly creditable goals but the mechanism for delivering on them has proved inadequate. Explicit processes and the outcomes to be delivered within defined timelines are required, along with a clear plan for remediation if they are not achieved.
Authors: Caryl Nowson; Karen Lim; Carley Grimes; Siobhan O'Halloran; Mary Anne Land; Jacqui Webster; Jonathan Shaw; John Chalmers; Wayne Smith; Victoria Flood; Mark Woodward; Bruce Neal Journal: Nutrients Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Lyndal Wellard-Cole; Alyse Davies; Juliana Chen; Jisu Jung; Kim B Bente; Judy Kay; Wendy L Watson; Clare Hughes; Anna Rangan; Kalina Yacef; Irena Koprinska; Kathy Chapman; Nim Ting Wong; Luke Gemming; Cliona Ni Mhurchu; Adrian Bauman; Margaret Allman-Farinelli Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Anne C Grunseit; Erika Bohn-Goldbaum; Margaret Thomas; Rochelle Seabury; Chris Rissel; Melanie Crane Journal: Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being Date: 2021-12
Authors: Daisy Coyle; Maria Shahid; Elizabeth Dunford; Cliona Ni Mhurchu; Sarah Mckee; Myla Santos; Barry Popkin; Kathy Trieu; Matti Marklund; Bruce Neal; Jason Wu Journal: BMJ Nutr Prev Health Date: 2021-01-12