TABLE 3. Illustrations of proportionate unversalism and targeted universalism regarding achievement of SDG 3.4 (Specific example: reduction of overweight and obesity).

	Richmond Health in all policies programme (65)	PRALIMAP-INES study (64)
Level of application	Local policy	Health intervention with a national vocation
Global description of the policy/intervention	Implementation of six final HiAP intervention areas - Governance and Leadership, - Economic Development and Education, - Full Service and Safe Communities, - Neighborhood Built Environments, - Environmental Health and Justice, and - Quality and Accessible Health Homes and Social Services.	1) Identification of social category through a deprivation score 2) Composition of three groups: - one control group (standard care management) for socially advantaged group - two randomized intervention groups among less-advantaged adolescents: one control group and one standard and strengthened care management
Lever of action	Upstream determinants	Downstream determinants
Objective pursued by authors	“promoting healthy food store development ?through land-use zoning” (One specific objective ?of the 3rd axis)	“Evaluate school-based intervention to address social inequalities in adolescents who are overweight and the impact of the interventions on adopting healthy behaviors, quality of life, anxiety and depression.”
Targeted population	Population of Richmond and especially from ?less-advantaged areas	Adolescents from 35 state-run high and middle schools (North-Eastern of France)
Universal part of the policy/intervention	“General health equity goals for the city”	Standard-care management (5 collective educational sessions)
Targeted part of the policy/intervention	Populations and places to help specific, currently vulnerable groups and neighbourhoods get healthier	Strengthened-care management intending to address barriers was proposed for only socially less-advantaged adolescents: - 3 multidisciplinary (school medical doctors and nurses; dieticians, psychologists etc.) meetings; - combination of different targeted activities: food workshops, peer health promotion, sporting good coupon (40€), hospital specialized management of obesity, physical activity motivational interviewing and motivational interviewing.
Evaluation of the level of disadvantage	Through identification of key-drivers of ?inequalities	Family affluence Scale (5 social categories)
Evaluation criteria(on) of health improvement	% Report eating fruit/veggies 3+ day last week ?% Adults engaged in regular physical activity in ?last week ?% Reporting poor health (self-reported health)	Comparison of the BMI after intervention among three groups constituted according to Family Affluence Scale score

HiAP, Health in all policies; BMI, body mass index