4
Introduction

The May 2009 workshop brought together policy makers, advocates, researchers, program staff, and others seeking to understand how community environments affect the prevalence of obesity and to develop community-based policies and programs built on this understanding. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) staff and planning committee organized the workshop around three interrelated panels: the first comprised representatives of community-based programs who discussed the information they need to move ahead; the second involved staff of research and advocacy organizations that provide a link between communities and policy makers; and the third consisted of decision makers who explained how community perspectives affect policies in their jurisdictions. After each series of presentations, the audience was invited to ask questions and make comments. These discussions reflected the broad background of attendees, including urban planners, nutritionists, activists, and researchers. (See Appendix A for the workshop agenda, Appendix B for biographies of the planning committee, IOM staff, and the presenters, and Appendix C for a complete list of the workshop attendees.)

WORKSHOP THEMES

Approaches that involve a wide range of partners—including neighborhood groups, government agencies with a range of missions, and businesses—characterize many of the promising efforts discussed throughout the workshop sessions. As many speakers noted, a paradigm shift that recognizes the role of the community environment in obesity prevention is



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 25
4 Introduction The May 2009 workshop brought together policy makers, advo- cates, researchers, program staff, and others seeking to understand how community environments affect the prevalence of obesity and to develop community-based policies and programs built on this understanding. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) staff and planning committee organized the workshop around three interrelated panels: the first comprised representa- tives of community-based programs who discussed the information they need to move ahead; the second involved staff of research and advocacy organizations that provide a link between communities and policy makers; and the third consisted of decision makers who explained how community perspectives affect policies in their jurisdictions. After each series of pre- sentations, the audience was invited to ask questions and make comments. These discussions reflected the broad background of attendees, including urban planners, nutritionists, activists, and researchers. (See Appendix A for the workshop agenda, Appendix B for biographies of the planning com- mittee, IOM staff, and the presenters, and Appendix C for a complete list of the workshop attendees.) WORKSHOP THEMES Approaches that involve a wide range of partners—including neigh- borhood groups, government agencies with a range of missions, and businesses—characterize many of the promising efforts discussed through- out the workshop sessions. As many speakers noted, a paradigm shift that recognizes the role of the community environment in obesity prevention is 2

OCR for page 25
2 COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES ON OBESITY PREVENTION emerging, but is far from universally accepted. Other common messages that emerged during the day were highlighted in the workshop’s closing remarks and are summarized below: • The diversity of community efforts represents both a strength and a drawback. It sparks innovation and empowers people to work toward their own better health. However, this diversity also com- plicates efforts to measure impact and build the strongest pos- sible evidence base. The field must grapple with this dichotomy to achieve the ultimate outcomes of improved health and a reduction in obesity rates. • Obesity-related policy must occur “in all places” to form a long- term movement toward better health. The development of com- prehensive frameworks for community efforts to create healthy environments is under way. The need persists to educate, convince, and inform key players and decision makers in other sectors that health and health policy are their allies in changing the shape of community environments for the better. • Communication is key to this work. Communication is needed to develop a common understanding of obesity prevention and to articulate the shift from individual interventions to environmental change in combating the obesity epidemic. Differences in expec- tations and professional paradigms can lead to a breakdown in communication. Dialogue on how different sectors view evidence, for example, can help bridge these divides. The importance of com- munication also relates to how best to present research and other evidence to draw the attention of policy makers. • The question remains whether a set of data should be collected consistently across communities. Some divergence of opinion arose about the use of body mass index (BMI) data in community- based interventions, yet no recommendation for an alternative has emerged. Another issue voiced by several speakers is whether assembling the entire chain of evidence—from environmental inter- ventions, to changes in food and physical activity behaviors, to changes in BMI—is necessary for every intervention. Moreover, many community residents have expressed that they do not want to serve constantly as the subject of research studies that lead to no visible improvement. • Community knowledge is an essential building block in reducing childhood obesity. Community knowledge is the cultural context. Local information about the population and knowledge about what programs are more likely to work or have been shown to work help form and set policy priorities for communities and dif-

OCR for page 25
2 INTRODUCTION ferent contexts, from soccer fields in Santa Ana to green carts in New York City. Ongoing engagement of neighborhoods and resi- dents strengthens leadership and power within communities, which in turn helps create and sustain change. COMMuNITy vOICES AND EvIDENCE As Marion Standish, Director of Healthy Environments for the Califor- nia Endowment, observed in her opening remarks, community experience is part of the overall effort to under- stand what does and does not work, “Often we think we have a and how well it works, in combating good policy. It passes, but it obesity. Despite the power of com- doesn’t work in a community. munity experience, researchers and The value of community eyes policy experts have found it difficult, and community voices … is an according to Standish, “to articulate immeasurable asset in the work the ‘hows’ and ‘whys’ of that experi- that we do.” ence and how it should inform and —Marion Standish influence our work.” The Endow- ment supported this workshop, she said, to detail community experiences and better use those experiences to inform policy and research and build a body of evidence. Loel Solomon, National Director of Community Health Initiatives and Evaluation for Kaiser Permanente, reminded workshop participants and audience members of the statement of Goethe often cited in IOM publica- tions: “Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.” Those words, he said, set the stage for the workshop. Credible evidence is essential, but “what we really are about,” he said, “is changing our environments, changing our communities so people are healthier.” He described a complementary IOM study cofunded by Kaiser Permanente to develop a framework for how evidence on obesity prevention is developed and translated into action (A Framework for Decision-Making for Obesity Prevention: Integrating Action with Evidence). Planning for that study affirmed that end users’ perspectives are vital because the social context for decision making is larger than the development of credible evidence. Solomon described a challenge presented to the steering committee for the framework to “reinvent” the abbreviation RCT (which traditionally stands for “randomized controlled trial”), with R standing for “relevant,” C for “communicate,” and T for “timely.” These three attributes, as much as the rigor of a study’s design, are what communities and policy makers take into account in their obesity prevention efforts. As demonstrated in projects funded by The California Endowment, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, and others,

OCR for page 25
2 COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES ON OBESITY PREVENTION evidence does play a role at key junctures in community change processes. In planning, evidence is used to determine what has worked elsewhere. It improves programs as they are under way, and can be a vital tool for influencing policy change and decision makers. At the same time, however, Solomon stressed the importance of recognizing that different audiences and different kinds of decisions require different levels of evidence. For instance, community groups find useful many tools that do not adhere to accepted cross-experimental design; an example is PhotoVoice, in which community members docu- ment their experience and viewpoints “It is really important for us to through photography. In contrast, the hold to the fact that different Congressional Budget Office is debat- audiences and different kinds of ing the kinds of evidence it needs decisions require different levels to generate what have been termed of evidence.” —Loel Solomon “scorable savings” for prevention. As highlighted in the workshop, policy makers draw on different levels of evidence depending on the issue under consideration and the myriad of other issues competing for resources and attention. Solomon urged the IOM, as well as workshop participants, to play a role in determining what constitutes evidence to support change. REPORT ORgANIzATION This report follows the organization of the workshop. Chapter 5 sum- marizes the presentations of community-based representatives and the discussion that followed. Chapters 6 and 7 highlight the presentations of nonprofit organizations and policy makers and ensuing discussions, respectively. Chapter 8 summarizes the closing remarks of representatives of two foundations that have supported many community-level programs. It should be noted that consensus recommendations were not sought during the course of the workshop, and thus are not presented in this report.