| Literature DB >> 27737707 |
Brydie Clarke1,2, Boyd Swinburn3,4, Gary Sacks3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Theories of the policy process are recommended as tools to help explain both policy stasis and change.Entities:
Keywords: Food; Nutrition; Obesity prevention; Policy; Policy process
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27737707 PMCID: PMC5064928 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3639-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Theories of the policy process identified
| Name of theory of the policy process | Alternative names identified in search |
|---|---|
| Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) | Advocacy Coalition Theory |
| Multiple Streams Theory (MST) | Multiple Streams Framework |
| Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) | Baumgartner and Jones' |
| Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) | Ostrum |
| Institutional theory | Institutionalism Theory |
| Garbage Can Model | |
| Bacchi’s theory | What’s the problem represented to be? |
| Agenda setting theory | |
| Incrementalism | |
| Rational Choice Theory (RCT) | Rational Choice |
| Actor Network Theory (ANT) | |
| Policy Network Theory (PNT) | |
| Theory of Collaborative Policy Networks | |
| Marxism | |
| Neo-liberalism | |
| Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) | |
| Narrative policy framework (NPF) | |
| Policy Feedback Theory (PFT) | |
| Social Construction Framework (SCF) | Social Construction Theory |
Study characteristics and quality assessment of included studies
| Author, year | Study setting | Policy level | Policy focus area | ‘Stages’ of policy processes investigated | Design and methods | Study participant information | Critical appraisal ratinga |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility | Transferability | Dependability |
| ||||||||
| Craig et al. 2010 [ | Arkansas, United States of America (USA) | State level | Healthy eating environment policy | Stages of focus not specified however appears to focus on policy process stages leading to policy adoption (i.e., agenda setting and policy formulation) | Qualitative using secondary document data collected as part of a comprehend-sive evaluation of Arkansas Act 1220. Key informant interviews were also conducted with persons knowledge-eable of or involved in the passage of Act 1220. | No details were provided regarding study participants demo-graphics. | M | M | M-H | L | Secondary data source means that the theory did not inform the type of questions that were asked, potentially limiting what was able to be deduced. |
| Dodson et al. 2009 [ | Multiple states across USA | State level policy making (across several states) | General childhood obesity prevention legislation. Not a specific policy or set of policies. | Stages of focus not specified however appears to focus on policy process stages leading to policy adoption (i.e., agenda setting and policy formulation) | Qualitative study using interviews | There were 16 participants from 11 states, from various political parties, their professional background and length of tenure within their organisation, and geographical area represented also varied. | H | M-H | M | L | This was not a study of a specific policy process but rather of obesity prevention policy processes generally. |
| Freundenberg et al. 2015 [ | Comparison of London and New York | Municipal level | Food policies, which included strategies to reduce obesity | Focused on election cycles providing opportunities for policies to be developed, and hence to stage of policy adoption only. | Document analysis | NA- document analysis | M | L-M | L | L | Secondary data source means that the theory did not inform the type of questions that were asked, potentially limiting what was able to be deduced. |
| Gladwin et al. 2008 [ | Alberta, Canada | Provincial and local (local school board networks) and individual school level. | Daily physical activity mandatory requirements in schools as well as policy processes relating to decisions to not adopt the walking to school bus program. | Stages of focus not specified however appears to focus on policy process stages leading to policy adoption (i.e., agenda setting and policy formulation) | Qualitative comparative study of case study of two policies. Collected interviews (primary data) and documents related to the policy (secondary data). | None provided. | M | L-M | M | L | Only four of the interviewees were from the provincial level. The remainder were with parents, health professionals or school board members. |
| Gomez, 2015 [ | Comparative study of USA and Brazil | National policy level | General obesity prevention policy. | Stages not specified however long term perspective allowed consideration of all aspects of the policy process (including feedback feeding into subsequent decision making) | Qualitative comparative case study drawing on secondary data sources of various documents (peer reviewed journal articles, government documents, and reports) | NA- document analysis | L | M | M | L | Secondary data source means that the theory did not inform the type of questions that were asked, potentially limiting what was able to be deduced. |
| Houlihan et al. 2006 [ | England, and Wales, United Kingdom (UK) | National policy level | Policy focused on incorporation of physical activity/sport into school curriculum | Not specified however the use of two ‘synthesis’ theories could potentially include all ‘stages’ | Qualitative study drawing on key informant interviews. | Nine participants in total, Including senior civil servants or senior members of interest/ professional organizations or senior academics. | M | M-H | L | L | No information regarding ethics approval. |
| Khayesi et al. 2011 [ | Curitiba, Brazil | State level policy | Transport sector policy to increase | No stages specified | Historical case study utilising documents. | NA- Document analysis | L-M. | M | L-M | L | Secondary data source means that the theory did not inform the type of questions that were asked, potentially limiting what was able to be deduced. |
| McBeth et al.2013 [ | USA | Federal level policy | Obesity prevention policy generally | Agenda setting and the potential subsequent influence on policy formulation | Cross-sectional study documents (newspaper articles) using content analysis | NA- document analysis | H | H | H | L | Secondary data source means that the theory did not inform the type of questions that were asked, potentially limiting what was able to be deduced. |
| Milton et al. 2015 [ | England, UK | National level policy | Walking promotion policy | Stages of focus not specified however appears to focus on policy process stages leading to policy adoption (i.e., agenda setting and policy formulation) | Qualitative case study drawing on document analysis and interview | Participants included representatives from relevant government departments and not for profit organisations, as well as, several independent consultants and other known advocates. | H | H | H | L | Details of ethics approval provided. |
| Mosier et al. 2013 [ | USA, states of Colorado and Kansas | State level | Sales and excise tax policy | Stages of focus not specified however appears to focus on policy process stages leading to policy adoption (i.e., agenda setting and policy formulation) | Qualitative comparative study, utilising observations, interviews and document analysis. | Nine individuals, involved in the policy processes were interviewed. No further details were reported. | M-H | M | M-H | L | No information regarding ethics approval. |
| Olstad, et al. 2015 [ | Canada | State and provincial level | School based physical activity policy (legislation, rules, requirements) | All stages of policy process (including implementation) | Historical multiple case study. Systematic document review was used (no interviews or observation) | NA- no interviews | H | H | H | L | Secondary data source means that the theory did not inform the type of questions that were asked, potentially limiting what was able to be deduced. |
| Phillpots, 2012 [ | England, United Kingdom | National policy | Sport and physical activity integration into school curriculum | All stages of policy process (including decision to cease the implemented policy) | Qualitative study design, drawing upon interviews, and document analysis. | Twenty-three interviewees from a range of government sport and education agencies who had been involved in the policy area for at least 5 years. | H | M | L-M | L | No information regarding ethics approval. |
| Quinn et al. 2015 [ | King County, Washington, USA | Local level | Non-regulatory nutritional guidelines for food and beverages sold in vending machines. | Stages of focus not specified however appears to focus on policy process stages leading to policy adoption (i.e., agenda setting and policy formulation) | Qualitative case study design, using focus group, interview, and document review methods. | Focus groups: local health department staff interviews: Local Board of Health members, local elected, municipal staff, department directors officials, health expert from across 5 local jurisdictions | M | L | M-H | L | Ethics was obtained and details of the duration and timing of the interviews were given. |
| Reid and Thornburn 2011 [ | Scotland, United Kingdom | National level | Physical education and activity policy | No stages specified, although clear focus on agenda setting | Field research involved key informant interviews | Participants from: various government departments (education, sport), local government sports development staff, relevant peak bodies, not for profit organizations, and politicians. | H | M-H | M-H | M-H | No information regarding ethics approval. |
| Thow et al. 2014 [ | Ghana | National Level | A food standards policy to limit the amount of fat in meat and meat cuts | All stages from agenda setting, formulation, adoption and evaluation | Mixed methods case study | Participants were policy makers, implement-ers, producers, processors and retailers and respresented numerous government departments and stakeholder groups/ organisations | M | H | M | L | Ethics was obtained. |
| Ulmer et al. 2012 [ | New Orleans, USA | State level | A Fresh Food Retailer policy Initiative | Stages of focus not specified however appears to focus on policy process stages leading to policy adoption (i.e., agenda setting and policy formulation) | Qualitative study using interviews | Participants were from various organizations and included city agency staff, city council members, grocers, representatives from trade associations and fınancial institutions, public health professionals, and food advocates. | L-M | L-M | L | L | No information regarding ethics approval. |
| Yeatman, 2003 [ | Australia | Local level policies (four case studies) | Food policy | Stages of focus not specified however appears to focus on policy process stages leading to policy adoption (i.e., agenda setting and policy formulation) | Case studies using interviews and document analysis | Participants included local food policy councils, local elected members and local government middle managers. | L-M | M | L | L | No information regarding ethics approval. |
aScore for each aspects found in rigorous and ‘trustworthy’ qualitative research [49]. ‘L’ indicates a low quality assessment, M medium, H high quality
Fig. 1Systematic search strategy results
Summary of themes of influence on obesity prevention policy processes, by included studies
| Author, year | Theory used | Influences on policy processes | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coalition/ industry group lobbying | Political Institutions and political systems | Leadership of key individuals | Narrative and framing | Prevailing political ideology | Personal values & beliefs | Use of evidence | Timing | External socio-political (exogenous) factors | ||
| Craig et al. 2010 [ | Multiple Streams theory (MST) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Dodson et al. 2009 [ | MST | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Freunen-berg et al. 2015 | MST and Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Gladwin et al. 2008 [ | MST | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Gomez 2015 [ | Institutional theory | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Houlihan et al. 2006 [ | MST and ACF | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Khayesi et al. 2011 [ | MST | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| McBeth et al. 2013 [ | Narrative Policy Framework | ✓ | ||||||||
| Milton and Grix 2015 [ | MST | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mosier et al. 2013 [ | MST | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Olstad et al. 2015 [ | Diffusion of innovations theory | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
| Phillpots 2013 [ | ACF | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Quinn et al. 2015 [ | MST | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Reid and Thornburn 2011 [ | MST | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Thow et al. 2014 [ | Health Policy Analysis Triangle | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Ulmer et al. 2012 [ | ACF | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
| Yeatman 2003 [ | Agenda setting theory and MST | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||