Childhood obesity prevention is critical to reducing the health and economic burden currently experienced by the Australian economy. System science has emerged as an approach to manage the complexity of childhood obesity and the ever-changing risk factors, resources and priorities of government and funders. Anecdotally, our experience suggests that inflexibility of traditional research methods and dense academic terminology created issues with those working in prevention practice. Therefore, this paper provides a refined description of research-specific terminology of scale-up, fidelity, adaptation and context, drawing from community-based system dynamics and our experience in designing, implementing and evaluating non-linear, community-led system approaches to childhood obesity prevention.

We acknowledge the importance of using a practice lens, rather than purely a research design lens, and provide a narrative on our experience and perspectives on scale-up, fidelity, context and adaptation through a practice lens.

Communities.

Practice-based researcher experience and perspectives.

Practice-based researchers highlighted the key finding that community should be placed at the centre of the intervention logic. This allowed communities to self-organise with regard to stakeholder involvement, capacity, boundary identification, and co-creation of actions implemented to address childhood obesity will ensure scale-up, fidelity, context and adaptation are embedded.

We need to measure beyond primary anthropometric outcomes and focus on evaluating more about implementation, process and sustainability. We need to learn more from practitioners on the ground and use an implementation science lens to further understand how actions work. This is where solutions to sustained childhood obesity prevention will be found.

To: (i) understand the nutrition attitudes, self-efficacy, knowledge and practices of school food-service personnel (SFP) in Nebraska and (ii) identify potential barriers that schools face in offering healthy school meals that meet the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) nutrition standards.

Convergent parallel mixed-methods study.

Kindergarten–12th grade schools in Nebraska, USA.

SFP (260 survey participants; fifteen focus group participants) working at schools that participate in the USDA National School Lunch Program.

Mixed-methods themes identified include: (i) ‘Mixed attitudes towards healthy meals’, which captured a variety of conflicting positive and negative attitudes depending on the situation; (ii) ‘Positive practices to promote healthy meals’, which captured offering, serving and promotion practices; (iii) ‘Mixed nutrition-related knowledge’, which captured the variations in knowledge depending on the nutrition concept; and (iv) ‘Complex barriers’, which captured challenges with time, support and communication.

The study produced relevant findings to address the barriers identified by SFP. Implementing multicomponent interventions and providing training to SFP may help reduce some of the identified barriers of SFP.

(i) To map how US adults value ‘choice’ in the context of obesity policy and (ii) to discuss implications for obesity prevention in children.

Semi-structured interviews (n 105) were conducted between 2006 and 2009 about causes of and solutions to childhood obesity. Quotes captured in field notes from community meetings (n 6) on childhood obesity prevention were also analysed. Each use of the word ‘choice’ and its variants was identified in these texts. Content and discourse were analysed to identify the implied values and meaning in each use.

North-eastern USA.

One hundred and five adults, some involved in childhood obesity prevention initiatives.

Three distinct frames of ‘choice’ emerged: (i) having choices (choice as freedom), (ii) making choices (choice as responsibility) and (iii) influencing choices (contextual constraints and impacts on choice). Many speakers used more than one frame over the course of an interview. Most people using the third frame seemed to share the values behind the first two frames, but focused on conditions required to enable people to be accountable for their choices and to make truly free choices. A small subset thought outside the frame of individual choice, valuing, as one person put it, a ‘social contract’.

Public debate in the USA about responsibility for and solutions to rising obesity rates often hinges on notions of ‘choice’. These frames, and the values underlying them, are not mutually exclusive. Respecting the values behind each ‘choice’ frame when crafting obesity prevention policy and employing all three in public communications about such policy may facilitate greater consensus on prevention measures.