4.3 Review

Assessment of evaluations made to healthy eating policies in Europe: a review within the EATWELL Project

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
Volume 15, Issue 8, Pages 1489-1496

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980011003107

Keywords

Europe; EATWELL Project; Food and nutrition policy; Healthy eating

Funding

  1. European Community under the Seventh Framework Programme for Cooperation, Theme Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology [226713]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To identify and assess healthy eating policies at national level which have been evaluated in terms of their impact on awareness of healthy eating, food consumption, health outcome or cost/benefit. Design: Review of policy documents and their evaluations when available. Setting: European Member States. Subjects: One hundred and twenty-one policy documents revised, 107 retained. Results: Of the 107 selected interventions, twenty-two had been evaluated for their impact on awareness or knowledge and twenty-seven for their impact on consumption. Furthermore sixteen interventions provided an evaluation of health impact, while three actions specifically measured any cost/benefit ratio. The indicators used in these evaluations were in most cases not comparable. Evaluation was more often found for public information campaigns, regulation of meals at schools/canteens and nutrition education programmes. Conclusions: The study highlights the need not only to develop harmonized and verifiable procedures but also indicators for measuring effectiveness and success and for comparing between interventions and countries. EU policies are recommended to provide a set of indicators that may be measured consistently and regularly in all countries. Furthermore, public information campaigns should be accompanied by other interventions, as evaluations may show an impact on awareness and intention, but rarely on consumption patterns and health outcome.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available