4.6 Review

Impact of policy and built environment changes on obesity-related outcomes: a systematic review of naturally occurring experiments

Journal

OBESITY REVIEWS
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages 362-375

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/obr.12269

Keywords

Diet; natural experiments; obesity; physical activity

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [2R01 HL071759]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Policies and changes to the built environment are promising targets for obesity prevention efforts and can be evaluated as natural'- or quasi'-experiments. This systematic review examined the use of natural- or quasi-experiments to evaluate the efficacy of policy and built environment changes on obesity-related outcomes (body mass index, diet or physical activity). PubMed (Medline) was searched for studies published 2005-2013; 1,175 abstracts and 115 papers were reviewed. Of the 37 studies included, 18 studies evaluated impacts on nutrition/diet, 17 on physical activity and 3 on body mass index. Nutrition-related studies found greater effects because of bans/restrictions on unhealthy foods, mandates offering healthier foods, and altering purchase/payment rules on foods purchased using low-income food vouchers compared with other interventions (menu labelling, new supermarkets). Physical activity-related studies generally found stronger impacts when the intervention involved improvements to active transportation infrastructure, longer follow-up time or measured process outcomes (e.g. cycling rather than total physical activity), compared with other studies. Only three studies directly assessed body mass index or weight, and only one (installing light-rail system) observed a significant effect. Studies varied widely in the strength of their design and studies with weaker designs were more likely to report associations in the positive direction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available