Effective advocacy strategies for influencing government nutrition policy: a conceptual model
- PMID: 30170610
- PMCID: PMC6119246
- DOI: 10.1186/s12966-018-0716-y
Effective advocacy strategies for influencing government nutrition policy: a conceptual model
Abstract
Influencing public policy change can be difficult and complex, particularly for those with limited power and resources. For any one issue there may be several groups, including the commercial sector and public health advocates advocating from different policy perspectives. However, much of the public health advocacy literature and tools available for those wanting to improve their practice is based on research from one specific perspective of an issue. This approach deprives advocates of potential insight into the most effective levers for this complex and difficult process. To provide a more comprehensive insight into effective levers for influencing public health policy change, a conceptual model for poorly-resourced advocates was developed. The model was developed through the integration and synthesis of policy process and network theories with the results from three studies conducted previously by the authors: a systematic literature review; a social network analysis of influential actors in Australian nutrition policy; plus in-depth interviews with a sample of these actors who had diverse perspectives on influencing nutrition policy. Through understanding the key steps in this model advocates will be better equipped to increase political and public will, and affect positive policy change.
Keywords: Advocacy; Nutrition; Policy; Policy making; Political will; Public health.
Conflict of interest statement
Ethics approval and consent to participate
QUT University Human Research Ethics Committee provided ethical approval (Approval Number 1400000857). Informed written consent to participate was obtained from all participants.
Consent for publication
Informed written consent for publication was obtained from all participants.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Figures
References
-
- Clavier C, De Leeuw E. Health promotion and the policy process. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2013.
-
- Bridgman P, Davis G. The Australian policy handbook. Australia: Allen & Unwin; 2004.
-
- Onyx J, Armitage L, Dalton B, Melville R, Casey J, Banks R. Advocacy with gloves on: the “manners” of strategy used by some third sector organizations undertaking advocacy in NSW and Queensland. Volunt Int J Volunt Nonprofit Org. 2010;21(1):41–61. doi: 10.1007/s11266-009-9106-z. - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
