Interventions for obesity prevention in early childhood (first 5 years of life) are likely to have a significant preventive health impact. This mapping review identified recommended policy options for the Australian Federal Government (AFG) by comparing countries with similar population, income, and language to Australia. Policies were mapped in six countries using two matrices. The first matrix examined policy context, describing obesity prevention governance. The second matrix examined policy content, compared with global recommendations. Policies were grouped into downstream (healthcare), midstream (lifestyle and settings), and upstream (determinants of health, including food and built environments). Results identified variance in obesity governance across the six countries including policy coherence, leadership, institutional drivers, and overlapping responsibility across different levels of government.While countries tended to have more downstream or midstream policies, upstream policies were more likely when countries had invested in system-wide approaches to obesity such as developing a national obesity strategy, having separate food/nutrition and physical activity plans, and a dedicated preventive health agency.This study recommends a range of initiatives for the AFG to strengthen policies for the prevention of obesity in early childhood, including prioritising the development of a national food/nutrition strategy.

The proportion of Australian children meeting fruit and vegetable recommendations are sub-optimal across all SES groups which suggests that a national approach across demographic strata is warranted. SO WHAT?: Future health promotion interventions should have a refocus on vegetables instead of "fruit and vegetables," particularly in the key transition period when children start pre-school.

BackgroundParenting, Eating and Activity for Child Health (PEACH™) is a multicomponent treatment program delivered over ten group sessions to parents of overweight/obese primary school-aged children. It has been shown to be efficacious in an RCT and was recently translated to a large-scale community intervention funded by the Queensland (Australia) Government. Engagement (enrolment and attendance) was critical to achieving program outcomes and was challenging. The purpose of the present study was to examine sample characteristics and mediating factors that potentially influenced program attendance.MethodsData collected from parents who attended at least one PEACH™ Queensland session delivered between October 2013 and October 2015 (47 programs implemented in 29 discrete sites), was used in preliminary descriptive analyses of sample characteristics and multilevel single linear regression analyses. Mediation analysis examined associations between socio-demographic and parent characteristics and attendance at group sessions and potential mediation by child and parent factors.Results365/467 (78%) enrolled families (92% mothers) including 411/519 (79%) children (55% girls, mean age 9 ± 2 years) attended at least one session (mean 5.6 ± 3.2). A majority of families (69%) self-referred to the program. Program attendance was greater in: advantaged (5.9 ± 3.1 sessions) vs disadvantaged families (5.4 ± 3.4 sessions) (p < 0.05); partnered (6.1 ± 3.1 sessions) vs un-partnered parents (5.0 ± 3.1 sessions) (p < 0.01); higher educated (6.1 ± 3.0 sessions) vs lower educated parents (5.1 ± 3.3 sessions) (p = 0.02); and self-referral (6.1 ± 3.1) vs professional referral (4.7 ± 3.3) (p < 0.001). Child (age, gender, pre-program healthy eating) and parent (perceptions of child weight, self-efficacy) factors did not mediate these relationships.ConclusionsTo promote reach and effectiveness of up-scaled programs, it is important to identify ways to engage less advantaged families who carry higher child obesity risk. Understanding differences in referral source and parent readiness for change may assist in tailoring program content. The influence of program-level factors (e.g. facilitator and setting characteristics) should be investigated as possible alternative mediators to program engagement.

BackgroundPEACH™QLD translated the PEACH™ Program, designed to manage overweight/obesity in primary school-aged children, from efficacious RCT and small scale community trial to a larger state-wide program. This paper describes the lessons learnt when upscaling to universal health coverage.MethodsThe 6-month, family-focussed program was delivered in Queensland, Australia from 2013 to 2016. Its implementation was planned by researchers who developed the program and conducted the RCT, and experienced project managers and practitioners across the health continuum. The intervention targeted parents as the agents of change and was delivered via parent-only group sessions. Concurrently, children attended fun, non-competitive activity sessions. Sessions were delivered by facilitators who received standardised training and were employed by a range of service providers. Participants were referred by health professionals or self-referred in response to extensive promotion and marketing. A pilot phase and a quality improvement framework were planned to respond to emerging challenges.ResultsImplementation challenges included engagement of the health system; participant recruitment; and engagement. A total of 1513 children (1216 families) enrolled, with 1122 children (919 families) in the face-to-face program (105 groups in 50 unique venues) and 391 children (297 families) in PEACH™ Online. Self-referral generated 68% of enrolments. Unexpected, concurrent and, far-reaching public health system changes contributed to poor program uptake by the sector (only 56 [53%] groups delivered by publicly-funded health organisations) requiring substantial modification of the original implementation plan. Process evaluation during the pilot phase and an ongoing quality improvement framework informed program adaptations that included changing from fortnightly to weekly sessions aligned with school terms, revision of parent materials, modification of eligibility criteria to include healthy weight children and provision of services privately. Comparisons between pilot versus state-wide waves showed comparable prevalence of families not attending any sessions (25% vs 28%) but improved number of sessions attended (median = 5 vs 7) and completion rates (43% vs 56%).ConclusionsTranslating programs developed in the research context to enable implementation at scale is complex and presents substantial challenges. Planning must ensure there is flexibility to accommodate and proactively manage the system changes that are inevitable over time.Trial registrationACTRN12617000315314. This trial was registered retrospectively on 28 February, 2017.

Informed by the Innocenti framework, this rapid review of systematic reviews (n = 60) and sentinel grey literature (n = 27) synthesises the evidence of what works to improve nutrition and food sustainability across the first 2000 days. Most systematic reviews focused on interventions targeting the behaviour of parents and caregivers (n = 49), with fewer reviews focusing on the personal (n = 7) and external (n = 4) food environments. No reviews focused on food supply-chain activities. Most reviews were rated as critically low (n = 28, 47%) or low (n = 21, 35%) quality using AMSTAR 2. Evidence supports the effectiveness of multi-component breastfeeding interventions, interventions delivered in home and child-care settings, particularly when involving parents, interactive skill building and repeated exposure to vegetables. Food vouchers and access to local farmers markets and community gardens have potential for improving access and availability to healthier foods, while evidence supports interventions improving the external food environment, including fiscal strategies such as the SSB tax, restrictions on marketing and advertising of discretionary products and improved food labelling. Overall, this review highlights the importance of action across a range of settings and sectors at the international, national and local levels to improve young children’s diets.

Why do some people remain lean while others are susceptible to obesity, and why do obese individuals vary in their successes in losing weight? Despite physiological processes that promote satiety and satiation, some individuals are more susceptible to overeating. While the phenomena of susceptibility to weight gain, resistance to treatment or weight loss, and individual variability are not novel, they have yet to be exploited and systematically examined to better understand how to characterise phenotypes of obesity. The identification and characterisation of distinct phenotypes not only highlight the heterogeneous nature of obesity but may also help to inform the development of more tailored strategies for the treatment and prevention of obesity. This review examines the evidence for different susceptible phenotypes of obesity that are characterised by risk factors associated with the hedonic and homeostatic systems of appetite control.

Rates of childhood obesity have increased globally over the last few decades. 1 In Australia, one in five children aged 2-3 years is above their healthy weight. 2 The World Health Organisation (WHO) Report of the Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity 3 identified a range of health promotion actions governments can take to prevent (and manage) childhood obesity across the spectrum of public health approaches to obesity. These approaches include socio-ecological (eg food and physical activity environments, behavioural (eg education for families and carers, and health care action areas. 4 The WHO report identified the early years, the first 5 years of life, as a key life stage for governments to act. Australia has federal, state/territory and local governments, and policies intended to achieve the same outcome can be

BackgroundThe international increase in the prevalence of childhood obesity has hastened in recent decades. This rise has coincided with the emergence of comorbidities in childhood—such as type II diabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, metabolic syndrome, sleep apnoea and hypertension—formerly only described in adulthood. This phenomenon suggests global social and economic trends are impacting on health supportive environments. Obesity prevention is complex and necessitates both long-term and systems approaches. Such an approach considers the determinants of health and how they interrelate to one another. Investment in the early years (from conception to about 5 years of age) is a key life stage to prevent obesity and establish lifelong healthy habits relating to nutrition, physical activity, sedentary behavior and sleep. In Australia, obesity prevention efforts are spread across national and state/territory health departments. It is not known from the literature how, with limited national oversight, state and territory health departments approach obesity prevention in the early years.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study including policy mapping and interviews with senior officials from each Australian state/territory health department. A series of questions were developed from the literature to guide the policy mapping, drawing on the World Health Organisation Ending Childhood Obesity Report, and adapted to the state/territory context. The policy mapping was iterative. Prior to the interviews initial policy mapping was undertaken. During the interviews, these policies were discussed, and participants were asked to supply any additional policies of relevance to obesity prevention. The semi-structured interviews explored the approaches to obesity prevention taken in each jurisdiction and the barriers and enablers faced for policy implementation. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data, using NVivo software.ResultsState and territory approaches to obesity prevention are eclectic and while there are numerous similarities between jurisdictions, no two states are the same. The diversity of approaches between jurisdictions is influenced by the policy culture and unique social, geographic, and funding contexts in each jurisdiction. No Australian state/territory had policies against all the guiding questions. However, there are opportunities for sharing and collaborating within and between Australian jurisdictions to establish what works, where, and for whom, across Australia's complex policy landscape.ConclusionsEven within a single country, obesity prevention policy needs to be adaptable to local contexts. Opportunities for jurisdictions within and between countries to share, learn, and adapt their experiences should be supported and sustained funding provided.