Implementation of an Individual + Policy, System, and Environmental (I + PSE) Technical Assistance Initiative to Increase Capacity of MCH Nutrition Strategic Planning

The intersection of systems thinking and structural empowerment in the work of public health dietitians

BACKGROUND

Public health dietitians navigate complex professional landscapes amid dwindling resources, organisational disruptions and limited advancement opportunities. Cultivating systems thinking and structural empowerment competencies may enable this workforce to address multifaceted public health challenges more effectively. This study explored the extent to which public health dietitians apply systems thinking and perceive access to structural empowerment and the relationship between these constructs.

METHODS

A quantitative online survey incorporating the systems thinking scale (STS) and conditions for work effectiveness questionnaire-II (CWEQ-II) was conducted among US public health dietitians who worked in governmental public health. Data were collected from September 2022 to October 2022. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Among 216 respondents, 98% demonstrated moderate-to-high systems thinking competency (mean STS score = 60.3 ± 8.74, range 28-78). Over 88% reported moderate-to-high perceived structural empowerment (mean CWEQ-II score = 18.3 ± 0.96, range 8-29). Higher systems thinking scores were associated with greater decision-making authority (p = 0.01) but not budget oversight. Higher structural empowerment scores correlated with increased job responsibilities and decision-making authority (p < 0.001). A significant positive correlation existed between systems thinking and structural empowerment (r = 0.24, p < 0.001). Public health dietitians exhibited substantial systems thinking capabilities and perceived access to organisational power structures.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers baseline understanding of systems thinking and structural empowerment among public health dietitians. The positive interplay between these constructs underscores their potential to drive systems-level change and influence population health outcomes. Integrating systems thinking and structural empowerment into dietetic education and professional development may enhance the workforce's preparedness for navigating complexities.

Partnerships and Community Engagement Key to Policy, Systems, and Environmental Achievements for Healthy Eating and Active Living: a Systematic Mapping Review

INTRODUCTION

Policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) change approaches frequently address healthy eating and active living (HEAL) priorities. However, the health effects of PSE HEAL initiatives are not well known because of their design complexity and short duration. Planning and evaluation frameworks can guide PSE activities to generate collective impact. We applied a systematic mapping review to the Individual plus PSE Conceptual Framework for Action (I+PSE) to describe characteristics, achievements, challenges, and evaluation strategies of PSE HEAL initiatives.

METHODS

We identified peer-reviewed articles published from January 2009 through January 2021 by using CINAHL, Web of Science, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CAB Abstracts databases. Articles describing implementation and results of PSE HEAL initiatives were included. Activities were mapped against I+PSE components to identify gaps in evaluation efforts.

RESULTS

Independent reviewers examined 437 titles and abstracts; 52 peer-reviewed articles met all inclusion criteria. Twenty-four focused on healthy eating, 5 on active living, and 23 on HEAL. Descriptive analyses identified federal funding of initiatives (typically 1-3 years), multisector settings, and mixed-methods evaluation strategies as dominant characteristics. Only 11 articles reported on initiatives that used a formal planning and evaluation framework. Achievements focused on partnership development, individual behavior, environmental or policy changes, and provision of technical assistance. Challenges included lack of local coalition and community engagement in initiatives and evaluation activities and insufficient time and resources to accomplish objectives. The review team noted vague or absent descriptions of evaluation activities, resulting in questionable characterizations of processes and outcomes. Although formation of partnerships was the most commonly reported accomplishment, I+PSE mapping revealed a lack of engagement assessment and its contributions toward initiative impact.

CONCLUSION

PSE HEAL initiatives reported successes in multiple areas but also challenges related to partnership engagement and community buy-in. These 2 areas are essential for the success of PSE HEAL initiatives and need to be adequately evaluated so improvements can be made.