Advocacy coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate: Exploring coalition structure, policy beliefs, resources, and strategies.

Advocacy coalitions often play an important role in the state health policymaking process, yet little is known about their structure, composition, and behavior. In 2008, California became the first state to enact a menu labeling law. Using the advocacy coalition framework, we examine different facets of the coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate. We use a qualitative research approach to identify coalition members and explore their expressed beliefs and policy arguments, resources, and strategies by analyzing legislative documents (n = 87) and newspaper articles (n = 78) produced between 1999 and 2009. Between 2003 and 2008, six menu labeling bills were introduced in the state's legislature. We found the issue received increasing media attention during this period. We identified two advocacy coalitions involved in the debate-a public health (PH) coalition and an industry coalition. State organizations acted as coalition leaders and participated for a longer duration than elected officials. The structure and composition of each coalition varied. PH coalition leadership and membership notably increased compared to the industry coalition. The PH coalition, led by nonprofit PH and health organizations, promoted a clear and consistent message around informed decision making. The industry coalition, led by a state restaurant association, responded with cost and implementation arguments. Each coalition used various resources and strategies to advance desired outcomes. PH coalition leaders were particularly effective at using resources and employing advocacy strategies, which included engaging state legislators as coalition members, using public opinion polls and information, and leveraging media resources to garner support. Policy precedence and a local policy push emerged as important policymaking strategies. Areas for future research on the state health policymaking process are discussed

Use of research evidence in state health policymaking: Menu labeling policy in California.

Addressing the translational gap between research evidence and state health policy requires an understanding of the current use of research evidence in the state policymaking process. In this study, we explore the use of research evidence to inform the legislative debate about restaurant nutrition labeling policy in California. In 2008, California was the first state to enact a mandatory menu calorie labeling policy in the U.S. Using a qualitative approach, we examine data sources and types of evidence used in legislative documents (n = 87) related to six menu labeling bills introduced in California's state legislature between 2003 and 2008. Federal- and state-level government agency reports were the most frequently cited sources of technical knowledge. Advocacy coalition members who were active participants involved in the policy debate were also cited as experts. Five of the six bills included evidence in related legislative documents. While documents included considerable evidence on the magnitude and severity of the obesity problem to justify policy enactment, there were a limited number of statements referring to policy effectiveness and only one statement identified attesting to implementation context and acceptability. Reference to evidence on related policy suggests policy precedence may also play an important role in policy decision making. There is a need to improve the dissemination of obesity policy effectiveness and implementation studies in a politically time sensitive manner to influence state health policy debates. Strategies are discussed to effectively integrate the use of research evidence in the state health policymaking process

Advocacy coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate: Exploring coalition structure, policy beliefs, resources, and strategies.

Advocacy coalitions often play an important role in the state health policymaking process, yet little is known about their structure, composition, and behavior. In 2008, California became the first state to enact a menu labeling law. Using the advocacy coalition framework, we examine different facets of the coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate. We use a qualitative research approach to identify coalition members and explore their expressed beliefs and policy arguments, resources, and strategies by analyzing legislative documents (n = 87) and newspaper articles (n = 78) produced between 1999 and 2009. Between 2003 and 2008, six menu labeling bills were introduced in the state's legislature. We found the issue received increasing media attention during this period. We identified two advocacy coalitions involved in the debate-a public health (PH) coalition and an industry coalition. State organizations acted as coalition leaders and participated for a longer duration than elected officials. The structure and composition of each coalition varied. PH coalition leadership and membership notably increased compared to the industry coalition. The PH coalition, led by nonprofit PH and health organizations, promoted a clear and consistent message around informed decision making. The industry coalition, led by a state restaurant association, responded with cost and implementation arguments. Each coalition used various resources and strategies to advance desired outcomes. PH coalition leaders were particularly effective at using resources and employing advocacy strategies, which included engaging state legislators as coalition members, using public opinion polls and information, and leveraging media resources to garner support. Policy precedence and a local policy push emerged as important policymaking strategies. Areas for future research on the state health policymaking process are discussed

United for health to improve urban food environments across five underserved communities: a cross-sector coalition approach.

BackgroundCross-sector coalitions can be a powerful vehicle to promote adoption and implementation of evidence-based programs and policies across diverse racial/ethnic communities with a high chronic disease burden. Few studies have examined coalition composition, function, or capacity to promote learning among members.MethodsWe used a mixed methods approach to examine the United for Health coalition's implementation of multiple food environment interventions across five low-income communities of color in Los Angeles, California (USA). At the coalition-level, key measures included the collaborative environment, membership characteristics, process and structure, communication, resources, strengths, challenges/barriers, and community impact. At the organizational- and individual-levels, we collected data on participation, leadership development, intraorganizational change, perceived benefits, and learning outcomes.FindingsOverall, the United for Health coalition produced five community gardens, three pop-up produce markets, and one farmers' market; members also expanded Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) access at three existing farmers' markets. Findings indicate early coalition strengths included having a mutual purpose, which was maintained throughout the study period. Coalition participation and engagement was consistently high, while coalition and inter-organizational communication improved over time. Strengths were membership diversity and the availability of learning opportunities. Benefits included leadership development and strategic alignment across organizations. Members demonstrated an increased awareness of the importance of culturally adapted interventions and knowledge of community health planning topics. Key implementation challenges were a lack of resources and social context barriers.ConclusionsExamining coalition function and maturation in a real-world context reveals important lessons for scholars and practitioners committed to addressing nutrition-related health disparities in marginalized and historically underserved communities. Future work should investigate the sustainability of externally funded cross-sector coalitions after funding ceases

Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Healthy Eating and School Lunch Meals among Adolescents: A Qualitative Study

ObjectivesWe explored how perceived barriers and facilitators influence healthy eating and investigated the acceptability of changes to school lunch meals among adolescents after implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.MethodsWe conducted 8 focus groups with adolescents (N = 64) at 3 South Los Angeles high schools. Data collection instruments included a semi-structured guide and questionnaire. Two researchers independently coded transcripts.ResultsMost participants believed fruits and vegetables were available in their community and reported high relative cost, poor quality, and lack of motivation as barriers to consumption. Many said school meals were an important source of healthy food and were aware of recent changes to the school lunch program. A primary facilitator to eating school lunches was access to fresh food items (eg, a salad bar). Perceived barriers included long cafeteria lines, time constraints, lack of variety, and limited quantities of preferred items. Adolescents viewed off-campus food establishments near the school as competition to school meals.ConclusionsOur findings suggest the need to measure perceived and actual barriers to healthy eating among adolescents and to examine the effect of these barriers on dietary behavior. We provide programmatic and policy recommendations

Catalyzing Implementation of Evidence-Based Interventions in Safety Net Settings: A Clinical–Community Partnership in South Los Angeles

This study is a process evaluation of a clinical-community partnership that implemented evidence-based interventions in clinical safety net settings. Adoption and implementation of evidence-based interventions in these settings can help reduce health disparities by improving the quality of clinical preventive services in health care settings with underserved populations. A clinical-community partnership model is a possible avenue to catalyze adoption and implementation of interventions amid organizational barriers to change. Three Federally Qualified Health Centers in South Los Angeles participated in a partnership led by a local community-based organization (CBO) to implement hypertension interventions. Qualitative research methods were used to evaluate intervention selection and implementation processes between January 2014 and June 2015. Data collection tools included a key participant interview guide, health care provider interview guide, and protocol for taking meeting minutes. This case study demonstrates how a CBO acted as an external facilitator and employed a collaborative partnership model to catalyze implementation of evidence-based interventions in safety net settings. The study phases observed included initiation, planning, and implementation. Three emergent categories of organizational facilitators and barriers were identified (personnel capacity, professional development capacity, and technological capacity). Key participants and health care providers expressed a high level of satisfaction with the collaborative and the interventions, respectively. The CBO's role as a facilitator and catalyst is a replicable model to promote intervention adoption and implementation in safety net settings. Key lessons learned are provided for researchers and practitioners interested in partnering with Federally Qualified Health Centers to implement health promotion interventions

Improving the Nutritional Resource Environment for Healthy Living Through Community-based Participatory Research

OBJECTIVES: To build health promotion capacity among community residents through a community-based participatory model, and to apply this model to study the nutritional environment of an urban area to better understand the role of such resources in residents' efforts to live a healthy life. DESIGN: A multiphase collaborative study that inventoried selected markets in targeted areas of high African-American concentration in comparison with markets in a contrasting wealthier area with fewer African Americans. SETTING: A community study set in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. PARTICIPANTS: African-American community organizations and community residents in the target areas. INTERVENTIONS: Two surveys of market inventories were conducted. The first was a single-sheet form profiling store conditions and the availability of a small selection of healthy foods. The second provided detailed information on whether the store offered fruit, vegetables, low-fat dairy products, dried goods and other items necessary for residents to consume a nutritious diet. RESULTS: The targeted areas were significantly less likely to have important items for living a healthier life. The variety and quality of fresh fruit and vegetable produce was significantly lower in the target areas. Such products as 1% milk, skim milk, low-fat and nonfat cheese, soy milk, tofu, whole grain pasta and breads, and low-fat meat and poultry items were sig-nificantly less available. CONCLUSIONS: Healthy food products were significantly less available in the target areas. The authors conclude from these results that the health disparities experienced by African-American communities have origins that extend beyond the health delivery system and individual behaviors inasmuch as adherence to the healthy lifestyle associated with low chronic disease risk is more difficult in resource-poor neighborhoods than in resource-rich ones