Are restricted, and other jurisdictions (e.g., public security) are regarded as critical concerns, whilst overall

Are restricted, and other jurisdictions (e.g., public security) are regarded as critical concerns, whilst overall health promotion is thought of less exciting, based on the political priority given to specific policy domains. `Wicked’ nature of obesity makes it quite unattractive to invest in its prevention. Decreasing the incidence of childhood obesity is extremely unlikely within the short timeframe in which most politicians function (determined by election frequencies). Reference Aarts et al. [62] Law on Public Overall health [9] Breeman et al. [63] Steenbakkers [64] Head [14] Head and Alford [19] Head [14] Aarts et al. [62] Romon et al. [65] Blakely et al. [66] Difficulty of creating consensus about solutions to tackle the problem as a result of lack of MedChemExpress AG 879 difficult scientific proof about helpful options. Han et al. [25] Aarts et al. [62] Head [14] Trivedi et al. [67] National Institute for Health and Clinical Proof [68] Framing of childhood obesity (particularly by neo-liberal governments) as an individual health difficulty rather than a societal difficulty. Duty for achieving healthy-weight promoting lifestyles is therefore shifted entirely away from governments to person young children and their parents. Lack of political assistance. Ambiguous political climate: governments don’t seem eager to implement restrictive or legislative policy measures because this would imply they’ve to confront effective lobbies by private companies. Lack of presence of champions and political commitment Hunter [69] Dorfman and Wallack [70] Schwartz and Puhl [71] Aarts et al. [62] Nestle [72] Peeler et al. [73] Verduin et al. [74] Woulfe et al. [75] Bovill [76] Process-related barriers Local government officials lacking the knowledge and capabilities to collaborate with actors outside their very own division. Insufficient resources (time, spending budget). Steenbakkers [64] Aarts et al. [62] Steenbakkers [64] Woulfe et al. [75] Lack of membership diversity inside the collaborative partnerships, resulting in troubles of implementation Lack of clarity about the notion of intersectoral collaboration. Not getting clear about the aims and added worth in the intersectoral strategy. Top-down bureaucracy and hierarchy, disciplinarity and territoriality, sectoral budgets, and diverse priorities and procedures in every sector. Inadequate organizational structures. Woulfe et al. [75] Harting et al. [17] Bovill [76] Bovill [76] Steenbakkers [64] Woulfe et al. [75] Alter and Hage [77] Hunter [33] Warner and Gould [2] Poor quality of interpersonal or interorganizational relationships. Woulfe et al. [75] Isett and Provan [78] Major management not supporting intersectoral collaboration. Bovill [76]Hendriks et al. Implementation Science 2013, 8:46 http:www.implementationscience.comcontent81Page 5 ofTable 1 Barriers with regards to development and implementation of integrated public well being policies, as reported in the literature (Continued)Lack of involvement by managers in collaborative efforts. Lack of common vision and leadership. Steenbakkers et al. [79] Woulfe et al. [75] Hunter [62] Innovation in regional governance is hampered by: – asymmetric incentives that punish unsuccessful innovations considerably more severely than they reward productive ones – absence of venture capital to seed PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2125737 inventive challenge solving – disincentives result in adverse choice: innovative persons choose careers outside the public sector. Adaptive management flexibility of management required, focusing on learning by undertaking. Lack of communication and insufficient join.