Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Bulletin of the World Health Organization logoLink to Bulletin of the World Health Organization
. 2021 Sep 29;99(12):865–873. doi: 10.2471/BLT.20.283366

Policy-makers’ perspectives on implementation of cross-sectoral nutrition policies, Western Pacific Region

Perspectives de mise en œuvre des politiques nutritionnelles intersectorielles dans la Région du Pacifique occidental

Perspectivas de los responsables de formular políticas sobre la aplicación de políticas intersectoriales de nutrición en la región del Pacífico Occidental

وجهات نظر واضعي السياسات بشأن تنفيذ سياسات التغذية الشاملة لعدة قطاعات، منطقة غرب المحيط الهادئ

政策制定者对西太平洋地区跨部门实施营养政策的观点

Взгляд политического руководства на реализацию межсекторальной политики в области питания, регион западной части Тихого океана

Erica Reeve a,✉, Anne-Marie Thow b, Oliver Huse a, Colin Bell a, Anna Peeters a, Gary Sacks a
PMCID: PMC8640684  PMID: 34866682

Abstract

Implementation of effective cross-sectoral nutrition policies remains a challenge worldwide. By reviewing reports from World Health Organization meetings and consultations – convened for policy-makers representing Member States of the Western Pacific Region – we provide an insight into how national policy-makers and external actors can support different dimensions of nutrition policy implementation. Key insights of policy-makers attending food and nutrition-centred meetings include that country-level implementation of nutrition policy relies on strong policy design, organizational planning and governance mechanisms that promote collective responsibility across multiple sectors. Policy-makers responsible for implementing nutrition policies face major challenges resulting from limited capacity, both within and external to government, particularly in relation to monitoring and enforcement activities. Successful implementation of nutrition policy measures will require greater political will to provide the requisite resources and institutional structures to ensure sustained policy effectiveness. Nongovernmental partners, including international agencies and researchers, have an opportunity to support policy implementation by providing technical support to Member States to frame action on nutrition in a more compelling way. They can also help policy-makers to build the organizational and structural capacity to coordinate cross-sectoral policy. Improved policy design, planning and governance and strategic capacity-building, supported by external partners, can strengthen the sustained implementation of cross-sectoral nutrition policy and improve nutrition outcomes.

Introduction

Since 2015, undernourishment as well as the prevalence of overweight and obesity have increased in many countries.1 The burden of malnutrition is a global health priority and Member States of the United Nations (UN) have committed to act during the Global Decade of Action on Nutrition (2016–2025).2 Dietary risk factors play a significant role in the development of noncommunicable diseases,3 which caused 41 million of the 55 million global deaths in 2019.4 Dietary factors are also a key determinant of malnutrition and nutrient deficiencies. Hence, improving population diets could avert one in five deaths globally.5 More recently, diet-related noncommunicable diseases have been associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity.6

The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified strategies for improving diets and health,7,8 and 77% (128) of the 167 WHO Member States surveyed for the Global Nutrition Policy Review (2016–2017) had comprehensive nutrition policies in place to address all forms of malnutrition.9 However, the implementation of specific globally recommended policies for addressing diet-related noncommunicable diseases has been uneven.10 Policy advocates have faced persistent challenges in developing measures to promote healthy food environments. These challenges include strong opposition from the food industry, pressures to design policies that minimize impacts on trade11–13 and lack of data to convincingly demonstrate the link between particular policies and health outcomes.14 Additionally, hard-earned political attention towards diet-related noncommunicable disease prevention may now be displaced by the global response to COVID-19.15,16

Evidence suggests that implementing food and nutrition policy measures adopted by governments is a persistent challenge.17,18 In particular, high reliance on non-health sectors, including education, trade, finance and commerce, to implement many globally recommended nutrition policies has been identified as a common impediment to successful implementation.19 Most countries (135/169 surveyed) have adopted governance mechanisms that oversee the implementation of cross-sectoral nutrition policies,20 but evidence suggests that these mechanisms often are ineffective at fostering the uptake of nutrition actions across those sectors.19,21 While many influences on policy implementation are specific to the local context, the common challenges underlying these factors, including poor political commitment to nutrition and limited human and financial capacity, suggest there is an opportunity for regional and other cross-country learning.22,23 However, evidence is limited regarding ways to facilitate effective policy implementation.24,25

Records for policy insights

WHO regularly convenes regional meetings and consultations with Member State representatives to discuss and consult on key policy challenges facing countries, to assess country progress, and to facilitate cross-regional communication on the implementation of effective policy measures. Food and nutrition policy-makers working at national and regional levels have a collective experience on factors that promote or inhibit the scaling up and sustained implementation of cross-sectoral nutrition policies. Their perspectives and experiences are representative of their communities of practice26 and their learned experience can inform practice-based strategies.27 Hence, reports from these meetings can be used to assess policy-makers’ insights and lessons learnt from the implementation of cross-sectoral nutrition policy measures.

To identify strategies that can sustain the implementation of cross-sectoral food and nutrition policies, we drew information from the meeting reports of all food or nutrition-centred meetings and consultations hosted by the WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific. In the Western Pacific Region, noncommunicable diseases cause an estimated 80% of all deaths,28,29 underscoring the need for preventive policy action. Member States in the region have collectively taken action to adopt WHO-recommended food and nutrition policy measures9,29,30 and, thus, policy-makers have a wealth of experience navigating nutrition policy implementation.13,31–33

We retrieved meeting reports from WHO’s Institutional Repository for Information Sharing34 for meetings held between the launch of the Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health in 2004 and the end of 2020. We included biregional or subregional meeting reports, drawing on text reported as participant presentations, groupwork or panel discussions led by Member State representatives. One author extracted all data from the included reports while a second author, who has a background in policy implementation, verified all extractions. We analysed the content of the meeting reports using a deductive coding framework based on well established theories of policy implementation and capacity needs (Fig. 1).35,36 The coding framework included codes related to: (i) the policy process (that is, policy context, process, content and actors);35 (ii) institutional structures and policy implementation;37–39 and (iii) systemic capacity needs, particularly in relation to organizational systems (e.g. structures, systems, supervision, role clarity, decentralized power, planning systems).36

Fig. 1.

Analytic framework used for analysis of meeting reports from nutrition-related consultations and meetings, Western Pacific Region, 2004–2020

Source: Adapted from Walt & Gilson.35

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Between 2004 and 2020, WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific hosted 29 food and nutrition-centred meetings, consultations and workshops (Table 1). From 2012, we observed a shift from meetings focused on single nutritional risks (e.g. anaemia, salt) towards solution-oriented meetings, directed at noncommunicable disease prevention. Of the meetings, eight related to food safety, seven were related to restrictions on food and beverage marketing and the others largely related to nutrition in early childhood, nutrition surveillance or policy tools that support planning and implementation.

Table 1. Member State nutrition-related consultations and meetings, Western Pacific Region, 2004–2019.

Meeting Year Location No. of Member States in attendance
Future action on food safety in the Pacific: FAO/SPC/WHO meeting 2004 Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia 14
Asia-Pacific workshop on raising the profile of nutrition 2007 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 7
WHO/UNICEF consultation on breastfeeding protection, promotion and support 2007 Manila, Philippines 16
FAO/WHO meeting on food standards to promote health and fair trade in the Pacific 2008 Manila, Philippines 13
Regional consultation on strategies to reduce salt intake 2010 Singapore 11
Anaemia prevention along the life-cycle 2010 Hanoi, Viet Nam 2
Prepare a draft Western Pacific Regional Food Safety Strategy 2011–2015 for consideration of the Regional Committee for the Western Pacific 2010–2011 Manila, Philippines and Selangor, Malaysia 24
Pacific Food Summit 2010 Port Vila, Vanuatu 20
Technical consultation on identifying approaches to control obesity 2011 Melbourne, Australia 10
Meeting on regulatory monitoring of salt and flour fortification programmes in Asia 2011 Manila, Philippines 9
Japan-WHO regional consultation for promoting healthier dietary options for children 2012 Saitama, Japan 12
Informal consultation on reducing the harmful impact on children of marketing foods, beverages, tobacco and alcohol 2013 Manila, Philippines 7
Meeting on strengthening INFOSAN and national food control systems in Asia 2013 Manila, Philippines 11
Consultation on the Action Plan to Reduce the Double Burden of Malnutrition in the Western Pacific Region, 2015–2020 2013 Manila, Philippines 14
Consultation on overweight, obesity, diabetes and law in the Western Pacific Region 2014 Manila, Philippines 14
Fifth international workshop on total diet studies 2015 Seoul, Republic of Korea 6
Technical meeting on the regional adaptation of the WHO nutrient profile model to the Western Pacific Region 2015 Manila, Philippines 7
Pacific workshop on nutrition, noncommunicable diseases and the role of Codex 2015 Nadi, Fiji 10
Meeting on strengthening the international food safety authorities network (INFOSAN) in Asia and national food safety systems 2015 Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China 21
Biregional workshop on restricting the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children in the Western Pacific and South-East Asia 2015 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 13
Workshop on implementation and monitoring of the Action Plan to Reduce the Double Burden of Malnutrition in the Western Pacific Region (2015–2020) 2015 Manila, Philippines 10
Informal consultation on childhood obesity surveillance in the Western Pacific Region 2016 Tokyo, Japan 11
Regional workshop on regulating the marketing and sale of foods and non-alcoholic beverages at schools 2016 Manila, Philippines 15
Technical workshop on taxing sugar-sweetened beverages 2016 Manila, Philippines 7
Pacific consultation on the draft Regional Framework for Action on food safety in the Western Pacific 2017 Nadi, Fiji 18
Experts consultation on the background document on protecting children from the harmful impact of food marketing 2017 Manila, Philippines 7
Consultation on the draft Regional Framework for Action on Food Safety in the Western Pacific 2017 Manila, Philippines 12
Experts consultation to inform the development of a draft Regional Action Framework on Protecting Children from the Harmful Impact of Food Marketing: 2020–2030 2018 Manila, Philippines 6
Member States consultation on the Regional Action Framework on Protecting Children from the Harmful Impact of Food Marketing: 2020–2030 2019 Manila, Philippines 22
Open in a new tab

FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization; SPC: Pacific Community; UNICEF: United Nations Children's Emergency Fund; WHO: World Health Organization.

Note: Reports are available from WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing.34

Dimensions of policy implementation

Through the meeting records, we found that contributions by policy-makers at meetings largely centred on four dimensions of policy implementation: (i) the implementation of specific WHO-recommended policy measures to promote improved nutrition; (ii) systems for monitoring and learning from implementation; (iii) the coordination of institutional and governance structures that facilitate engagement of multisectoral government actors; and (iv) the implementation of mechanisms to manage engagement with external stakeholders in nutrition policy (Table 2). Examples of contributions are given in the data repository.40

Table 2. Perspectives of Member State representatives on enablers of nutrition policy implementation, extracted from relevant Western Pacific Region of the World Health Organization meeting reports 2004–2019.

Dimension of implementation Themes No. of meeting reports supporting theme
Implementing specific policy measures Human and financial capacity 18
Strong policy design 23
Clear systems, structures and roles 14
Building support for policies 13
Implementing systems for monitoring and learning Monitoring mechanisms 12
Effective reporting and learning 10
Implementing governance structures that engage multisectoral government actors Mechanics of governance 16
Maintaining political support 19
Implementing processes to manage engagement with external stakeholders Harness the commitment of external stakeholders 14
Monitor industry influence and manage conflicts of interest 14
Open in a new tab

Implementing policy measures

The need for improved or strengthened implementation of policy measures was discussed at 27 meetings. Policy-makers identified a range of challenges to implementing specific nutrition policy measures recommended by WHO, which often related to difficulties in communicating and collaborating with implementing stakeholders and the lack of support from decision-makers in actioning the necessary policy measures. For example, policy-makers often reported being unable to access the requisite funds or personnel to promote and enforce policy activities on an ongoing basis. Policy-makers also frequently mentioned that unclear policy content could undermine a strong and effective policy response. For instance, nutrition regulations commonly lacked clear definitions and ways to classify the healthiness of food or they did not identify mechanisms for enforcement, such as sanctions.

Meeting participants clearly articulated the systemic capacities they would need to better implement nutrition policies in their countries. For instance, policy-makers wanted clearer operational plans for implementing specific policies that identify roles and responsibilities of implementing stakeholders, and clearer oversight and supervision from senior leadership. They identified greater policy coherence as a strategy for overcoming capacity limitations. For example, they called for changes to food regulations to ensure food labelling mandates contain requisite information to support a strong policy response and the integration of nutrition activities into the operational plans and responsibilities of a broader number of stakeholders. Policy-makers also called for nutrition policies to be underpinned by clear definitions to enable straightforward interpretation and implementation, and strong and clear sanctions to enable effective enforcement.

Policy-makers identified the need for a more consistent, compelling and contextually relevant body of evidence demonstrating policy effectiveness to convince governments to commit the requisite resourcing towards nutrition policy implementation and provide appropriate oversight. They also expressed the need for coherent evidence to inform decisions around specific policy parameters (Box 1): for example, consistency in definitions of healthy and unhealthy foods and ages of children to be targeted by restrictions on food marketing.

Box 1. Research requested to support country-level implementation of nutrition policies, Western Pacific Region, 2020.

  • Robust, contextually relevant evidence demonstrating economic and social gains associated with policy measures, including the impact of inaction

  • Development of policy briefs that anticipate and, where applicable, decisively counter non-evidence based industry opposition to globally recommended policy measures

  • Development of clear technical standards and definitions around policy inclusions and targets, for example, definitions on unhealthy foods, effective rates for food taxes and age of children to be targeted by marketing restrictions

  • Information on investment levels and support requirements for implementation of different policies

  • Research on implementation effectiveness and contextual influences on policy processes

  • Multicountry comparison on the effectiveness of various policy approaches

  • Development of standardized monitoring and surveillance frameworks for priority policies

  • Evidence to improve the functionality of multisectoral coordination mechanisms

  • Clarity of alignment between nutrition and other development or economic goals (e.g. SDGs, child protection, poverty and gender issues)

SDGs: sustainable development goals.

Note: We extracted policy-makers’ perspectives from reports of Member State consultations and meetings focusing on food and nutrition.

Monitoring and learning

Opportunities to strengthen the implementation of systems for monitoring and learning were discussed at 21 meetings. Policy-makers indicated they were not confident in systems for monitoring and reporting in their countries, in particular noting that data were not being reported back in a way that would necessarily incite reorientation or strengthening of policy measures. They reported lacking the capacity and tools for data collection and reporting, especially where other ministries and stakeholders were involved.

The ability to demonstrate the impact of successful measures was identified as a key determinant for maintaining accountability and garnering political and cross-sectoral support. In the context of capacity constraints, policy-makers identified the critical need for more efficient and reliable mechanisms to collect and collate routine information on policy implementation and compliance (Table 2). Additionally, policy-makers called for monitoring efforts to be extended beyond epidemiological indicators to include contextual influences on policy process and implementation effectiveness.

Meeting participants also noted that policy lessons should be presented such that they are easily interpreted and acted on by those with the power to influence political or public opinion (e.g. experts, media, civil society advocacy groups and community leaders). In order to more powerfully convey relevant nutrition policy messages, policy-makers were seeking skills in knowledge translation.

Multisectoral governance structures

In the reports, there was substantial policy-maker dialogue on mechanisms to strengthen multisectoral coordination and cooperation (17 out of 29 meetings). While most countries had interagency coordination mechanisms to facilitate multisectoral action, these were not necessarily facilitating meaningful dialogue or action. Of primary concern for policy-makers was the perceived lack of priority for nutrition among non-health actors within government, and associated difficulties mobilizing and sustaining input from them over time. Low political will for nutrition measures across government and among political leaders was widely reported at meetings.

Cross-ministerial championship from leaders was deemed critical for eliciting support across sectors (Table 2). In particular, policy-makers believed decision-makers needed to facilitate a cross-sectoral dialogue that reflects on both problems and solutions. Policy-makers from Member States that had achieved some level of policy success attributed that success to the oversight and championship of political leaders. Some of the mechanisms believed to be helpful in inciting and maintaining political interest in nutrition were: the availability of accurate, compelling and (where possible) nuanced data demonstrating the need for the particular policy approach; clear demonstration of both cost–effectiveness and the investment required to achieve policy effectiveness; alignment of policy measures with international accountability systems and commitments; and availability of contextually relevant information demonstrating feasibility and benefits across multiple government sectors.

Managing external stakeholders

Engagement with influential external stakeholders in the nutrition policy space was discussed at 21 of the 29 meetings. External stakeholders most often referred to were regional development partners (including the UN, donors and regional technical support programmes), civil society groups and the food industry.

Policy-makers called for stronger regional and bilateral cooperation to amplify nutrition policy efforts, especially in relation to food regulation, trade and cross-border sales and marketing. Meeting participants considered regional organizations to be in the best position to facilitate functional relationships across countries, for instance, by developing specialist support networks and actively negotiating agreements across common policy challenges. WHO, in particular, was called on to oversee greater policy coherence for nutrition by UN partners working at the country-level and to oversee a research agenda for nutrition policy. Several information gaps and research priorities were identified by policy-makers attending the meetings (Box 1).

Policy-makers frequently referred to the value of a strong and well informed civil society to engage on food and nutrition challenges. However, they noted that civil society groups often lacked the technical capacity and resources for credible and meaningful engagement and they requested that development partners work with these groups to develop the necessary strategic and technical capacities.

Meeting discussions raised numerous examples of where the food industry had undermined or weakened policy implementation efforts, by questioning the mandate of the enforcing agency, by legally opposing or circumnavigating policy rules or by targeting policy implementers (e.g. teachers and nurses). The policy-makers called on academia to enhance their preparedness for diminishing industry influence, for example, by providing evidence to persuasively counter industry objections to globally recommended policies and by developing systems to monitor food industry activity and expose violations of policy measures.

Way forward

Using the findings from our review and with reference to the published literature, we discuss below opportunities to improve policy design, planning, governance and implementation of globally recommended nutrition policies.

Capacity for implementation

Consistent with our theory on capacity,36 we identified that limitations related to a lack of staffing and resourcing need to be considered during policy development. Capacity challenges could also be partly alleviated through building the systemic capacity of implementing agencies and civil society partners,36,41,42 that is, the broader strategic and operational capacities required to fully implement a nutrition policy. For instance, skills in planning, implementation and actor mobilization,41,43 and confidence to generate and interpret monitoring and research for learning and accountability,41,43 are all likely to be vital for action on nutrition. This approach will require a reorientation of capacity development beyond a focus only on knowledge and technical skills, and towards more strategic competencies including coordination, negotiation, advocacy and leadership.41–43 The findings are also consistent with analyses of national nutrition policies that have found that policies often lack the requisite technical detail and mandate to facilitate a strong and effective policy response.17,41

Governance and political support

Consistent with previous research, the meeting reports confirm that political rhetoric for nutrition is, in many cases, unmatched at the country level by the resources and institutional structures necessary to institute strong policies and to sustain long-term nutrition gains.22,44,45 Lack of political interest in nutrition is a key reason to why policy implementation is typically insufficiently resourced, and the lack of impact resulting from under-resourcing further compromises commitment.44,45

Given challenges associated with mobilizing cross-sectoral actors, attracting cross-ministerial oversight of policies affecting population nutrition is needed. Such oversight should facilitate productive dialogue between cross-sectoral leaders and maintain their accountability for addressing nutrition issues.14,41,45

Implementation of recommended policies for improving nutrition is therefore reliant on garnering the support of policy leaders to engage across all dimensions of policy implementation. To elicit their interest, it will be vital to build the collective capacity of nutrition policy-makers and advocates to act in unison to position nutrition as a matter of importance across several sectors.46 For example, policy-makers could better position nutrition as an economic and development imperative for action across several public areas, such as human rights and educational outcomes. This framing may be critical in settings where powerful food industry interests undermine and resist increased regulations related to nutrition.47

External partners

The insights from this review support the operationalization of calls for greater political commitment to improving nutrition.14,44,45 External partners play an important role in generating political will by lending legitimacy to nutrition issues.45,46 Regional development partners can strengthen systemic and organizational capacity in countries,36,41 and can convene bilateral and regional actor networks to amplify collective efforts across countries.45,47 Furthermore, regional development partners should review their portfolios of support across multiple sectors to ensure that they are promoting coherence with nutrition policies.48

Our review suggests that WHO meetings can play an important role by engaging policy leaders in dialogue on what is required to sustain effective implementation beyond policy adoption. WHO already encourages research partners to contribute to evidence-based policy development and facilitates several global accountability mechanisms relevant to nutrition, including the Global nutrition policy reviews.49 However, WHO has an opportunity to encourage researcher partners to contribute further to the development of reliable and efficient policy monitoring and accountability systems.

WHO has established several region-specific nutrient profiling models to strengthen policy implementation, but this analysis of policy-maker perspectives suggests that expanding technical guidance to include further best-practice standards for nutrition policies is needed: for example, sugar-sweetened beverage tax design (that is, effective tax rates and taxation mechanisms) and clear definitions for restrictions on marketing to children. A more cohesive approach to best-practice nutrition policy guidance may be of great practical value for countries, by fostering consistency and efficiency, and strengthening justifications underpinning policy parameters.50 WHO’s Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC) offers a precedent that could also guide nutrition policy. The comprehensive policy agenda of FCTC requires approval by high-level leaders and whole-of-government action. Furthermore, the FCTC’s strong and consistent accountability mechanisms have weakened grounds for opposition by industry.47

Meeting reports as a data source

The meeting reports we analysed proved useful in capturing aggregated contributions and views of representing officials while overcoming sensitivities commonly associated with interviewing senior policy officials.51 The findings were consistent with more intensive approaches to data collection (e.g. in-depth interviews and review syntheses).41,42,45 In our case, aggregating the meeting reports represented an efficient mechanism for gathering the perspectives of policy-makers working across a range of diverse policy settings.

However, we acknowledge that the meeting reports represent summaries of proceedings by rapporteurs, rather than a verbatim record of proceedings, and are variable in the level of detail included. As an aggregated source of information, the individual views of policy-makers are rarely made explicit as part of the meeting reports. Further, the contributions of meeting participants are likely to reflect the perspectives of attending individuals and, as such, the diversity of opinions from Member States is not likely to be fully represented. The meeting reports are subject to reporting bias and should be interpreted with caution. However, the breadth of representation from Member States at meetings, and the relevance of the meetings to nutrition policy somewhat countered these limitations. While the meeting reports represent only views from the Western Pacific Region, our comparison with nutrition policy research conducted in other regions41,42 and globally44,45 has elucidated that the challenges being reported are similar to those being experienced in other contexts, and the lessons are therefore likely to be applicable to other regions. Nevertheless, the relevance of the findings to other regions requires further examination.

Conclusion

Our review revealed that policy-makers coordinating nutrition policy development and implementation within countries face challenges when implementing such policies, particularly in relation to monitoring and enforcement activities. These challenges result from a lack of human and financial resources across agencies that is required to support implementation. In many settings, governance mechanisms provide inadequate oversight to the commitments and responsibilities health and non-health actors have towards nutrition policies. The lack of commitment to addressing nutrition issues across government likely undermines critical aspects of policy implementation within countries. However, policy-makers have identified key enablers of sustained nutrition policy implementation, and call on political leaders and external partners to support them in progressing towards achieving successful implementation of best-practice food and nutrition policy measures.

Competing interests:

None declared.

References

  • 1.IFAD. UNICEF, WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019: safeguarding against economic slowdowns and downturns. Rome: FAO; 2019. Available from: http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CA5162EN/ [cited 2021 Jan 20].
  • 2.United Nations Decade of Action on Nutrition 2016-2025: Work Program. Rome: UN Decade of Nutrition Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation, World Health Organization; 2015. Available from: https://www.who.int/nutrition/decade-of-action/workprogramme-doa2016to2025-en.pdf?ua=1 [cited 2021 Mar 15].
  • 3.Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases: report of a joint WHO/FAO expert consultation. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003.Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42665/WHO_TRS_916.pdf?sequence=1 [cited 2021 Mar 1].
  • 4.The Global Health Observatory. Noncommunicable diseases: Mortality. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. Available from: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/topic-details/GHO/ncd-mortality [cited 2020 May 10].
  • 5.Afshin A, Sur PJ, Fay KA, Cornaby L, Ferrara G, Salama JS, et al. ; GBD 2017 Diet Collaborators. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2019. May 11;393(10184):1958–72. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30041-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nikoloski Z, Alqunaibet AM, Alfawaz RA, Almudarra SS, Herbst CH, El-Saharty S, et al. Covid-19 and non-communicable diseases: evidence from a systematic literature review. BMC Public Health. 2021. June 5;21(1):1068. 10.1186/s12889-021-11116-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004. Available from:https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/strategy/eb11344/strategy_english_web.pdf [cited 2021 Mar 1].
  • 8.Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases (2013-2020). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241506236 [cited 2021 Mar 1].
  • 9.Global nutrition policy review 2016-2017: country progress in creating enabling policy environments for promoting healthy diets and nutrition. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/275990. [cited 2019 May 10].
  • 10.Roberto CA, Swinburn B, Hawkes C, Huang TTK, Costa SA, Ashe M, et al. Patchy progress on obesity prevention: emerging examples, entrenched barriers, and new thinking. Lancet. 2015. Jun 13;385(9985):2400–9. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61744-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Barlow P, Labonte R, McKee M, Stuckler D. Trade challenges at the World Trade Organization to national noncommunicable disease prevention policies: a thematic document analysis of trade and health policy space. PLoS Med. 2018. Jun 26;15(6):e1002590. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Thow AM, Jones A, Hawkes C, Ali I, Labonte R. Nutrition labelling is a trade policy issue: lessons from an analysis of specific trade concerns at the World Trade Organization. Health Promot Int. 2018. Aug 1;33(4):561–71. 10.1093/heapro/daw109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Thow AM, Reeve E, Naseri T, Martyn T, Bollars C. Food supply, nutrition and trade policy: reversal of an import ban on turkey tails. Bull World Health Organ. 2017. Oct 1;95(10):723–5. 10.2471/BLT.17.192468 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mozaffarian D, Angell SY, Lang T, Rivera JA. Role of government policy in nutrition-barriers to and opportunities for healthier eating. BMJ. 2018. Jun 13;361:k2426. 10.1136/bmj.k2426 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Saracci R. Prevention in COVID-19 time: from failure to future. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2020. Sep;74(9):689–91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Apicella M, Campopiano MC, Mantuano M, Mazoni L, Coppelli A, Del Prato S. COVID-19 in people with diabetes: understanding the reasons for worse outcomes. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020. Sep;8(9):782–92. 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30238-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Global nutrition policy review: what does it take to scale up nutrition action? Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/84408 [cited 2021 Mar 1].
  • 18.Global nutrition report 2017: nourishing the SDGs. Bristol: Development Initiatives; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pelletier DL, Gervais S, Hafeez–ur–Rehman H, Sanou D, Tumwine J. Boundary–spanning actors in complex adaptive governance systems: the case of multisectoral nutrition. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2017;1(27):e293–319. [</jrn>] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Assessing national capacity for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases: Report of the 2019 global survey. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/ncd-ccs-2019 [cited 2020 Sep 5].
  • 21.Dodd R, Reeve E, Sparks E, George A, Vivili P, Win Tin ST, et al. The politics of food in the Pacific: coherence and tension in regional policies on nutrition, the food environment and non-communicable diseases. Public Health Nutr. 2020. Jan;23(1):168–80. 10.1017/S1368980019002118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pelletier DL, Frongillo EA, Gervais S, Hoey L, Menon P, Ngo T, et al. Nutrition agenda setting, policy formulation and implementation: lessons from the Mainstreaming Nutrition Initiative. Health Policy Plan. 2012. Jan;27(1):19–31. 10.1093/heapol/czr011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Thow AM, Quested C, Juventin L, Russkun N, Swinburn B. Taxing soft drinks in the Pacific: implementation lessons for improving health. Health Promot Int. 2011. Mar;26(1):55–64. 10.1093/heapro/daq057 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tumilowicz A, Ruel MT, Pelto G, Pelletier D, Monterrosa EC, Lapping K, et al. ; Society for Implementation Science in Nutrition. Implementation science in nutrition: concepts and frameworks for an emerging field of science and practice. Curr Dev Nutr. 2018. Oct 13;3(3):nzy080. 10.1093/cdn/nzy080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Menon P, Covic NM, Harrigan PB, Horton SE, Kazi NM, Lamstein S, et al. Strengthening implementation and utilization of nutrition interventions through research: a framework and research agenda. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014. Dec;1332(1):39–59. 10.1111/nyas.12447 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Head BW. Three lenses of evidence-based policy. Aust J Public Adm. 2008;67(1):1–11. 10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00564.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Marmot MG. Evidence based policy or policy based evidence? BMJ. 2004. Apr 17;328(7445):906–7. 10.1136/bmj.328.7445.906 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Factsheet: noncommunicable diseases in the Western Pacific 2019. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019. Available from: https://www.who.int/westernpacific/health-topics/noncommunicable-diseases [cited 2020 Nov 10].
  • 29.Noncommunicable diseases progress monitor 2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. Available from:https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/ncd-progress-monitor-2020. [cited 2020 Nov 10].
  • 30.NOURISHING database [internet]. London: WCRF International; 2021. Available from: https://policydatabase.wcrf.org/ [cited 2021 Mar 1].
  • 31.Reeve E, Thow AM, Bell C, Engelhardt K, Gamolo-Naliponguit EC, Go JJ, et al. Implementation lessons for school food policies and marketing restrictions in the Philippines: a qualitative policy analysis. Global Health. 2018. Jan 23;14(1):8. 10.1186/s12992-017-0320-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Onagan FCC, Ho BLC, Chua KKT. Development of a sweetened beverage tax, Philippines. Bull World Health Organ. 2019. Feb 1;97(2):154–9. 10.2471/BLT.18.220459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Latu C, Moodie M, Coriakula J, Waqa G, Snowdon W, Bell C. Barriers and facilitators to food policy development in Fiji. Food Nutr Bull. 2018. Dec;39(4):621–31. 10.1177/0379572118797083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Institutional Repository for Information Sharing [internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/ [cited 2019 Sep 27].
  • 35.Walt G, Gilson L. Reforming the health sector in developing countries: the central role of policy analysis. Health Policy Plan. 1994. Dec;9(4):353–70. 10.1093/heapol/9.4.353 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Potter C, Brough R. Systemic capacity building: a hierarchy of needs. Health Policy Plan. 2004. Sep;19(5):336–45. 10.1093/heapol/czh038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Spillane JP, Reiser BJ, Reimer T. Policy implementation and cognition: reframing and refocusing implementation research. Rev Educ Res. 2002;72(3):387–431. 10.3102/00346543072003387 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.DiMaggio PJ. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In: Zucker L, editor. Institutional patterns and organizations. Cambridge; Ballinger: 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lupia A. Delegation of power: agency theory. In: Smelser NJ, Baltes PB, editors. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Oxford: Pergamon; 2001. pp. 3375–7. 10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01129-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Reeve E. Perspectives of Member State representatives on enablers of nutrition policy implementation, extracted from relevant Western Pacific Region of the World Health Organization meeting reports 2004-2019. In: Supplementary material: Policy-makers’ perspectives on implementation of cross-sectoral nutrition policies, Western Pacific Region. London: figshare; 2021. 10.6084/m9.figshare.16388136 10.6084/m9.figshare.16388136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 41.Gillespie S, Menon P, Kennedy AL. Scaling up impact on nutrition: what will it take? Adv Nutr. 2015. Jul 15;6(4):440–51. 10.3945/an.115.008276 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Pelletier DL, Menon P, Ngo T, Frongillo EA, Frongillo D. The nutrition policy process: the role of strategic capacity in advancing national nutrition agendas. Food Nutr Bull. 2011. Jun;32(2) Suppl:S59–69. 10.1177/15648265110322S203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Nisbett N, Wach E, Haddad L, El Arifeen S. What drives and constrains effective leadership in tackling child undernutrition? Findings from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India and Kenya. Food Policy. 2015;53:33–45. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.04.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Heaver R. Strengthening country commitment to human development: lessons from nutrition. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; 2005. 10.1596/0-8213-6037-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Baker P, Hawkes C, Wingrove K, Demaio AR, Parkhurst J, Thow AM, et al. What drives political commitment for nutrition? A review and framework synthesis to inform the United Nations Decade of Action on Nutrition. BMJ Glob Health. 2018. Feb 10;3(1):e000485. 10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000485 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Shiffman J, Smith S. Generation of political priority for global health initiatives: a framework and case study of maternal mortality. Lancet. 2007. Oct 13;370(9595):1370–9. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61579-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Studlar D, Cairney P. Multilevel governance, public health and the regulation of food: is tobacco control policy a model? J Public Health Policy. 2019. Jun;40(2):147–65. 10.1057/s41271-019-00165-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Policy coherence for sustainable development 2017: eradicating poverty and promoting prosperity. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Global nutrition policy review 2016-2017: country progress in creating enabling policy environments for promoting healthy diets and nutrition. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241514873 [cited 2021 Sep 28].
  • 50.Evaluating implementation of the WHO Set of Recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children. Progress, challenges and guidance for next steps in the WHO European Region (2018). Copenhagen: Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization; 2018. Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/nutrition/publications/2018/evaluating-implementation-of-the-who-set-of-recommendations-on-the-marketing-of-foods-and-non-alcoholic-beverages-to-children.-progress,-challenges-and-guidance-for-next-steps-in-the-who-european-region [cited 2020 Nov 11].
  • 51.Walt G, Shiffman J, Schneider H, Murray SF, Brugha R, Gilson L. ‘Doing’ health policy analysis: methodological and conceptual reflections and challenges. Health Policy Plan. 2008. Sep;23(5):308–17. 10.1093/heapol/czn024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Bulletin of the World Health Organization are provided here courtesy of World Health Organization

RESOURCES