Tackling Obesity: Need to Empower Adults and Children to Live Healthier Lives

An individual is classified as overweight if their body mass index (BMI) is equal to or exceeds 30, and they are severely overweight. Approximately two out of every three grown-ups in the UK are obsessed with higher rates of occurrence among individuals aged 55 to 74, those who live within underprivileged regions, as well as certain ethnic minority populations (Public Health England, 2020b). The WHO (2018) reveals that the occurrence of obesity has drastically increased in comparison to the past 30 years.

According to global statistics, as published by the WHO (2018), there were 650 million obese adults and approximately 41 million infants affected by obesity in 2016. (WHO, 2018). According to Foresight (2007), the System, made up of 4 interrelated variables that affect obesity, includes dietary, behavioral, substantial or material activities, as well as personal physiology. In theory, obesity may be prevented because the majority of these causes are under our control (WHO, 2018). But if nothing is done, obesity is expected to keep rising Internationally (Pineda et al., 2018; Kilpi et al., 2014; Agha & Agha, 2017).

The government of the United Kingdom, in 2020, issued a statement titled “Tackling Obesity: Empowering Adults and Children to Live Healthier Lives”. As it protects the healthcare system, the policy attempts to address obesity, and promote wholesome well-being of the higher populace. Thus, a higher rate of obesity among people in Uk is projected to increase between 29% (NHS, 2019) through 40% by 2025, and if present dietary and lifestyle habits are maintained, it may increase to 55% by 2050 (Foresight, 2007).

An approach commented on by van Raaij et al. (2009), states that to combat obesity called food reformulation, will involve lowering the amount of sodium, sweeteners, and lipids in packaged food products. With this strategy, individuals can develop healthier eating habits without having to intentionally change their diets (Buttriss, 2013). Targeting groups like children and teenagers who have few food options is especially crucial (Muth et al., 2019). The UK’s measures to lower the amount of calories and sugar in food goods have been successful in enhancing diets (Buttriss, 2013; Public Health England PHE, 2017). Lowering daily caloric intake, reducing sugar consumption in particular can contribute significantly to a decline in obesity rates (MacGregor & Hashem, 2014).

Obesity as a Social Determinant

The chosen policy, which aims to help adults and kids make healthier lifestyle choices and combat obesity, is supported by the reasoning that it has an effect on general well-being and is pertinent to socioeconomic determinants of health. Obesity is a significant concern of one’s well-being which impacts individuals globally, leading to a number of negative health consequences and taxing healthcare systems. The strategy intends to enhance public health by treating obesity and lowering the related health risks, as shown by the GBD 2015 Obesity Collaborators report (2017, pp. 13–27), which connected a high BMI to a total of 4 million fatalities globally in 2015.

Interpersonal factors that influence well-being, including socioeconomic status, learning institutions, occupation, as well as community characteristics, have an impact on obesity. Obesity is more prevalent among persons with low incomes and little education because they frequently struggle to find healthy foods and participate in physical activity (Hales et al., 2018, pp. 1723–1725). According to McLaren (2007, pp. 29–48), obesity prevalence was higher among people with lower incomes. This policy promotes equitable accessibility for equal access to resources and opportunities for every person, irrespective of their economic situation, while recognizing the influence of socioeconomic status and aims to remedy gaps.

Obesity is greatly influenced by the food environment. People who reside in areas with lots of establishments that serve quick and convenient meals but few grocers are at a higher risk of being overweight. In the words of Larson et al. (2015, pp. 74-81), the accessibility and affordability of nutritious foods significantly influence food choices as well as weight management. By putting into practice programs like community gardening, farmers’ markets, and financial incentives for supermarkets to provide healthier options in marginalized regions, the strategy seeks to better the food environment while tackling the social determinants of food access.

The physical surroundings influence how often persons move around, including neighborhood design and availability to recreational resources. Ding et al. (2011, pp. 442-455) discovered that individuals are inclined to participate in frequent physical activity when they reside in communities with supporting built environments, such as parks and walkways. The policy emphasizes the creation of surroundings that promote physical activity while acknowledging the importance of the built environment. This entails spending money on infrastructural development, encouraging people to use public transport systems, and facilitating access to parks and playgrounds, especially in underserved areas.

In order to combat obesity, early intervention, and prevention are essential because childhood obesity frequently continues through adulthood and has adverse effects on health.  Being overweight among children has been viewed by the WHO (2018) as an important risk to the general public, and the policy is in line with that acknowledgment. A holistic approach aimed at children and families that includes educational efforts, better school dietary habits, and more chances for exercise was stressed by Lobstein et al. (2015, pp. 2510-2520). By establishing scientifically validated initiatives in schools, encouraging healthy behaviors amongst households, and guaranteeing that kids have access to nourishing meals, the policy recognizes the importance of early intervention and prevention.

Construction of the Policy

Numerous sociological views have influenced the way the obesity policy issue is viewed, presented, and treated in society. The policy responses put in place are heavily influenced by these viewpoints. A critical assessment of the policy issue and its ramifications can be made by looking at these viewpoints.

According to Finlayson (2017, pp. 493–498), the medicalization paradigm sees obesity largely as a personal health problem brought on by one’s own choices and actions.  This viewpoint emphasizes the role of individual obligation, genetics, and metabolism in the emergence of obesity. As a result, policies that are affected by this viewpoint frequently emphasize behavioral change initiatives in addition to medical interventions like treatments and operations (Blackburn, 2011, pp. 890–895). However, this viewpoint might ignore more extensive social elements that contribute to overweight and concentrate too much responsibility on specific people, which would only serve to increase discrimination (Wray & Deery, 2008, pp. 227–243).

According to the social determinants approach, social, economic, and environmental factors have an impact on obesity (Frank et al., 2020; Cockerham, 2022; Baker, et al., 2020; Yusuf et al., 2020; Brownell et al., 2010). It highlights how socioeconomic position, availability of wholesome foods, the built environment, and disparities in society affect obesity rates (Yusuf et al., 2020). Based to literary investigation, lack of resources and inequalities in their surroundings pose greater challenges for individuals with lower socioeconomic status to adopt healthy practices. In order to address these structural variables, policy solutions influenced by the social determinants viewpoint should encourage fair obtain nutritious food choices, enhance physical surroundings, and lessen socioeconomic inequality (Brownell et al., 2010).

The health equity viewpoint emphasizes the disproportionate prevalence of obesity among various social groups and urges for legislation to correct these inequities (Vargas et al., 2017, 32–42; Kumanyika, 2022, 45–480). This viewpoint accepts that marginalized communities, such as low-income groups and racial and ethnic minorities, have disproportionately high obesity rates. It acknowledges that socioeconomic problems, like lack of healthcare accessibility, poverty in the area, and food insecurity, contribute to these discrepancies. Health equity-influenced policy responses give priority to interventions that address the unique needs and difficulties faced by underserved populations, such as culturally suitable health education initiatives, community-based projects, and laws meant to lessen food deserts.

The environmental viewpoint emphasizes the obesogenic environment, which is the impact of one’s surroundings, both physical and social on people’s dietary preferences and levels of physical activity (Sacks et al., 2019, Environmental Health Perspectives, 2012; Hill, 2006). This viewpoint emphasizes the effects of elements including the availability of unhealthy food options, marketing techniques, urban planning, and transportation networks. Environments that encourage healthy living are the goal of policies inspired by the environmental perspective (Sacks et al., 2019; Environmental Heath Perspective, 2012). These solutions could involve zoning laws to limit fast-food restaurants’ accessibility to schools, supporting active transportation infrastructure, and enhancing access to recreational areas.

Additionally, the impact of the nutrition sector on the weight-related policy issue is becoming more widely acknowledged (Sacks et al., 2019, 78–89). The criticism of commercial influences emphasizes how these industries’ marketing and advertising strategies, particularly those that target youngsters, have been connected to the consumption of unhealthy foods and beverages. Advocates of this viewpoint contend that governmental solutions should include efforts to enhance food labeling and nutritional standards as well as controls and restrictions on marketing tactics, particularly advertising to minors.

Critical Analysis of the Policy

The Policy Analysis Triangle framework, which is made up of the three elements, issue, procedure, and polity, can be used to undertake a critical analysis of the policy treating obesity. We may develop a thorough grasp of the policy’s advantages and disadvantages by closely analyzing each component.

The strategy emphasizes overweight as an essential medical issue, with its diverse nature, including the role of social determinants. It admits that elements including financial position, dietary habits, physical surroundings, and early experiences affect obesity rates. This understanding is consistent with the social determinants viewpoint, which places a strong emphasis on the need to address structural problems. Although certain populations might experience particular difficulties, there is still an opportunity for advancement in our understanding of the intersectionality of different social variables (Baker et al., 2020).

To solve the obesity issue, the suggested solutions and interventions are focused on the policy aspect. The goal of the strategy is to provide people the power to choose healthier options and develop sustainable lifestyle habits. It places a strong emphasis on efforts to broaden the availability of nutritious foods and improve the design of public spaces to promote interpersonal exercise, including implementing evidence-based initiatives in schools and communities. Prioritizing early intervention and prevention, these measures are in line with the established socioeconomic causes of obesity. The implementation of the policy, resource allocation, and stakeholder participation, among other things, all affect how effective it is. It is imperative to make sure that preventative measures are supported by proof, sensitive to cultural differences, and specifically designed to meet the needs of various communities (Department of Health, 2004a).

Taking into account the political environment in which the policy is being implemented is part of the politics component. Stakeholders, power structures, and potential conflicts of interest are all included. Stakeholders in the fight against obesity may include governmental organizations, medical professionals, food and beverage companies, advocacy organizations, and local communities. It is crucial that the policy balances the influence of these parties and any potential conflicts between the interests of public health and those of business. Processes for making policy decisions must be transparent, free of undue industry influence, and prioritize public health results.

Additionally, combating obesity necessitates a multi-sectoral strategy that entails cooperation amongst many fields like health, education, and urban planning. The success of the strategy depends on political support, ongoing funding, and a thorough assessment of its effects over time. For policy creation and implementation to be inclusive and effectively address health inequalities, it is crucial to involve communities, particularly marginalized populations.

Alternative to Addressing the Problem

In recent years, opposing viewpoints and methods have emerged to suggest different approaches to dealing with the obesity epidemic. The three alternative viewpoints and related obesity prevention tactics are examined below.

1. The Philosophy of Health at Every Size (HAES):

The philosophy rejects traditional emphasis on weight loss and places a stronger emphasis on body acceptance, holistic well-being, and health promotion for all. Health behaviors can be pursued without focusing on weight loss, according to HAES, which acknowledges that weight is not the only factor in determining health (Bacon, 2010). Promoting body acceptance and minimizing weight bias are alternate strategies that are compatible with HAES. Weight discrimination and stigmatization impede behavior change and lead to poor health consequences. Anti-bullying campaigns are being implemented, size diversity in media representation is being encouraged, and healthcare personnel are being trained to give compassionate and objective care are all strategies to overcome weight bias (Puhl et al., 2020).

Promoting self-acceptance and body positivity can also assist people in forming healthier relationships with their bodies. Important strategies include fostering an inclusive and judgment-free environment in healthcare settings, providing resources and support for people of all sizes to engage in physical activity, and shifting the emphasis away from weight-centric interventions towards overall well-being (Tylka et al., 2015).

2. Systems and Structural Approaches:

Systems and structural methods take into account the reality that urban planning, socioeconomic disparities, and food marketing are some of the more general influences on obesity. Through these methods, individuals’ decisions are intended to be altered (Swinburn et al., 2019). Putting in place legal restrictions to encourage better food environments is one potential option. This includes restrictions on feeding infants harmful meals, clear product labeling, as well as taxing policies on sugary drinks and foods high in calories (Kraak et al., 2019).

Another strategy is to address socioeconomic inequalities through social and economic policies, through regular exercise and creation of policies including raising the minimum wage, expanding access to affordable housing, and lowering income inequality (Hawkes et al., 2015).

It’s crucial to invest in urban planning and infrastructure to develop walkable communities, accessible green areas, and secure bicycle infrastructure. Environments that support active lives and advance population health can be produced by prioritizing public transit, mixed-use developments, and community involvement (Sallis et al., 2016).

3. Comprehensive School-based Interventions:

In order to foster a healthy learning environment, comprehensive school-based interventions (Waters et al., 2018) include policies that support physical activity, nutrition education, and other activities. The quality of school meals can be improved, and nutrition standards can be put in place that give whole, unprocessed foods priority. Improving dietary consumption and integrating students and parents in menu design can help prevent obesity (Cohen et al., 2018). This is accomplished by offering fresh, locally sourced food options.

Another option is to incorporate physical activity throughout the school day through extracurricular activities, active recess, and physical education programs. According to research by Singh et al. (2017), increasing physical activity while at school can enhance students’ general health, academic performance, and fitness levels. Opportunities for exercise outside of school hours can be increased by collaboration with neighborhood sports facilities and community organizations (Sallis et al., 2012).

As part of comprehensive school-based treatments, health education initiatives that support body positivity, good eating relationships, and media literacy should also be included (Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2016).

Strategies to Influence Policy Makers

It is critical to use powerful advocacy and communication techniques backed by research in order to influence legislators and advance alternative approaches to combating obesity.

1. Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement: Engage and include a variety of stakeholders, such as decision-makers in government, medical professionals, local leaders, advocacy organizations, and people who have firsthand experience with obesity. The chance of policy acceptability and implementation is increased by including important stakeholders in the policy creation process and incorporating their viewpoints and skills (Marmor et al., 2018). The likelihood that a policy will be successful is increased by this collaborative approach’s contribution to stakeholder support and ownership.
2. Evidence-Based Advocacy: In order to back up the alternative tactics being suggested, provide solid evidence from research studies, policy assessments, and systematic reviews. To effectively convey significant results and suggestions to policymakers, policy briefings and papers summarizing the research can be very effective tools (Brownson et al., 2018). It is critical to emphasize the tactics’ efficacy, viability, and prospective impact as well as any potential cost savings from preventative as well as the advancement of well-being activities (Wang et al., 2015).
3. General Awareness Campaigns: Create targeted general awareness initiatives for a win over the public to alternate treatments to obesity. These campaigns may involve public relations efforts, social media outreach, neighborhood gatherings, and educational programs. Public awareness can be increased and pressure put on government officials to give priority to comprehensive and equitable obesity prevention policies by disseminating proven information pertaining to institutional causes of overweight and the value for well-being, equity, and the efficacy of alternative strategies (Flodgren et al., 2017).
4. Coalition Building: Magnify the lobbying activities and boost the overall impact, forming collaborations with compatible entities, advocacy groups, and professional associations. Working together with groups that have similar objectives and beliefs can improve the advocacy message, raise awareness of the problem, and use pooled knowledge and resources to persuade policymakers (Rütten et al., 2019).
5. Policy Briefs and Recommendations: Create succinct and convincing policy documents that outline the justification, alternate approaches, and supporting data for tackling obesity. These policy papers ought to contain suggestions that policymakers can immediately grasp and put into practice (Lavis et al., 2012). It is essential to demonstrate that the suggested techniques are doable, affordable, and in line with current policy objectives, structures, and priorities.
6. Engaging with Decision-Makers: Through meetings, presentations, and discussions, create direct channels of communication with politicians and decision-makers. Engage in productive discussion and provide policymakers the chance to clarify their understanding, ask questions, and voice any concerns they may have (Brownson et al., 2018). Alternative tactics can be more easily incorporated into policy agendas by establishing affinities along political lines that are founded on trust and comprehension.
7. Monitoring and Evaluation: Continually assess the results of different tactics used in pilot programs or demonstration sites. Data collection on important results, such as shifts in obesity rates, lifestyle choices, as well as equity indicators, can be used to demonstrate the efficacy of the suggested strategies (Wang et al., 2015). This data can support arguments for scaling up and mainstreaming alternative techniques, serve as success evidence in policy debates, and provide evidence of their efficacy.

By using these tactics, policymakers might be persuaded to take into account and embrace alternative, evidence-based policies for combating obesity that promote health equity. Effective advocacy is necessary to influence policy change and thoroughly address the complex problem of obesity. This advocacy must be backed by research and stakeholder engagement.

References

Agha, M., & Agha, R. (2017). The rising prevalence of obesity: Part a. International Journal of Surgery Oncology, 2(7), Article e17.

Bacon, L. (2010). Health at Every Size: The Surprising Truth About Your Weight. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books.

Baker, P., Brookes, G., Atanasova, D., & Flint, S. W. (2020). Changing frames of obesity in the UK press 2008-2017. Social Science & Medicine, 264, 113403, 1-9.

Blackburn, G. L. (2011). Medicalizing obesity: Individual, economic, and medical consequences. Virtual Mentor, 13(12), 890-895.

Brownell, K. D., Kersh, R., Ludwig, D. S., Post, R. C., Puhl, R. M., Schwartz, M. B., & Willett, W. C. (2010). Personal responsibility and obesity: A constructive approach to a controversial issue. Health Affairs, 29(3), 379-387.

Buttriss, J. L. (2013). Food reformulation: The challenges to the food industry. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 72(1), 61–69.

Cockerham, W. C. (2022). Theoretical Approaches to Research on the Social Determinants of Obesity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 63(1), 8-17.

Cohen, J. F., Richardson, S., Austin, S. B., Economos, C. D., Rimm, E. B., & School Nutrition-Environment, C. (2018). School Lunch Waste among Middle School Students: Nutrients Consumed and Costs. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 54(3), 370-378.

Ding, D., Sallis, J. F., Kerr, J., Lee, S., & Rosenberg, D. E. (2011). Neighborhood environment and physical activity among youth: A review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41(4), 442-455.

Department of Health. (2004a). Obesity a Priority for Government –Reid. 27 May 2004. http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndstatistics/PressReleases

Environmental Health Perspectives. (2012). Obesogens: An environmental link to obesity. 120(2), 62-68.

Finlayson, G. (2017). Food addiction and obesity: Unnecessary medicalization of hedonic overeating. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 13, 493-498.

Flodgren, G., Gonçalves-Bradley, D. C., Summerbell, C. D., & Eccles, M. P. (2017). Interventions to Change the Behaviour of Health Professionals and the Organisation of Care to Promote Weight Reduction in Children and Adults with Overweight or Obesity. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (11).

Foresight. (2007). Tackling obesities: Future choices — obesity System atlas. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295153/07-1177-obesity-system-atlas.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2023.

Frank, J., Abel, T., Campostrini, S., Cook, S., Lin, V. K., & McQueen, D. V. (2020). The Social Determinants of Health: Time to Re-Think? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020, 17, 585, pp. 1-8.

GBD 2015 Obesity Collaborators. (2017). Health Effects of Overweight and Obesity in 195 Countries over 25 Years. The New England Journal of Medicine, 377(1), 13-27.

Hales, C. M., Fryar, C. D., Carroll, M. D., Freedman, D. S., & Ogden, C. L. (2018). Trends in obesity and severe obesity prevalence in US youth and adults by sex and age, 2007-2008 to 2015-2016. JAMA, 319(16), 1723-1725.

Hawkes, C., Smith, T. G., Jewell, J., Wardle, J., Hammond, R. A., Friel, S., & Rayner, M. (2015). Smart Food Policies for Obesity Prevention. The Lancet, 385(9985), 2410-2421.

Hill, J. O. (2006). Understanding and addressing the epidemic of obesity: An energy balance perspective. Endocrine Reviews, 27(7), 750-761.

Kilpi, F., Webber, L., Musaigner, A., Aitsi-Selmi, A., Marsh, T., Rtveladze, K., Brown, M. (2014). Alarming predictions for obesity and non-communicable diseases in the Middle East. Public Health Nutrition, 17(5), 1078–1086.

Kraak, V. I., Swinburn, B., Lawrence, M., & Harrison, P. (2019). An Updated Inventory of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Policies and Their Impact on Children’s Sugary Drink Consumption. Current Obesity Reports, 8(3), 297-314.

Larson, N. I., Story, M. T., & Nelson, M. C. (2015). Neighborhood environments: Disparities in access to healthy foods in the U.S.

Lavis, J. N., Permanand, G., Oxman, A. D., Lewin, S., & Fretheim, A. (2012). Support Tools for Evidence-Informed Health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and Using Policy Briefs to Support Evidence-Informed Policymaking. Health Research Policy and Systems, 10(1), 27.

Lee, I. M., Shiroma, E. J., Lobelo, F., Puska, P., Blair, S. N., & Katzmarzyk, P. T. (2012). Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: An analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. The Lancet, 380(9838), 219-229.

Lobstein, T., Jackson-Leach, R., Moodie, M. L., Hall, K. D., Gortmaker, S. L., Swinburn, B. A., & McPherson, K. (2015). Child and adolescent obesity: Part of a bigger picture. The Lancet, 385(9986), 2510-2520.

MacGregor, G. A., & Hashem, K. M. (2014). Comment: Action on sugar—Lessons from UK salt reduction programme. The Lancet, 383(9921), 929–931.

Malik, V. S., Willett, W. C., & Hu, F. B. (2013). Global obesity: Trends, risk factors, and policy implications. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 9(1), 13-27.

Marmor, T. R., Gasteyer, S. P., & Horgen, K. B. (2018). Negotiating the Challenges of an Interdisciplinary Team: The Role of Professional Identity, Boundary Work, and Interdisciplinary Collaboration. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 57(3), 208-227.

McLaren, L. (2007). Socioeconomic status and obesity. Epidemiologic Reviews, 29(1), 29-48.

Mokdad, A. H., Forouzanfar, M. H., Daoud, F., Mokdad, A. A., El Bcheraoui, C., Moradi-Lakeh, M., & Murray, C. J. L. (2016). Health in times of uncertainty in the eastern Mediterranean region, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet Global Health, 4(10), e704-e713.

Muth, M., Karns, S., Mancino, L., & Todd, J. (2019). How much can product reformulation improve diet quality in households with children and adolescents? Nutrients, 11(3), 618.

Neumark-Sztainer, D., Paxton, S. J., Hannan, P. J., Haines, J., & Story, M. (2006). Does Body Satisfaction Matter? Five-Year Longitudinal Associations between Body Satisfaction and Health Behaviors in Adolescent Females and Males. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(2), 244-251.

Ng, M., Fleming, T., Robinson, M., Thomson, B., Graetz, N., Margono, C., & Gakidou, E. (2014). Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980-2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet, 384(9945), 766-781.

NHS (2019). Statistics on obesity, physical activity and diet, England. Available at: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/statistics-on-obesity-physical-activity-and-diet/statistics-on-obesity-physical-activity-and-diet-england-2019, Accessed 20 May 2023.

Pineda, E., Sanchez-Romero, L. M., Brown, M., Jaccard, A., Jewell, J., Galea, G., Breda, J. (2018). Forecasting future trends in obesity across Europe: The value of improving surveillance. Obesity Facts, 11, 360–371.

Popkin, B. M., Adair, L. S., & Ng, S. W. (2012). Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutrition Reviews, 70(1), 3-21.

Public Health England [PHE] (2017). Sugar reduction: Achieving the 20%: A technical report outlining progress to date, guidelines for industry, 2015 baseline levels in key foods and next steps Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604336/Sugar_reduction_achieving_the_20_.pdf, Accessed 20 May 2023.

Public Health England. (2020b). Excess Weight and COVID-19 Insights from new evidence (Report). Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/excess-weight-and-covid-19-insights-from-new-evidence accessed 20 May 2023.

Rundle, A., Neckerman, K. M., Freeman, L., Lovasi, G. S., Purciel, M., Quinn, J., & Weiss, C. C. (2009). Neighborhood food environment and walkability predict obesity in New York City. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(3), 442-447.

Rütten, A., Gelius, P., Abu-Omar, K., Abel, T., Andrun, U., Berg, A., & Paek, H. J. (2019). What Constitutes Evidence-Informed Physical Activity Promotion Using a Health Systems Approach? Health Research Policy and Systems, 17(1), 76.

Sacks, G., Vanderlee, L., Robinson, E., Vandevijvere, S., Cameron, A. J., Ni Mhurchu, C., Lee, A., Ng, S. H., Karupaiah, T., Vergeer, L., L’Abbé, M., & Swinburn, B. (2019). BIA-Obesity (Business Impact Assessment—Obesity and population-level nutrition): A tool and process to assess food company policies and commitments related to obesity prevention and population nutrition at the national level. Obesity Reviews, 20(2), 78-89.

Sallis, J. F., Bull, F., Burdett, R., Frank, L. D., Griffiths, P., Giles-Corti, B., & Stevenson, M. (2016). Use of Science to Guide City Planning Policy and Practice: How to Achieve Healthy and Sustainable Future Cities. The Lancet, 388(10062), 2936-2947.

Singh, A., Uijtdewilligen, L., Twisk, J. W., van Mechelen, W., & Chinapaw, M. J. (2012). Physical Activity and Performance at School: A Systematic Review of the Literature Including a Methodological Quality Assessment. Archives of Pediatrics.

Swinburn, B. A., Sacks, G., Hall, K. D., McPherson, K., Finegood, D. T., Moodie, M. L., & Gortmaker, S. L. (2011). The global obesity pandemic: Shaped by global drivers and local environments. The Lancet, 378(9793), 804-814.

Tylka, T. L., Annunziato, R. A., Burgard, D., Daníelsdóttir, S., Shuman, E., Davis, C., & Calogero, R. M. (2015). The Weight-Inclusive versus Weight-Normative Approach to Health: Evaluating the Evidence for Prioritizing Well-Being over Weight Loss. Journal of Obesity, 2014, 983495.

Van Raaij, J., Hendriksen, M., & Verhagen, H. (2009). Potential for improvement of population diet through reformulation of commonly eaten foods. Public Health Nutrition, 12(3), 325–330.

Wang, Y. C., Vine, S. M., Calhoun, H. M., & Nardi, M. L. (2015). What Strategies Are Needed to Disseminate Physical Activity Promotion Programs for Older Adults? Translational Behavioral Medicine, 5(2), 123-132.

Waters, E., de Silva-Sanigorski, A., Hall, B. J., Brown, T., Campbell, K. J., Gao, Y., & Summerbell, C. D. (2018). Interventions for Preventing Obesity in Children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (7).

WHO. (2018). Obesity and overweight. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight. Accessed 20 May 2023.

World Health Organization. (2016). Report of the commission on ending childhood obesity. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241510066. Accessed 19 May 2023.

Wray, S., & Deery, R. (2008). The Medicalization of Body Size and Women’s Healthcare. Health Care for Women International, 29(3), 227-243.

Yach, D., Stuckler, D., & Brownell, K. D. (2006). Epidemiologic and economic consequences of the global epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Nature Medicine, 12(1), 62-66.

Yusuf, Z. I., Dongarwar, D., Yusuf, R. A., Bell, M., Harris, T., & Salihu, H. M. (n.d.). Social Determinants of Overweight and Obesity Among Children in the United States. International Journal of Maternal and Child Health and AIDS, 9(1), 22-33.