Mandatory nutrition labelling, introduced in Malaysia in 2003, received a "medium implementation" rating from public health experts when previously benchmarked against international best practices by our group. The rating prompted this qualitative case study to explore barriers and facilitators during the policy process. Methods incorporated semi-structured interviews supplemented with cited documents and historical mapping of local and international directions up to 2017. Case participants held senior positions in the Federal government (n = 6), food industry (n = 3) and civil society representations (n = 3). Historical mapping revealed that international directions stimulated policy processes in Malaysia but policy inertia caused implementation gaps. Barriers hindering policy processes included lack of resources, governance complexity, lack of monitoring, technical challenges, policy characteristics linked to costing, lack of sustained efforts in policy advocacy, implementer characteristics and/or industry resistance, including corporate political activities (e.g., lobbying, policy substitution). Facilitators to the policy processes were resource maximization, leadership, stakeholder partnerships or support, policy windows and industry engagement or support. Progressing policy implementation required stronger leadership, resources, inter-ministerial coordination, advocacy partnerships and an accountability monitoring system. This study provides insights for national and global policy entrepreneurs when formulating strategies towards fostering healthy food environments.
Matched MeSH terms: Health Plan Implementation/trends*
When breast cancer is detected and treated early, the chances of survival are very high. However, women in many settings face complex barriers to early detection, including social, economic, geographic, and other interrelated factors, which can limit their access to timely, affordable, and effective breast health care services. Previously, the Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) developed resource-stratified guidelines for the early detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. In this consensus article from the sixth BHGI Global Summit held in October 2018, the authors describe phases of early detection program development, beginning with management strategies required for the diagnosis of clinically detectable disease based on awareness education and technical training, history and physical examination, and accurate tissue diagnosis. The core issues address include finance and governance, which pertain to successful planning, implementation, and the iterative process of program improvement and are needed for a breast cancer early detection program to succeed in any resource setting. Examples are presented of implementation, process, and clinical outcome metrics that assist in program implementation monitoring. Country case examples are presented to highlight the challenges and opportunities of implementing successful breast cancer early detection programs, and the complex interplay of barriers and facilitators to achieving early detection for breast cancer in real-world settings are considered.
Matched MeSH terms: Health Plan Implementation/economics; Health Plan Implementation/methods*
Community engagement describes a complex political process with dynamic negotiation and renegotiation of power and authority between providers and recipients of health care in order to achieve a shared goal of universal health care coverage. Though examples exist of community engagement projects, there is very little guidance on how to implement and embed community engagement as a concerted, integrated, strategic, and sustained component of health systems. Through a series of case studies, this article explores the factors that enable community engagement particularly with a direct impact on health systems.
Matched MeSH terms: Health Plan Implementation/methods*
The Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) aims to assess the extent of implementation of recommended food environment policies by governments compared with international best practices and prioritize actions to fill implementation gaps. The Food-EPI was applied in 11 countries across six regions (2015-2018). National public health nutrition panels (n = 11-101 experts) rated the extent of implementation of 47 policy and infrastructure support good practice indicators by their government(s) against best practices, using an evidence document verified by government officials. Experts identified and prioritized actions to address implementation gaps. The proportion of indicators at "very low if any," "low," "medium," and "high" implementation, overall Food-EPI scores, and priority action areas were compared across countries. Inter-rater reliability was good (GwetAC2 = 0.6-0.8). Chile had the highest proportion of policies (13%) rated at "high" implementation, while Guatemala had the highest proportion of policies (83%) rated at "very low if any" implementation. The overall Food-EPI score was "medium" for Australia, England, Chile, and Singapore, while "very low if any" for Guatemala. Policy areas most frequently prioritized included taxes on unhealthy foods, restricting unhealthy food promotion and front-of-pack labelling. The Food-EPI was found to be a robust tool and process to benchmark governments' progress to create healthy food environments.