Implementing a community-based obesity prevention programme: experiences of stakeholders in the north east of England

Middleton, Geoff; Henderson, Hannah; Evans, Donna

doi:10.1093/heapro/das072

Cited by 24 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the rapidly changing funding context, monitoring progress towards integrated best practice is critical, alongside coordination of population-level strategic planning for obesity prevention. This echoes sentiments of others in similar contexts (Cleland et al , 2013; Middleton et al , 2014; Swinburn and Wood, 2013). These findings highlight a need for routine and systematic analysis of CBI activity; greater application of existing and emerging evidence and practice principles; and dissemination of knowledge and evidence generated by CBIs to researchers and decision-makers.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

A snapshot of the scope of obesity prevention practice in Australia

Pettman

Bolton

Love

et al. 2015

Health Promot. Int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community-based initiatives (CBIs) that build capacity and promote healthy environments hold promise for preventing obesity and non-communicable disease, however their characteristics remain poorly understood and lessons are learned in isolation. This limits understanding of likely effectiveness of CBIs; the potential for actively supporting practice; and the translation of community-based knowledge into policy. Building on an initial survey (2010), an online survey was launched (2013) with the aim to describe the reach and characteristics of Australian CBIs and identify and evaluate elements known to contribute to best practice, effectiveness and sustainability. Responses from 104 CBIs were received in 2013. Geographic location generally reflected population density in Australia. Duration of CBIs was short-term (median 3 years; range 0.2–21.0 years), delivered mostly by health departments and local governments. Median annual funding had more than doubled since the 2010 survey, but average staffing had not increased. CBIs used at least two strategy types, with a preference for individual behaviour change strategies. Targeting children was less common (31%) compared with the 2010 survey (57%). Logic models and theory were used in planning, but there was low use of research evidence and existing prevention frameworks. Nearly, all CBIs had an evaluation component (12% of budget), but dissemination was limited. This survey provides information on the scope and varied quality of the current obesity prevention investment in Australia. To boost the quality and effectiveness of CBIs, further support systems may be required to ensure that organizations adopt upstream, evidence-informed approaches; and integrate CBIs into systems, policies and environments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

A snapshot of the scope of obesity prevention practice in Australia

Pettman

Bolton

Love

et al. 2015

Health Promot. Int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Middleton et al note a similar phenomenon in their UK research of a communitybased obesity prevention program and the need to 'avoid duplication of effort'. 6 For example education sector respondents commented on the frequency with which they were approached by the health sector to be partners in public health, with an apparent lack of co-ordination and an underestimation of the time and capacity of schools to extend their work and take up the health department's agenda.…”

Section: Increase Opportunities For Aboriginal Children To Access Heamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The identification by stakeholders of the importance of OPAL staff attitudes and skills to making partnerships work, concurs with an earlier study 8 and the value of resources to support effective partnerships is also consistent with the literature on partnerships in health. 6 OPAL was found to bridge the gaps and provide coordination of healthy weight activity across the areas. Stakeholders described OPAL staff as cross-linking agents.…”

Section: Increase Opportunities For Aboriginal Children To Access Heamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The obesity prevention literature is replete with arguments about the value of partnerships at public policy and program level, both to support behavioural changes and to address the underlying determinants of obesity. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The World Health Organization proposes that partnerships be built with the public and across diverse interests and sectors within an integrated and holistic framework. 4 In practice, these partnerships vary with social, economic and political contexts, organisational and stakeholder characteristics, and power dynamics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 In practice, these partnerships vary with social, economic and political contexts, organisational and stakeholder characteristics, and power dynamics. 3,6 With respect to obesity prevention, potential partners may have varying inclinations to invest time and resources. Private sector companies may oppose obesity prevention goals to protect their own interests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Partnerships in obesity prevention: maximising co‐benefits

Jones

Verity

2017

Health Prom J of Aust

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issue addressed Partnerships were used to increase healthy eating and active living in children for the Obesity Prevention and Lifestyle (OPAL) program, a systems-wide, community-based childhood obesity prevention program in South Australia. This part of the multi-component evaluation examines stakeholders' perceptions of how OPAL staff worked in partnership and factors contributing to strong partnerships. Methods Pre- and post-interviews and focus groups with multi-sector stakeholders (n=131) across six OPAL communities were analysed using NVivo8 qualitative data analysis software. Results Stakeholders reflected positively on projects developed in partnership with OPAL, reporting that staff worked to establish co-benefits. They identified several factors that contributed to the strengthening of partnerships: staff skills, visibility, resources and sustainability. Conclusions Rather than implementing projects with stakeholders with shared organisational goals, local shared projects were implemented that included a breadth of co-benefits, allowing multi-sector stakeholders to meet their own organisational goals. Practitioners who have the capacity to be flexible, persistent, knowledgeable and skilled communicators are required to negotiate projects, achieving benefit for both health and stakeholders' organisational goals. So what? Engaging in partnership practice to broker co-benefits at the micro or program level has been an effective model for community engagement and change in OPAL. It foregrounds the need for the inclusion of value to partners, which differs from situations in which organisations come together around common goals.

show abstract

The Value of Social Capital: What Are Its Outcomes?

Chilenski

Summers

2016

Issues in Children's and Families' Lives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implementing a community-based obesity prevention programme: experiences of stakeholders in the north east of England

Cited by 24 publications

References 39 publications

A snapshot of the scope of obesity prevention practice in Australia

A snapshot of the scope of obesity prevention practice in Australia

Partnerships in obesity prevention: maximising co‐benefits

The Value of Social Capital: What Are Its Outcomes?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About