“…Furthermore, the strategies should be refined continuously supported by frequent intelligence gathering. For organisations unable to resource all steps of the model, we suggest investing in the essential strategies of [17]:investing in relationshipsgathering intelligencedeveloping a clear, unified solution, andemploying or developing the skills/traits of a policy entrepreneur.Fig. 1A conceptual model for influencing government nutrition policy…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This requires gathering intelligence about the system, its key influences, and spaces where power is concentrated in the policy network:
“The first rule is always understand who actually makes the decision…On what basis do they make the decision? Who are they genuinely influenced by and how do you manage those processes?” (Lobbyist) [17].
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The general public’s active interest in health and nutrition has led to increased competition in the nutrition policymaking space effectively diluting the voice of nutrition scientists and professionals in policymaking.
“ Everybody’s an expert in nutrition…So it’s hard for scientists in the area to get traction because everyone’s opinion seems to be given equal weigh on the web” . (Public Health Academic 2) [17].
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This issue was found in the systematic review and raised by several of the in-depth interview participants:
“One of the really key things generally is you've got a much better chance at getting action when it's clear what the action should be. In the nutrition case, it's not at all clear what the action should be.” (Federal Bureaucrat 3) [17]
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…food industry, nutrition academic, to influence policy decision-makers were analysed. Cluster analysis, and two measures of influence: path distance of actors from decision-makers and betweenness centrality, were also undertaken.• The food industry has the greatest capacity to influence nutrition policy in Australia compared to all other professional categories.• Nutrition professionals are far removed from key policy decision-makers, with limited strategic relationships.• There are two key brokers, a general health professional from a non-government organisation and a nutrition academic, in the network that both play different brokerage roles.In-depth interviews [17]Thirty seven nutrition policy decision-makers and key influencers were purposively selected to participate in semi-structured, in-depth interviews which examined the key barriers and enablers to nutrition policy change. Participants were chosen based on their ability to represent views from different ‘sides’ of the issue and obtain maximum diversity.…”
Influencing public policy change can be difficult and complex, particularly for those with limited power and resources. For any one issue there may be several groups, including the commercial sector and public health advocates advocating from different policy perspectives. However, much of the public health advocacy literature and tools available for those wanting to improve their practice is based on research from one specific perspective of an issue. This approach deprives advocates of potential insight into the most effective levers for this complex and difficult process. To provide a more comprehensive insight into effective levers for influencing public health policy change, a conceptual model for poorly-resourced advocates was developed. The model was developed through the integration and synthesis of policy process and network theories with the results from three studies conducted previously by the authors: a systematic literature review; a social network analysis of influential actors in Australian nutrition policy; plus in-depth interviews with a sample of these actors who had diverse perspectives on influencing nutrition policy. Through understanding the key steps in this model advocates will be better equipped to increase political and public will, and affect positive policy change.
“…Furthermore, the strategies should be refined continuously supported by frequent intelligence gathering. For organisations unable to resource all steps of the model, we suggest investing in the essential strategies of [17]:investing in relationshipsgathering intelligencedeveloping a clear, unified solution, andemploying or developing the skills/traits of a policy entrepreneur.Fig. 1A conceptual model for influencing government nutrition policy…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This requires gathering intelligence about the system, its key influences, and spaces where power is concentrated in the policy network:
“The first rule is always understand who actually makes the decision…On what basis do they make the decision? Who are they genuinely influenced by and how do you manage those processes?” (Lobbyist) [17].
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The general public’s active interest in health and nutrition has led to increased competition in the nutrition policymaking space effectively diluting the voice of nutrition scientists and professionals in policymaking.
“ Everybody’s an expert in nutrition…So it’s hard for scientists in the area to get traction because everyone’s opinion seems to be given equal weigh on the web” . (Public Health Academic 2) [17].
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This issue was found in the systematic review and raised by several of the in-depth interview participants:
“One of the really key things generally is you've got a much better chance at getting action when it's clear what the action should be. In the nutrition case, it's not at all clear what the action should be.” (Federal Bureaucrat 3) [17]
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…food industry, nutrition academic, to influence policy decision-makers were analysed. Cluster analysis, and two measures of influence: path distance of actors from decision-makers and betweenness centrality, were also undertaken.• The food industry has the greatest capacity to influence nutrition policy in Australia compared to all other professional categories.• Nutrition professionals are far removed from key policy decision-makers, with limited strategic relationships.• There are two key brokers, a general health professional from a non-government organisation and a nutrition academic, in the network that both play different brokerage roles.In-depth interviews [17]Thirty seven nutrition policy decision-makers and key influencers were purposively selected to participate in semi-structured, in-depth interviews which examined the key barriers and enablers to nutrition policy change. Participants were chosen based on their ability to represent views from different ‘sides’ of the issue and obtain maximum diversity.…”
Influencing public policy change can be difficult and complex, particularly for those with limited power and resources. For any one issue there may be several groups, including the commercial sector and public health advocates advocating from different policy perspectives. However, much of the public health advocacy literature and tools available for those wanting to improve their practice is based on research from one specific perspective of an issue. This approach deprives advocates of potential insight into the most effective levers for this complex and difficult process. To provide a more comprehensive insight into effective levers for influencing public health policy change, a conceptual model for poorly-resourced advocates was developed. The model was developed through the integration and synthesis of policy process and network theories with the results from three studies conducted previously by the authors: a systematic literature review; a social network analysis of influential actors in Australian nutrition policy; plus in-depth interviews with a sample of these actors who had diverse perspectives on influencing nutrition policy. Through understanding the key steps in this model advocates will be better equipped to increase political and public will, and affect positive policy change.
Objective:To examine key factors influencing the prioritisation of food and nutrition in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health policy during 1996–2015.Design:A qualitative policy analysis case study was undertaken, combining document analysis with thematic analysis of key informant interviews.Setting:Australia.Participants:Key actors involved in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health policy between 1996 and 2015 (n 38).Results:Prioritisation of food and nutrition in policy reduced over time. Several factors which may have impeded the prioritisation of nutrition were identified. These included lack of cohesion among the community of nutritionists, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and civil society actors advocating for nutrition; the absence of an institutional home for nutrition policy; and lack of consensus and a compelling policy narrative about how priority nutrition issues should be addressed. Political factors including ideology, dismantling of public health nutrition governance structures and missing the opportunities presented by ‘policy windows’ were also viewed as barriers to nutrition policy change. Finally, the complexity and multifaceted nature of nutrition as a policy problem and perceived lack of evidence-based solutions may also have constrained its prioritisation in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health policy.Conclusions:Future advocacy should focus on embedding nutrition within holistic approaches to health and building a collective voice through advocacy coalitions with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership. Strategic communication and seizing political opportunities may be as important as evidence for raising the priority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health issues.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
