|Author, year||Study setting||Policy level||Policy focus area||
‘Stages’ of policy processes investigated|
(agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation; evaluation; or any combinations of the above)
|Design and methods||Study participant information||Critical appraisal ratinga||Other strengths/ limitations (e.g., sampling strategy; ethics approval)|
Do the findings represent the views of participant?
Were there contextual details provided?
Was the process logical, traceable?
Are findings qualitatively confirmable through an analysis of audit trail?
|Craig et al. 2010 ||Arkansas, United States of America (USA)||State level||
Healthy eating environment policy|
Legislation to support healthy eating. The Act 1220 including the following components:
• Child Health Advisory Committee (Education and Health representation).
• Local regional schools PA and nutrition committee
• State wide screening of BMI reporting back to parents
• Vending machine legislation (restrictions)
• Community health professionals within school setting
|Stages of focus not specified however appears to focus on policy process stages leading to policy adoption (i.e., agenda setting and policy formulation)||Qualitative using secondary document data collected as part of a comprehend-sive evaluation of Arkansas Act 1220. Key informant interviews were also conducted with persons knowledge-eable of or involved in the passage of Act 1220.||No details were provided regarding study participants demo-graphics.||M||M||M-H||L||
Secondary data source means that the theory did not inform the type of questions that were asked, potentially limiting what was able to be deduced.|
No details regarding ethics approval.
|Dodson et al. 2009 ||Multiple states across USA||State level policy making (across several states)||General childhood obesity prevention legislation. Not a specific policy or set of policies.||Stages of focus not specified however appears to focus on policy process stages leading to policy adoption (i.e., agenda setting and policy formulation)||Qualitative study using interviews||There were 16 participants from 11 states, from various political parties, their professional background and length of tenure within their organisation, and geographical area represented also varied.||H||M-H||M||L||This was not a study of a specific policy process but rather of obesity prevention policy processes generally.|
|Freundenberg et al. 2015 ||Comparison of London and New York||Municipal level||Food policies, which included strategies to reduce obesity||Focused on election cycles providing opportunities for policies to be developed, and hence to stage of policy adoption only.||Document analysis||NA- document analysis||M||L-M||L||L||Secondary data source means that the theory did not inform the type of questions that were asked, potentially limiting what was able to be deduced.|
|Gladwin et al. 2008 ||Alberta, Canada||Provincial and local (local school board networks) and individual school level.||Daily physical activity mandatory requirements in schools as well as policy processes relating to decisions to not adopt the walking to school bus program.||Stages of focus not specified however appears to focus on policy process stages leading to policy adoption (i.e., agenda setting and policy formulation)||Qualitative comparative study of case study of two policies. Collected interviews (primary data) and documents related to the policy (secondary data).||None provided.||M||L-M||M||L||Only four of the interviewees were from the provincial level. The remainder were with parents, health professionals or school board members.|
|Gomez, 2015 ||Comparative study of USA and Brazil||National policy level||General obesity prevention policy.||Stages not specified however long term perspective allowed consideration of all aspects of the policy process (including feedback feeding into subsequent decision making)||Qualitative comparative case study drawing on secondary data sources of various documents (peer reviewed journal articles, government documents, and reports)||NA- document analysis||L||M||M||L||Secondary data source means that the theory did not inform the type of questions that were asked, potentially limiting what was able to be deduced.|
|Houlihan et al. 2006 ||England, and Wales, United Kingdom (UK)||National policy level||Policy focused on incorporation of physical activity/sport into school curriculum||Not specified however the use of two ‘synthesis’ theories could potentially include all ‘stages’||Qualitative study drawing on key informant interviews.||Nine participants in total, Including senior civil servants or senior members of interest/ professional organizations or senior academics.||M||M-H||L||L||No information regarding ethics approval.|
|Khayesi et al. 2011 ||Curitiba, Brazil||State level policy||
Transport sector policy to increase|
active transport (through car dependence reduction policies)
|No stages specified||
Historical case study utilising documents.|
Two key informants assisted to inform the selection process of documents but did not provide any primary data.
|NA- Document analysis||L-M.||M||L-M||L||Secondary data source means that the theory did not inform the type of questions that were asked, potentially limiting what was able to be deduced.|
|McBeth et al.2013 ||USA||Federal level policy||Obesity prevention policy generally||Agenda setting and the potential subsequent influence on policy formulation||Cross-sectional study documents (newspaper articles) using content analysis||NA- document analysis||H||H||H||L|
|Milton et al. 2015 ||England, UK||National level policy||Walking promotion policy||Qualitative case study drawing on document analysis and interview||Participants included representatives from relevant government departments and not for profit organisations, as well as, several independent consultants and other known advocates.||H||H||H||L||Details of ethics approval provided.|
|Mosier et al. 2013 ||USA, states of Colorado and Kansas||State level||
Sales and excise tax policy|
on Sugar Sweetened Beverages (SSB)
|Qualitative comparative study, utilising observations, interviews and document analysis.||Nine individuals, involved in the policy processes were interviewed. No further details were reported.||M-H||M||M-H||L||No information regarding ethics approval.|
|Olstad, et al. 2015 ||Canada||State and provincial level||School based physical activity policy (legislation, rules, requirements)||All stages of policy process (including implementation)||Historical multiple case study. Systematic document review was used (no interviews or observation)||NA- no interviews||H||H||H||L|
|Phillpots, 2012 ||England, United Kingdom||National policy||Sport and physical activity integration into school curriculum||All stages of policy process (including decision to cease the implemented policy)||Qualitative study design, drawing upon interviews, and document analysis.||Twenty-three interviewees from a range of government sport and education agencies who had been involved in the policy area for at least 5 years.||H||M||L-M||L||No information regarding ethics approval.|
|Quinn et al. 2015 ||King County, Washington, USA||Local level||Non-regulatory nutritional guidelines for food and beverages sold in vending machines.||Qualitative case study design, using focus group, interview, and document review methods.||Focus groups: local health department staff interviews: Local Board of Health members, local elected, municipal staff, department directors officials, health expert from across 5 local jurisdictions||M||L||M-H||L||Ethics was obtained and details of the duration and timing of the interviews were given.|
|Reid and Thornburn 2011 ||Scotland, United Kingdom||National level||Physical education and activity policy||No stages specified, although clear focus on agenda setting||Field research involved key informant interviews||Participants from: various government departments (education, sport), local government sports development staff, relevant peak bodies, not for profit organizations, and politicians.||H||M-H||M-H||M-H||No information regarding ethics approval.|
|Thow et al. 2014 ||Ghana||National Level||A food standards policy to limit the amount of fat in meat and meat cuts||All stages from agenda setting, formulation, adoption and evaluation||Mixed methods case study||Participants were policy makers, implement-ers, producers, processors and retailers and respresented numerous government departments and stakeholder groups/ organisations||M||H||M||L||Ethics was obtained.|
|Ulmer et al. 2012 ||New Orleans, USA||State level||A Fresh Food Retailer policy Initiative||Qualitative study using interviews||Participants were from various organizations and included city agency staff, city council members, grocers, representatives from trade associations and fınancial institutions, public health professionals, and food advocates.||L-M||L-M||L||L||No information regarding ethics approval.|
|Yeatman, 2003 ||Australia||Local level policies (four case studies)||Food policy||Case studies using interviews and document analysis||Participants included local food policy councils, local elected members and local government middle managers.||L-M||M||L||L||No information regarding ethics approval.|