Novel public-private partnerships to address the double burden of malnutrition.

Public-private partnerships are an effective way to address the global double burden of malnutrition. While public-private partnerships operate in multiple forms, their leadership usually falls to governments, public health agencies, or nongovernmental organizations, with the private sector taking a subordinate role. The rapid ascent of social media and mass communications worldwide has provided a disruptive technology for new nutrition intervention programs. A new model, provisionally called private-public engagement, takes advantage of social media, mass media, and integrated social marketing to reach parents, families, and communities directly. These new private-public engagement initiatives need to be managed in ways suggested for public-private partnerships by the World Health Organization, especially if the private sector is in the lead. Once the rationale for engagement is defined, there is a need to mobilize resources, establish in-country partnerships and codes of conduct, and provide a plan for monitoring, evaluation, and accountability. Provided here is an example consistent with the private-public engagement approach, ie, the United for Healthier Kids program, which has been aimed at families with children aged less than 12 years. Materials to inspire behavioral change and promote healthier diets and lifestyle were disseminated in a number of countries through both digital and physical channels, often in partnership with local or regional governments. A description of this program, along with strategies to promote transparency and communication among stakeholders, serves to provide guidance for the development of future effective private-public engagements.

Barriers to and Facilitators of the Evaluation of Integrated Community-Wide Overweight Intervention Approaches: A Qualitative Case Study in Two Dutch Municipalities.

To prevent overweight and obesity the implementation of an integrated community-wide intervention approach (ICIA) is often advocated. Evaluation can enhance implementation of such an approach and demonstrate the extent of effectiveness. To be able to support professionals in the evaluation of ICIAs we studied barriers to and facilitators of ICIA evaluation. In this study ten professionals of two Dutch municipalities involved in the evaluation of an ICIA participated. We conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 12), observed programme meetings (n = 4) and carried out document analysis. Data were analyzed using a thematic content approach. We learned that evaluation is hampered when it is perceived as unfeasible due to limited time and budget, a lack of evaluation knowledge or a negative evaluation attitude. Other barriers are a poor understanding of the evaluation process and its added value to optimizing the programme. Sufficient communication between involved professionals on evaluation can facilitate evaluation, as does support for evaluation of ICIAs together with stakeholders at a strategic and tactical level. To stimulate the evaluation of ICIAs, we recommend supporting professionals in securing evaluation resources, providing tailored training and tools to enhance evaluation competences and stimulating strategic communication on evaluation.

Recommendations and Improvements for the Evaluation of Integrated Community-Wide Interventions Approaches.

Background. Integrated community-wide intervention approaches (ICIAs) are implemented to prevent childhood obesity. Programme evaluation improves these ICIAs, but professionals involved often struggle with performance. Evaluation tools have been developed to support Dutch professionals involved in ICIAs. It is unclear how useful these tools are to intended users. We therefore researched the facilitators of and barriers to ICIA programme evaluation as perceived by professionals and their experiences of the evaluation tools. Methods. Focus groups and interviews with 33 public health professionals. Data were analysed using a thematic content approach. Findings. Evaluation is hampered by insufficient time, budget, and experience with ICIAs, lack of leadership, and limited advocacy for evaluation. Epidemiologists are regarded as responsible for evaluation but feel incompetent to perform evaluation or advocate its need in a political environment. Managers did not prioritise process evaluations, involvement of stakeholders, and capacity building. The evaluation tools are perceived as valuable but too comprehensive considering limited resources. Conclusion. Evaluating ICIAs is important but most professionals are unfamiliar with it and management does not prioritise process evaluation nor incentivize professionals to evaluate. To optimise programme evaluation, more resources and coaching are required to improve professionals' evaluation capabilities and specifically the use of evaluation.