The association between funding for statewide programs and enactment of obesity legislation.

OBJECTIVE: As part of a national effort to prevent and control obesity, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Nutrition and Physical Activity Program to Prevent Obesity and Other Chronic Diseases (NPAO) provides funding to states to improve access to healthful food and increase opportunities for physical activity. The CDC also provides funding to states to build Coordinated School Health (CSH) programs across agencies and within schools to help reduce chronic disease risk factors. This paper investigates the possible role of these programs in state policy change. METHODS: Descriptive study of state legislation targeting obesity prevention passed in 2005. Units of analysis were 135 pieces of obesity-related state legislation identified within 4 legislative databases. Legislation was coded into programmatic setting and obesity-prevention strategy categories. RESULTS: On average, states receiving NPAO or CSH program funding passed twice as many bills as states not yet funded. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The statewide obesity prevention and school health programs may have contributed to states enacting more obesity-related legislation. Further research into the process by which state programs influence the enactment and effective implementation of policies could help build the evidence base for policy changes that help prevent obesity.

Policy-contribution assessment and field-building analysis of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Active Living Research Program.

BACKGROUND: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation requested this utilization-focused evaluation of its Active Living Research (ALR) program. This evaluation reports on the trajectory of influence of past and future ALR outcomes on field-building and policy contributions as well as on possible users of completed and disseminated ALR products. METHODS: In 2006 and 2007, key-informant interviews were conducted with 136 representatives of first-line potential users of ALR research products, including state physical activity and nutrition program coordinators, policymakers, scientists, and funders. Literature reviews, bibliometric analyses, and document reviews served to describe the context for ALR's work and the ways it could enhance its utility for field building and policymaking. RESULTS: The contributions of ALR to the emerging transdisciplinary field included leadership in the development of measurement tools, epidemiologic studies, implementation research, the translation of research to practice, and the communication of learned lessons to diverse audiences. ALR's contributions to policy discussions were found across a spectrum of policy-development phases that included describing the problem, raising awareness of alternative strategies for increasing physical activity, convening nontraditional partners, and evaluating policy implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Policy-relevant research can make contributions to policymakers' thinking but almost never causes a change by itself. Five years after the original authorization of ALR, there is ample evidence of its recognition as a resource by key players, its field-building influence, and its contributions to policy discussions. All these bear promise for a broader contribution to obesity prevention. Recommendations for increasing ALR's impact on policy and practice are offered.

Office-based motivational interviewing to prevent childhood obesity: a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether pediatricians and dietitians can implement an office-based obesity prevention program using motivational interviewing as the primary intervention. DESIGN: Nonrandomized clinical trial. Fifteen pediatricians belonging to Pediatric Research in Office Settings, a national practice-based research network, and 5 registered dietitians were assigned to 1 of 3 groups: (1) control; (2) minimal intervention (pediatrician only); or (3) intensive intervention (pediatrician and registered dietitian). SETTING: Primary care pediatric offices. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-one children presenting for well-child care visits met eligibility criteria of being aged 3 to 7 years and having a body mass index (calculated as the weight in kilograms divided by the height in meters squared) at the 85th percentile or greater but lower than the 95th percentile for the age or having a normal weight and a parent with a body mass index of 30 or greater. INTERVENTIONS: Pediatricians and registered dietitians in the intervention groups received motivational interviewing training. Parents of children in the minimal intervention group received 1 motivational interviewing session from the physician, and parents of children in the intensive intervention group received 2 motivational interviewing sessions each from the pediatrician and the registered dietitian. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Change in the body mass index-for-age percentile. RESULTS: At 6 months' follow-up, there was a decrease of 0.6, 1.9, and 2.6 body mass index percentiles in the control, minimal, and intensive groups, respectively. The differences in body mass index percentile change between the 3 groups were nonsignificant (P=.85). The patient dropout rates were 2 (10%), 13 (32%), and 15 (50%) for the control, minimal, and intensive groups, respectively. Fifteen (94%) of the parents reported that the intervention helped them think about changing their family's eating habits. CONCLUSIONS: Motivational interviewing by pediatricians and dietitians is a promising office-based strategy for preventing childhood obesity. However, additional studies are needed to demonstrate the efficacy of this intervention in practice settings.

The Nutrition and Physical Activity Program to Prevent Obesity and Other Chronic Diseases: monitoring progress in funded states.

To help address the challenges posed by the obesity epidemic in the United States, the U.S. Congress authorized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to establish the Nutrition and Physical Activity Program to Prevent Obesity and Other Chronic Diseases. In this article, we summarize the progress of the first 20 states funded by this program. The data presented are based on the information provided by the states in their semiannual progress monitoring reports on program activities from January through June 2004. The states have made progress in developing capacity and infrastructure for their programs, including leveraging financial resources and developing strong partnerships. In addition, they are planning and initiating environmental changes through legislation, and, although less frequently, through policies and other changes such as expanding physical activity opportunities. Collectively, the states are making progress in planning and implementing activities to prevent and control obesity and other chronic diseases.

Using the State Plan Index to evaluate the quality of state plans to prevent obesity and other chronic diseases.

INTRODUCTION: Implicit in public health planning models is the assumption that good public health plans lead to good programs, and good programs lead to desired health outcomes. Despite considerable resources that are devoted to developing plans, public health agencies and organizations have lacked a tool for evaluating the finished product of their planning efforts -- the written plan itself -- as an important indicator of progress. To address the need for an instrument to assess the quality of state plans designed to prevent and control chronic diseases, we created and tested the State Plan Index and used it to evaluate the quality of nine state plans aimed at preventing and reducing obesity. METHODS: The State Plan Index was developed under the auspices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in collaboration with public health experts in federal, state, and academic settings. The State Plan Index included 55 items related to plan quality arranged into nine components. Each item was rated on a Likert scale from 0 to 5, with 5 being the highest rating. Each plan also received a separate overall plan quality score using the same scale. Each state plan was evaluated by four or five raters using the State Plan Index. For each plan, the 55 items were averaged to calculate an item average score, and a subscore was calculated for each State Plan Index component. Finally, five states also self-rated their own plans (self score). RESULTS: The mean item average score for all plans was 2.4 out of 5.0. The range of item average scores was 1.0 to 3.0. The component of the State Plan Index with the highest mean component score (3.3) was Presentation of Epidemiologic Data on Disease Burden. The components with the lowest component scores were Resources for Plan Implementation (0.7); Integration of Obesity Efforts with Other Chronic Disease Efforts (1.7); and Program Evaluation (2.0). Plan quality was rated higher when based on the single overall plan quality score assigned by raters. In addition, self scores were consistently and substantially higher than rater-assigned scores. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of plans early in the life of programs can be used to strengthen existing programs and to guide programs newly engaged in chronic disease prevention planning. The CDC has used the State Plan Index evaluation results to guide technical assistance, plan training sessions, and enhance communication with state staff about plan content, quality, and public health approach. Some state program directors self-evaluated their obesity draft plan and used the evaluation results to strengthen their planning process and to guide plan revisions. Other states have adapted the State Plan Index as a framework for new planning efforts to prevent obesity as well as other chronic diseases.