7. Young People at a Healthy Weight

The Netherlands has experienced a progressive increase in rates of obesity for both adults and children, with current self-reported prevalence at 14.1% across the whole population (OECD, 2019[1]). It is a well-established that overweight and obesity in children and adults contributes to worse health outcomes such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer, as well as emotional and mental health problems due to low self-esteem (OECD, 2019[2]).

There are variety of factors that contribute to the expanding waistlines of young Dutch citizens, including environmental settings – such as, food environments (which includes large portion size, and sugary drinks availability), lack of physical activity among children, and sedentary behaviour (Seidell and Halberstadt, 2020[3]). In response, in 2010, the National Jongeren op Gezond Gewicht (JOGG) Project Bureau with the support from the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport initiated the JOGG approach in the Netherlands, which targets children aged 0-19 years. Currently, the JOGG-approach is carried out in 183 municipalities (more than 50% of all municipalities) in The Netherlands.

JOGG focuses on this age group given the promotion of a healthy lifestyle and prevention of obesity in childhood reduces rates of obesity in adulthood, which is associated with more complex health issues. In addition, obesity and overweight are health conditions associated with high levels of stigma, particularly among children: OECD analyses show that Dutch girls with obesity are 2.85 times more likely to be bullied than their healthy-weight counterparts (this is a slightly lower than the OECD26 average of 3.11 times more likelihood of bullying among girls) (OECD, 2019[2]). Difference in bullying among Dutch boys follows the OECD trend with an increase, where boys with obesity are 2.12 times more likely to be bullied than boys with healthy-weight (comparative to the OECD26 average of 1.78 times more likelihood) (OECD, 2019[2]). Bullying can come from peers, friends, and even family (WHO, 2017[4]). Such a harmful social environment can lead to feelings of shame, low self-esteem, poor body image, depressive moods, and even suicide (WHO, 2017[4]).

At local level JOGG municipalities work towards a healthy environment for their youth using six key principles:

In order to achieve wide reaching effects, obesity interventions must have political, structural, and government support. Under JOGG, municipal executives and councillors act as ambassadors to ensure healthy environments and lifestyles are integrated and articulated in policies across sectors, predominately: health care, spatial planning, sports and economic affairs. The diversity of policy spheres allows JOGG to exert influence on various domains that affect weight related outcomes – for example, advocacy for more green spaces and outdoor play areas, increase in availability of sport facilities, changes in local food stores for healthier alternatives (Collard et al., 2019[5]).

Healthy environments that allow for healthy childhoods are only achievable through joint efforts from public and private parties. The private sector has a major impact on the living environment, therefore partnerships are key to structural changes. Furthermore, engagement of both private and public sector promotes the collective understanding that healthy childhood is a shared social responsibility.

The “shared ownership” principle promotes the direct involvement of entire community in their well-being. It does so by asking what people want to change in their daily lives when it comes to creating a healthy environment. Individuals in communities hold the best knowledge on the barriers and opportunities within their families, districts, villages or cities to lead a healthier life. Shared ownership assumes positive collaboration between diverse professionals, local residents and parents/caretakers for healthier childhoods.

The JOGG approach is a tailor-made approach in which every step yields new knowledge. Health needs of each municipality are unique due to differences in context and environment. Thus, JOGG provides tailored solutions based on knowledge gained from previous transfers for best results. In order to expand the variety of practices and solutions, it is essential that JOGG municipalities conduct monitoring and evaluations. Findings from these evaluations allow participating municipalities to share valuable insights for collective benefit, which then inform programme adjustments.

Principle 5 is about co-operation between professionals and organisations from the various prevention levels (i.e. from collective to the individual). JOGG aims to create a healthy environment for all children, but it also focuses on providing proper care and support for children who are living with overweight/obesity. Specifically, kids living with overweight/obesity receive tailored care from one central provider.

Communication is essential for JOGG municipalities as it makes the activities of JOGG teams visible and transparent, ensures more support and contributes to achieving goals.

Further information on specific activities carried as part of JOGG are summarised in Box 7.1.

This section analyses the JOGG approach against the five criteria within OECD’s Best Practice Identification Framework – Effectiveness, Efficiency, Equity, Evidence-base and Extent of coverage (see Box 7.2 for a high-level assessment of JOGG). Further details on the OECD Framework can be found in Annex A.

This section presents results for the Netherlands followed by remaining OECD and non-OECD European countries (see Annex 7.A for modelling assumptions specific to JOGG).

OECD’s SPHeP-NCDs model estimates that implementing JOGG across all municipalities in the Netherlands would lead to 16 life years (LY) and 19 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) gained per 100 000 people, on average, per year over the period 2021-50. These figures translate into cumulative gain of 95 032 LYs and 112 838 DALYs by 2050 (Figure 7.1).

In gross terms, JOGG is expected to have the greatest impact on reducing cases of musculoskeletal (MSDs) and cardiovascular (CVDs) disease (Figure 7.2). Between 2021 and 2050, the number of MSD and CVD cases is estimated to fall by 41 360 and 13 089, respectively. Other diseases affected include diabetes, dementia and specific cancers.

Transferring JOGG to all OECD and EU27 countries is estimated to result in 27.3 and 33.9 LYs gained per 100 000 (ranging from 13.5 in Israel to 60.7 in Bulgaria) (Figure 7.3). For DALYs, the figures are even higher at 30.9 for OECD and 36.9 for EU27 countries.

Broadly, JOGG would have the biggest impact on MSDs with the approach leading to an estimated reduction of 2.86 million and 0.96 million cases among OECD and EU27 countries, respectively, between 2021 and 2050 (Figure 7.4). Across all countries, JOGG is also estimated to reduce the number of CVDs cases by 1.32 million, and diabetes cases by 0.58 million, dementia cases by 0.20 million, and obesity related cancer cases by 0.12 million.

Similar to “Effectiveness”, this section presents results for the Netherlands followed by remaining OECD and non-OECD European countries.

By reducing rates of obesity, the JOGG approach can reduce health care costs. Over the modelled period of 2021-50, the OECD-SPHeP NCD model estimates the JOGG intervention would lead to cumulative health expenditure savings of EUR 51.94 per person by 2050 (Figure 7.5) or by EUR 2.72 per person, per year. Cost savings, however, are to an extent offset by intervention operating costs (see Table 7.2).

Average annual health expenditure (HE) savings as a proportion of total HE is 0.06% for both OECD and EU27 countries (Figure 7.6). On a per capita basis, this translates into average annual savings of EUR 1.28 and EUR 1.14 for OECD and EU27 countries, respectively.

Table 7.2 provides information on intervention costs, total health expenditure savings and the cost per DALY gained in local currency for all OECD and non-OECD European countries. Results from the analysis show JOGG is cost saving for the majority of countries, including the Netherlands. For countries with a positive cost per DALY gained, JOGG is not cost saving, however, it is still highly cost-effective based on international thresholds used to define a country’s willingness to pay for one year of life in good health (this threshold typically ranges between EUR 22 000-80 000 (Vallejo-Torres et al., 2016[7])).

The reduction in chronic diseases resulting from the JOGG approach has, in turn, an impact on labour market participation and productivity. By reducing obesity related disease incidence, JOGG is estimated to increase employment and reduce absenteeism, presenteeism, and early retirement. Converting these labour market outputs into full-time equivalent (FTE) workers, it is estimated that OECD and EU27 countries will gain 13.8 and 14.4 FTE per 100 000 working age people per year between 2021 and 2050, respectively. In monetary terms, this translates into average per capita labour market production of EUR 3.7 for OECD and EUR 3.0 for EU27 countries (Figure 7.7).

The JOGG approach targets priority population groups in particular those in vulnerable environments. At the local level, the needs of priority population groups are defined – for example, by speaking with teachers, principals, welfare professionals, sport foundations and private enterprises, such as supermarkets. Subsequently, JOGG activities are adapted to suit the needs of different groups such as children from a low socio-economic status (SES) or different ethnic background to Dutch (Middelbeek, 2017[8]).

The impact of JOGG according to SES is available, which shows positive results. A study by Groningen University found JOGG led to greater reductions in overweight prevalence in low SES JOGG municipalities compared to middle/high SES municipalities (Kobes, Kretschmer and Timmerman, 2021[9]):

  • Low-SES municipalities: decline in overweight prevalence from 25.17% to 21.16% between 2013 and 2018, which was statistically significant.

  • Middle/high-SES municipalities: increase in overweight prevalence from 10.79% to 11.78% between 2014 and 2018, which were not statistically significant.

The findings from the University of Groningen pre-print study were used for modelling the effectiveness of JOGG, which was imputed into the SPHeP-NCD model (Kobes, Kretschmer and Timmerman, 2021[9]). Findings from the University of Groningen report align with a previous evaluation by the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM) (Blokstra et al., 2020[10]). Specifically, both studies estimated that JOGG reduced the prevalence of overweight and obesity in children by about 9 percentage points.

In the study conducted by the researchers from University of Groningen, the prevalence of overweight was obtained from the measurements collected at school (by a school nurse) for children aged 9-11, which were later communicated to the local public health centres, these centres in turn pooled the data at the Dutch Centre for Youth Health. The evaluation was conducted for each subsequent year for six-year period, from 2013-18, where a control community that did not benefit from JOGG approach was followed in parallel for comparison (Kobes, Kretschmer and Timmerman, 2021[9]).

The RIVM evaluation report collected overweight prevalence data a year before the introduction of the JOGG approach from the Health Interview Survey of Children aged 2-19 (self-reported outcomes). Subsequent evaluations were conducted in year 1, 2, 3 and 4 after the implementation of JOGG approach in participating municipalities (Blokstra et al., 2020[10]).

The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies rates the RIVM “strong” in reducing selection bias, while the University of Groningen was rated as strong in terms of and using reliable and validated data collection tools (Table 7.3):

  • The RIVM evaluation report explicitly controlled and matched each individual by neighbourhood, age, sex, origin (Dutch, Western, non-Western), household income.

  • The University of Groningen study had methodical approach in their collection methods and tools of the data (BMI, indicators of SES).

During the period from 2015-21, the JOGG approach expanded from 91 to 183 of the 352 municipalities across the Netherlands (Figure 7.8), which equates to 30% of all children aged 0-19 years living in the country.1

This section summarises policy options to enhance the performance of JOGG in areas where the intervention currently operates. The policy options are also useful for policy makers in the process of, or interested in, implementing JOGG (e.g. to shape what activities are included in JOGG).

The JOGG approach targets children aged 0-19, with many of its activities undertaken in the school environment. For this reason, it is important that teachers are health literate, as well as parents to ensure good behaviours continue at home.

Obesity is a complex and sensitive subject; therefore, it is important teachers receive appropriate training in order to feel confident delivering nutrition/physical activity interventions in the classroom. For example, as part of professional development programs for teachers, or, at a wider, systematic level, obesity prevention topics could be continuously explored in the curriculum for becoming a teacher.

This policy aligns with WHO’s Nutrition-Friendly Schools Initiative (NFSI), which promotes continuous “school staff training in nutrition and health related issues” (WHO, 2021[15]). The evidence behind NFSI found that investing in ongoing training, support and communication of educators has a positive effect on the health outcomes such as BMI, physical activity levels and diet (WHO, 2021[15]).

To ensure healthy behaviours taught in the school environment continue in the home, it is also important to promote health literacy among parents. JOGG municipalities should therefore continue engaging parents through activities such as school information sessions, joint child-school-parent activities, school-led cooking workshops, and family activity nights (Lloyd et al., 2018[16]; Waters et al., 2011[17]). Where possible, activities should be direct (i.e. face-to-face) given these are typically more effective than engaging indirectly (e.g. newsletters) (WHO, 2021[15]).

Gamification incorporates elements of game design into non-game contexts, such as health promotion activities. The idea behind gamification in health promotion is to capture components of games that make them addictive (Cugelman, 2013[18]).

In a community based setting, gamification can encourage behaviour change in a fun and engaging way (OECD, 2019[19]). By doing so, activities to encourage healthy behaviours are not framed negatively – i.e. obesity prevention – but positively, which can reduce stigma associated with participation. Example activities may include:

  • Daily step challenges, where participants share their step count with friends. Alternatively participants may be placed into groups. Prizes for number of steps taken (or milestones reached – e.g. one week of walking 10 000 steps a day) can act as incentives to increase physical activity.

  • Digital “exergames” using consoles focused on activities such as fitness, dancing and cycling. A recent systematic review by Goodyear et al. (2021[20]) concluded there is convincing evidence to support the use of online interventions incorporating elements of gamification to support children and young people’s engagement in physical activity.

At present, the JOGG approach promotes active play both in and outside the home, which aligns well with gamification practices to change children’s behaviours.

The JOGG approach promotes healthier food environments by collaborating with food industry partners to provide healthy food options to children. This is especially important for families living in lower SES neighbourhoods who typically have less access to healthy foods and therefore more likely to have diets comprised of foods associated with weight gain (e.g. processed foods) (RIVM, 2016[21]).

JOGG should continue efforts to promote healthy foods in local retailers and schools. For example, JOGG could consider working with food industry partners to distribute food products with healthy food labels, in addition, to fruit and vegetables. Food labels are more effective when placed at the front of the product and are easily interpretable – e.g. see case studies for Nutri-Score and the Danish Whole Grain Partnership in Chapters 3 and 9, respectively. However, at present, neither mandatory nor voluntary front-of-pack food labels exist in the Netherlands.

Negative stigma associate with overweight and obesity is well documented. Recently, the WHO’s report on Weight Bias and Obesity Stigma highlighted pervasive negative attitudes towards persons with obesity and how this affects social and health capital of future generations (WHO Europe, 2017[22]). Further, individuals who seek medical care for weight loss purposes are less likely to be successfully if they perceive themselves as being judged on the basis of their weight (Gudzune et al., 2014[23]).

Some recommended actions that the JOGG approach could continue incorporating so as to reduce weight bias and stigma towards children living with obesity include (WHO Europe, 2017[22]):

  • Monitoring the impact of weight-based bullying among children and young people (e.g. through anti-bullying programmes and training of educational and health professionals)

  • Assessment of unintended consequences of prevention initiatives on children with obesity – e.g. is stigmatising language being used in activities?

  • Continuing the use of children’s voices to promote health approaches that builds up their resilience

  • Adoption of people-first language in all forms of institutions, especially in educational and health systems

  • Creating new standards that represent individuals with obesity in the media, by moving away from using imagery and language that show people with obesity in a negative light.

Efficiency is calculated by obtaining information on effectiveness and expressing it in relation to inputs used. Therefore, policies to boost effectiveness without significant increases in costs will have a positive impact on efficiency.

As outlined under “Equity”, JOGG had a greater impact on reducing rates of overweight and obesity in low compared to middle and high-SES areas. JOGG’s success in reducing health inequalities can be attributed to several factors such as encouraging municipalities to adapt the programme to align with their local cultural needs in the community as well as collaborating with community stakeholders (Feel4Diabetes-study group, 2020[24]).

Nevertheless, there exist opportunities for JOGG to further enhance this best practice criterion, in particular targeting public health messages regarding JOGG.

There is evidence that shows disadvantaged groups in the population (i.e. those with a low-SES and a lower education level) display more anxious and suspicious attitudes to prevention messaging from public health authorities (Peretti-Watel et al., 2009[25]). Therefore, traditional communication campaigns to promote health messaging may indirectly exclude disadvantaged groups.

JOGG’s use of targeted communication messages should continue, and if not already, incorporate the following effective strategies for equitable messages (Borys et al., 2016[26]; Beacom and Newman, 2010[27]):

  • An assessment of existing attitudes around obesity in low-SES groups, with findings used to frame public health messaging

  • Use of community health workers for interpersonal communication to disseminate information regarding available services at no cost to the individual

  • Partnering with existing organisations that have close ties with the target group (e.g. social services, charities, and migrant centres) to help promote JOGG activities

  • Using educational entertainment for reaching non-seekers and avoiders of health information (e.g. animation, health information included in fictional already popularised TV media, health multi-media narratives).

Study designs used to measure the impact of JOGG on obesity prevalence are associated with several limitations (see “Evidence-base”). This is common for community-based obesity prevention interventions given their complexity.

To strengthen future evaluations of JOGG, it is necessary to enhance the evaluation study design based on recommendations listed below.

To evaluate the long-term impact of JOGG on rates of obesity, data collected frequently using the same measures and the same individuals is ideal (i.e. panel data). Longitudinal panel data is the “gold standard” as it reduces bias by considering differences across individuals.

Collecting panel data can be difficult and expensive to implement. One possible solution is to collect data on BMI within national electronic health records (EHRs). Data from digital EHRs are considered high quality, further, information from EHRs is often accessible to academic researchers.

Based on an observational study looking at EHR use in primary care, approximately one in four people have BMI recorded in their EHR. However, this study only considered individuals who self-reported as overweight and is therefore not representative of the whole population (Verberne et al., 2018[28]).

Randomised control trials (RCTs) are the most scientifically rigorous method for evaluating the impact of intervention. However, they are not always feasible for economic, political or ethical reasons. Other study designs are available that mimic RCT characteristics and may be more suitable for community-based obesity interventions such as JOGG – for example, propensity score matching and regression discontinuity design with a treatment and control group.

To better understand the impact of JOGG across different groups of children, a breakdown of evaluation results by priority population groups is encouraged. Previous studies have done this by presenting results by SES status (Kobes, Kretschmer and Timmerman, 2021[9]), however, it is also important to understand how JOGG affects children from different ethnic backgrounds as well as by location (e.g. rural versus urban school and home settings, if possible). A breakdown of results by ethnicity, for example, would be an important contributor to the wider literature on community-based obesity interventions given the current paucity of available studies (Amini et al., 2015[29]).

One of JOGG’s main objectives is to reduce obesity prevalence. Since changes in rates of overweight and obesity can be difficult to measure and take many years to achieve, data should also be collected for related indicators – i.e. intermediate outcome indicators, which are directly related to weight. For example:

  • Percentage of children who consume fruits at least once per day

  • Percentage of children who consume vegetables at least once per day

  • percentage of children who consume sugary drinks

  • Percentage children and adolescents (5-17 years) reported doing at least 60min or moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity daily.

Given JOGG’s whole approach is to change the obesogenic environment, structural indicators that measure the built environment may also be of interest. A non-exhaustive list of indicators are summarised below (Schäfer Elinder and Jansson, 2008[30]):

  • Availability of sports facilities

  • Green space

  • Access to fast-food restaurants

  • Share of foods with a recognised health symbol

  • Nutrition quality of meals in restaurants and schools

  • Share of schools with a ban on the sale of soft drinks

  • Presence of nutrition guidelines for school meals and the proportion of schools that comply.

As discussed under “Extent of coverage”, the number of municipalities participating in JOGG has grown significantly since its inception – i.e. from 91 to 183 of the 352 municipalities in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2021.

JOGG administrators are encouraged to continue using existing methods to increase coverage as well as new methods. For example:

  • By framing JOGG activities as health promoting as opposed to obesity prevention in order to reduce stigma (see “Enhancing effectiveness” for further details)

  • Drawing upon support from government agencies to further legitimise the JOGG approach, while taking into account that certain groups may be less responsive to this type of messaging (discussed under “Enhancing equity”).

This section explores the transferability of JOGG and is broken into three components: 1) an examination of previous transfers; 2) a transferability assessment using publically available data; and 3) additional considerations for policy makers interested in transferring JOGG.

JOGG has been transferred across municipalities in the Netherlands as well as internationally.

As outlined in Figure 7.8, since 2015, the JOGG approach has successfully expanded to a large number of municipalities in the Netherlands – specifically from 91 to 183 (out of 352) between 2015 and 2021.

To assist municipalities transfer JOGG, regional co-ordinators and professionals knowledgeable about the local context work with the JOGG director at the municipality level. During the first six months, regional co-ordinators receive training from JOGG coaches to implement the six principles (see “Intervention description”). Example training activities include:

  • Drafting a strategy plan to implement the JOGG approach

  • Engaging with local organisations to shape and progress JOGG in their specific area.

Support for JOGG municipalities does not end once implemented – specifically, participating municipalities receive ongoing support, for example, to develop public-private contracts.

The JOGG approach has strong roots in the international EPODE2 methodology and is currently part of the health network called Young Health Community. This network beings together key findings and lessons learnt from implementations of the EPODE community-based approach to obesity prevention across Europe, the United States and the Middle East.

The following section outlines the methodological framework to assess transferability and results from the assessment.

Details on the methodological framework to assess transferability are in Annex A. Indicators from publically available datasets to assess the transferability of JOGG are listed in Table 7.4. These cover indicators related to the population, political and economic contexts. Please note, the assessment is intentionally high level given the availability of public data covering OECD and non-OECD European countries.

Results from the transferability assessment using publically available data are summarised below, which show mixed results (see Table 7.5 for results at the country level):

  • In the Netherlands, a greater proportion of the population has access to green spaces in which to be active compared to potential transfer countries – 97% compared to 92%, on average, among remaining countries.

  • A large proportion of teachers (86%) in the Netherlands report being motivated to influence the education of their students, compared to 93% among potential transfer countries. Given a large number of JOGG activities are undertaken in the classroom, these results indicate teachers are likely to be accepting of JOGG.

  • The vast majority (86%) of countries have a childhood obesity strategy, indicating JOGG would like receive political support among potential transfer countries.

  • Most OECD and non-OECD European countries have some sort of nutritional labelling scheme in place, which allows health messaging to be implemented as part of private public partnerships pillar of JOGG.

  • Spending on prevention across OECD and non-OECD countries is typically lower than in the Netherlands (i.e. only 7 of the 43 countries analysed spent the same or more on prevention than in the Netherlands). Given JOGG is a preventative intervention, this results indicate a potential affordability issue. Similarly, the Netherlands spends more on recreation and sporting services compared to other OECD and EU countries (0.5% of GDP versus an average of 0.43% among countries with available data). Nevertheless, the Netherland spends less, albeit marginally, on schools than the OECD average.

To help consolidate findings from the transferability assessment above, countries have been clustered into one of three groups based on indicators reported in Table 7.4. Countries in clusters with more positive values have the greatest transfer potential. For further details on the methodological approach used, please refer to Annex A.

Key findings from each of the clusters are below with further details in Figure 7.9 and Table 7.6:

  • Countries in cluster one have sector specific, political and economic arrangements in place to transfer JOGG and are therefore less likely to experience difficulty implementing and operating JOGG. This cluster includes the Netherlands, the owner country of this intervention, and Iceland, which previously transferred elements of JOGG.

  • Countries in cluster two have political and economic arrangements in place that support the transfer of JOGG but could consider further analysis to ensure sectors in which JOGG operates support the intervention.

  • Countries in cluster three should consider a number of factors before transferring JOGG such as ensuring JOGG aligns with overall political priorities and is affordable (based on funding for preventative care, schools, and recreation and sporting services).

Data from publically available datasets is not ideal to assess the transferability of the JOGG approach. Therefore, Box 7.3 outlines several new indicators policy makers should consider before transferring this intervention.

The JOGG approach is a community-based childhood obesity intervention targeting children 0 to 19 years. The approach aims to alter both energy-related behaviours as well as physical and social environments that have a large influence on the weight status of children. Although the JOGG specific approach operates primarily from the Netherlands, several European and North American countries have adopted the EPODE approach, which serves as the basis for the JOGG approach’s methodology of operations.

Estimates indicate scaling-up JOGG across the Netherlands would lead to significant health and economic gains. Scaling-up JOGG across the whole of the Netherlands would lead to 16.0 LYs and 19.0 DALYs gained per 100 000 on average per year between 2021 and 2050. In terms of diseases, JOGG would have the greatest impact on reducing the incidence of musculoskeletal conditions, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. A decrease in the incidence of NCDs would result in a reduction in health care spending of EUR 2.72 per person, per year.

JOGG has the potential to narrow health inequalities, especially among population groups with a lower SES. JOGG focuses on municipalities with the highest burden of obesity, which are typically populated by people with a low SES. Further, each JOGG municipality tailors it activities to suit the needs of its local population. It is therefore not surprising that JOGG has the greatest impact among disadvantaged municipalities.

The number of participating JOGG municipalities has increased markedly since the interventions’ inception. Between 2015 and 2019, the number of participating municipalities in the Netherlands grew from 91 to 183. JOGG therefore reaches over 1 million children or 30% of the population aged 0-19 years (i.e. the target population).

JOGG has a positive impact on many best practice criteria, however, further enhancements are possible. For example, policy makers could promote complementary policies such as changes to educational curricula for both teachers and students on the topic of health literacy. Further, to understand the long-term impact of JOGG on health outcomes, future studies could increase follow up times, for example, by drawing upon BMI data within patient electronic health records.

Community-based obesity prevention interventions similar to JOGG exist across multiple OECD countries indicating it is a transferable intervention. JOGG was developed based on the EPODE approach, which is a community-based framework for addressing childhood obesity. Other obesity prevention interventions in countries such as France, the United States, Australia, Canada and Spain also use the EPODE approach, indicating JOGG is a transferable intervention. The transferability of JOGG was also assessed using publically available data, which found mixed results – for example, JOGG would likely receive political support in most countries given childhood obesity is a top political priority, however spending on prevention is relatively low when compared to the Netherlands.

Box 7.4 outlines next steps for policy makers and funding agencies regarding JOGG.


[29] Amini, M. et al. (2015), Effect of school-based interventions to control childhood obesity: A review of reviews, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences(IUMS), https://doi.org/10.4103/2008-7802.162059.

[27] Beacom, A. and S. Newman (2010), “Communicating Health Information to Disadvantaged Populations”, Family & Community Health, Vol. 33/2, pp. 152-162, https://doi.org/10.1097/fch.0b013e3181d59344.

[10] Blokstra, A. et al. (2020), Werkt de JOGG-aanpak? Veranderingen in overgewicht en beweeggedrag bij kinderen en jongeren, RIVM, https://www.rivm.nl/documenten/factsheet-werkt-jogg-aanpak.

[26] Borys, J. et al. (2016), “Tackling Health Inequities and Reducing Obesity Prevalence: The EPODE Community-Based Approach”, Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, Vol. 68/Suppl. 2, pp. 35-38, https://doi.org/10.1159/000446223.

[13] Collard, D. et al. (2017), Monitor Jongeren Op Gezond Gewicht, Mulier Institute, https://www.mulierinstituut.nl/publicaties/21837/monitor-jongeren-op-gezond-gewicht-2016/.

[14] Collard, D. et al. (2018), Monitor Jongeren Op Gezond Gewicht, Mulier Institute, https://www.mulierinstituut.nl/publicaties/23512/monitor-jongeren-op-gezond-gewicht-2017/.

[5] Collard, D. et al. (2019), Monitor Jongeren Op Gezond Gewicht 2018, Mulier Instituut, https://www.mulierinstituut.nl/publicaties/24468/monitor-jongeren-op-gezond-gewicht-2018/.

[18] Cugelman, B. (2013), “Gamification: What It Is and Why It Matters to Digital Health Behavior Change Developers”, JMIR Serious Games, Vol. 1/1, p. e3, https://doi.org/10.2196/games.3139.

[11] Effective Public Health Practice Project (1998), Quality assessment tool for quantitative studies, https://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/search/14.

[34] Eurostat (2019), “General government spending on recreational and sporting services (% GDP)”.

[24] Feel4Diabetes-study group (2020), “Effective strategies for childhood obesity prevention via school based, family involved interventions: a critical review for the development of the Feel4Diabetes-study school based component”, BMC Endocrine Disorders, Vol. 20/S2, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-020-0526-5.

[20] Goodyear, V. et al. (2021), “The influence of online physical activity interventions on children and young people’s engagement with physical activity: a systematic review”, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, pp. 1-15, https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2021.1953459.

[23] Gudzune, K. et al. (2014), “Perceived judgment about weight can negatively influence weight loss: A cross-sectional study of overweight and obese patients”, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 62, pp. 103-107, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.02.001.

[33] Inchley, J. et al. (2020), Spotlight on adolescent health and well-being. Findings from the 2017/2018 Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) survey in Europe and Canada. International report. Volume 1. Key findings, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332091/9789289055000-eng.pdf.

[6] JOGG (2021), Jongeren Op Gezond Gewicht, https://jogg.nl/jogg-aanpak (accessed on 9 August 2021).

[9] Kobes, A., T. Kretschmer and G. Timmerman (2021), Prevalence of overweight among Dutch primary school children living in JOGG and non-JOGG areas, Center for Open Science, https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/u7b9q.

[16] Lloyd, J. et al. (2018), “Effectiveness of the Healthy Lifestyles Programme (HeLP) to prevent obesity in UK primary-school children: a cluster randomised controlled trial”, The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, Vol. 2/1, pp. 35-45, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30151-7.

[8] Middelbeek, L. (2017), Jongeren op Gezond Gewicht (“Young People at Healthy Weight”), http://chrodis.eu/good-practice/young-people-healthy-weight-jogg-netherlands/.

[35] OECD (2021), Education spending (indicator), https://doi.org/10.1787/ca274bac-en (accessed on 28 October 2021).

[1] OECD (2019), Obese population, self reported % total population, OECD, Paris.

[19] OECD (2019), OECD Reviews of Public Health: Chile: A Healthier Tomorrow, OECD Reviews of Public Health, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264309593-en.

[2] OECD (2019), The Heavy Burden of Obesity: The Economics of Prevention, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67450d67-en.

[32] OECD/FAO (2021), OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021-2030, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19428846-en.

[25] Peretti-Watel, P. et al. (2009), La Prévention en Question: Attitudes à l’Egard de la Santé, Perceptions des Messages Préventifs et Impact des Campagnes, INPES.

[12] Reijgersberg, N., Pulles, I., Breedveld, K., de Hollander, E. (2016), Monitor Jongeren Op Gezond Gewicht 2015, Mulier Institute, https://www.mulierinstituut.nl/publicaties/17292/monitor-jongeren-op-gezond-gewicht-2015/.

[21] RIVM (2016), Food consumption in the Netherlands and its determinants: Background report to ‘What’s on our plate? Safe, healthy and sustainable diets in the Netherlands’, https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2016-0195.pdf.

[30] Schäfer Elinder, L. and M. Jansson (2008), “Obesogenic environments – aspects on measurement and indicators”, Public Health Nutrition, p. 1, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980008002450.

[3] Seidell, J. and J. Halberstadt (2020), “National and Local Strategies in the Netherlands for Obesity Prevention and Management in Children and Adolescents”, Obesity Facts, Vol. 13/4, pp. 418-429, https://doi.org/10.1159/000509588.

[7] Vallejo-Torres, L. et al. (2016), “On the Estimation of the Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: Why, What, How?”, Value in Health, Vol. 19/5, pp. 558-566, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.020.

[28] Verberne, L. et al. (2018), “Recording of weight in electronic health records: an observational study in general practice”, BMC Family Practice, Vol. 19/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-018-0863-x.

[17] Waters, E. et al. (2011), Interventions for preventing obesity in children, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001871.pub3.

[15] WHO (2021), Nutrition action in schools: a review of evidence related to the nutrition-friendly schools initiative, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241516969.

[4] WHO (2017), Weight bias and obesity stigma: considerations for the WHO European Region, https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/noncommunicable-diseases/obesity/publications/2017/weight-bias-and-obesity-stigma-considerations-for-the-who-european-region-2017 (accessed on 9 August 2021).

[31] WHO (n.d.), Global Health Observatory, https://www.who.int/data/gho (accessed on 25 August 2021).

[22] WHO Europe (2017), Weight bias and obesity stigma: considerations for the WHO European Region, https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/351026/WeightBias.pdf.


← 1. Figure provided by JOGG administrators.

← 2. EPODE = Ensemble Prévenons l’Obésité des Enfants (Together preventing childhood obesity).

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

© OECD 2022

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at https://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.