May 2026

Q&A with Dr. Taren Massey-Swindle: Closing the Gap Between Evidence and Practice with the NCCOR Implementation Scorecard

May 2026, NCCOR

NCCOR works to create connections, explore emerging topics, and translate research into practice to improve broader public health impact. As part of this effort, NCCOR’s Research Spotlight series features experts in the field who share their latest work around children’s nutrition, physical activity, obesity prevention, and overall well-being.

Taren Massey-Swindle, PhD is an implementation scientist and associate professor in the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine within the College of Medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. Her research program focuses on obesity prevention and nutrition promotion for young children in low-income families, particularly in the early childcare setting. Dr. Massey-Swindle is interested in increasing the adoption of evidence-based practices and interventions in community settings, including through the application of implementation science.

In 2025, she worked with NCCOR to develop the Implementation Scorecard: a Decision-making Companion for Practitioners. The scorecard and accompanying case study were informed by the experiences and challenges faced by practitioners implementing childhood nutrition, physical activity, and obesity prevention interventions. The tool is designed to help practitioners spot strengths and blind spots as they move through the four phases of implementing new interventions or programs: Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment

Q: Tell us about your current work and research interests.  

A: My work sits at the intersection of community engagement and implementation, with the goal of making evidence usable in real-world settings. Right now, I’m finishing an adaptive implementation trial that is helping us understand what level of support different early care and education sites need to be successful with their nutrition education efforts.  We suspected that one size does not fit all, and our data are making that very clear. We are seeing more early responders than we expected, which tells us that giving everyone the most intensive support is not always the best use of resources.  I’m also leading a deimplementation trial focused on reducing harmful feeding practices in childcare. We are testing whether a peer collaborative paired with facilitation can help shift those practices in a meaningful way. Across all of this work, I partner closely with communities to build approaches that fit their context and can be sustained.

Q: What got you interested in working in this field? 

A: I was growing concerned when an intervention we designed based on strong evidence was falling apart in practice. It was a good intervention; it should have worked. It just wasn’t being done well in real-world settings. I wondered if I had chosen the wrong career field! That experience really stayed with me. I wanted to understand what was getting in the way and what it would take to make something work outside of a controlled environment. That is what pulled me into implementation science.

Q: How can implementation science help advance practice for healthy children, families, and communities? 

A: Implementation science helps us move from simply handing people a program or intervention to actually helping them use it. For example, instead of giving a childcare center a curriculum and hoping it sticks, we pair it with concrete supports that stretch from the exploration phase through the sustainment phase. We pay attention to how decisions are made, what constraints people are working under, and what it takes to keep an intervention going over time. I love implementation science because it helps us think about how we can get evidence to everyone.  When we balance science with what is practical in real settings, we give ourselves a better chance of improving outcomes for children and families.

Q: What should practitioners implementing child obesity, nutrition, or physical activity programs or interventions know about NCCOR’s Implementation Scorecard and case study? How is it different from other tools out there? 

A: The Implementation Scorecard was built with community organizations in mind. Most tools in this space were created for scientists. This one is designed for the people who are making decisions every day about what to implement and how to do it. It walks teams through key decisions across phases and helps them see where they are strong and where they may need to adjust. The goal is to support better decisions, not to create more work. If someone only remembers one thing about the scorecard, I hope it is that you do not have to do everything all at once or perfectly. Perfection can get in the way of good work.

Q: Can practitioners use the scorecard once they have already begun implementing a program or intervention? Or do they need to use it from phase one in the EPIS framework (i.e., Exploration)? 

A: You can use it at any point. For example, an organization could use the scorecard to select their next initiative. Another program that is already in the middle of implementation could use it to step back, reassess, and make adjustments. If a team is coming into the second year of a program that has been going well, it may be time to make a sustainment plan.  The scorecard is designed to meet teams where they are and help guide next steps.

Q: Do you have any advice for students or junior researchers interested in implementation science? 

A: Early on, I spent too much time focused on theory and not enough time thinking about what it looks like to make something work in practice.  Stay close to the people doing the work, even if that is an unpopular decision or use of your time in academia. Pay attention to what frontline folks are navigating every day. The community already has many of the solutions. Our job is to listen well and figure out how to operationalize that creativity in a way that can be sustained.

To learn more about the Implementation Scorecard and how it can benefit practitioners, watch NCCOR’s Connect & Explore webinar, “Turning Evidence into Action: Using NCCOR’s Implementation Scorecard to Strengthen Childhood Obesity, Nutrition, and Physical Activity Interventions.” And to learn about other emerging topics and findings in the field, check out the other webinars in NCCOR’s Connect & Explore series.

Back to Top

NCCOR Toolbox: Measuring Movement with NCCOR’s Youth Compendium of Physical Activities

May 2026, NCCOR

As outdoor activity increases this spring, the Youth Compendium of Physical Activities offers a specialized framework for measuring energy expenditure across 196 activities common among children and adolescents. As the first resource of its kind based entirely on pediatric data, the Compendium provides Metabolic Equivalents (METy) that allow for more accurate quantification and comparison of physical activity than traditional adult-centric models. The tool features smoothed and observed METy values across 16 categories, ranging from high-intensity sports to sedentary behaviors. By utilizing these age-specific measures, public health practitioners, classroom teachers, and physical education teachers can better guide the design of new physical activity programs and ensure data-driven policymaking that reflects the actual energy costs of youth movement.

Back to Top

Health Care by Food Annual Report 2025: Advances in the Food Is Medicine Field

April 2026, American Heart Association

Food is medicine (FIM) is rapidly gaining momentum as a strategy to improve health outcomes and reduce health care costs by targeting the nutrition components of diet-related chronic diseases and other conditions. FIM refers to the provision of food-based nutrition interventions to prevent, manage or treat specific clinical conditions in coordination with the health care system. The American Heart Association (Association) defines FIM as the provision of healthy food such as medically tailored meals (MTMs), medically tailored groceries (MTGs) and produce prescriptions (PRx) to treat or manage specific clinical conditions in a way that is integrated with and paid for by the health care sector. By integrating interventions such as MTMs, MTGs and PRx into clinical care, FIM is reshaping how health systems, payers, communities and collaborators approach chronic disease management and prevention. Of note, FIM is distinct and novel in its approach, complementary to vital food and nutrition assistance programs and population-level healthy food policies and programs.

The Association’s Health Care by Food™ (HCXF) initiative was launched in late 2022 to coordinate scientific research, public policy advocacy and stakeholder education to advance FIM interventions that incorporate healthy food into health care to treat, manage and prevent diet-related diseases. The Association’s Presidential Advisory introduced the research agenda for the HCXF initiative, emphasizing the urgent need for a coordinated effort to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FIM interventions. It highlighted FIM’s potential to reduce chronic disease and lower health care costs, noting that 90% of U.S. health care spending is tied to chronic conditions. However, it also pointed out that the field has so far relied mainly on small, observational studies with limited generalizability.

This report reviews advances in FIM in the last year — July 2024 through June 2025 — including a look at new research findings, policy developments and the role of the Association’s Health Care by Food™ initiative. It analyzes emerging opportunities and implementation barriers while outlining priorities for scaling sustainable, accessible FIM programs. We focused on the past year to provide the most relevant and timely insights, building on prior reports that have already captured earlier advancements.

[Source]

Back to Top

National Farm to School Network Parter Network Map Database

April 2026, National Farm to School Network

National Farm to School Network has over 500 Partner organizations across the U.S., Sovereign Nations, Territories, and abroad. Our Partner organizations, which include schools and early care sites, producers, nonprofits, and government agencies, are at the forefront of creating thriving food systems through agriculture, local food procurement, education, and advocacy.

New in 2026—we are excited to launch an updated interactive Partner Network Map database! Easily find Partner organizations in your state, sort by type of organization, and more.

[Source]

Back to Top

Building Safe, Active, and Connected Communities for Youth and Young Adults: An Action Guide

April 2026, Healthy Places by Design

Building Safe, Active, and Connected Communities for Youth and Young Adults: An Action Guide draws on the Prevention Resource and on insights from experts with both professional and lived expertise in community violence, violence prevention, and health promotion.

The scope of this Action Guide follows the Prevention Resource definition of community violence: violence that happens in public places, such as streets or parks, between people who may or may not know each other. Examples include assaults, fights among groups, homicides, and fatal and nonfatal shootings. The focus of this Action Guide explores only the direct intersections between evidence-based community violence prevention strategies and approaches that promote physical activity in shared community spaces.

[Source]

Back to Top

Policy Priorities and Research Needs for Advancing Healthy Eating: A 2026-2027 Research Agenda for U.S. Children and Adolescents

March 2026, Healthy Eating Research

The current food and nutrition system has made it difficult for many children and families in the U.S. to access affordable and healthy foods, thereby contributing to poor diet quality, food insecurity, and diet-related conditions, such as obesity. In addition, Americans of all ages and income levels do not meet dietary recommendations, consuming too few fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and dairy products and too many ultraprocessed foods, refined grains, saturated fats, sodium, and added sugars.

Evidence-based policies and nutrition programs at the federal, state, and local levels can improve the food environment by increasing the availability, accessibility, and affordability of healthy choices. In turn, a healthy food environment promotes food security, healthy eating, and healthy weight among children and families. For example, the 16 federal nutrition assistance programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and school meal programs, are essential for children and families with lower-incomes.

Despite strong evidence supporting the success of federal nutrition programs, recent program cuts and evidence gaps threaten future progress. H.R. 1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” enacted in July 2025 as P.L. 119-21, made significant changes to eligibility requirements and federal and state cost-sharing requirements for social safety net programs, including SNAP and Medicaid. Other programs serving children and families, such as WIC and school meal programs, are already experiencing the ripple effects of these changes. Additional cuts in federal staff, programs, and surveillance tools, namely the Household Food Security Survey, provide challenges in evaluating the impacts of policy rollbacks. A timely, coordinated research agenda can help to identify and fill crucial gaps in programs and policies.

[Source]

Back to Top

Parents’ Insights on a Summer Obesity Prevention Intervention at SUN Meals Program Sites for Elementary School-Aged Children

April 16, 2026, Childhood Obesity

Background

One potential strategy to prevent unhealthy summer weight gain in children is to integrate obesity prevention interventions into the SUN Meals program, where free meals are offered to children from low-income households. The current study gathered insights from parents to (1) identify children’s weight-related health behaviors that need support during the summer, (2) examine potential intervention activities and their relevant barriers and facilitators, and (3) describe the preferred logistics of a summer obesity prevention intervention.

Methods

Two rounds of focus groups were conducted virtually between February and April 2025. Participants (n = 26) were parents of elementary school-aged children from low-income families. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic content analysis.

Results

The top five weight-related health behaviors parents identified as priorities for their children were (1) increasing fruit and vegetable intake, (2) getting sufficient sleep, (3) limiting screen time, (4) increasing physical activity, and (5) reducing added sugar intake. Most parents supported a weekly, half-day intervention at the SUN Meals program sites for elementary school-aged children. Activities deemed important included providing engaging nutrition education related to the food served; helping families establish bedtime routines and screen time agreements; and offering physical activities at the program sites. Parents also suggested low- or no-cost half-day programming on-site, complemented by take-home packets and additional follow-ups between sessions to reinforce intervention content at home.

Conclusions

Parents supported the proposed structured summer obesity prevention intervention at SUN Meals program sites, noting its benefits for families’ weight-related health behaviors and offering practical logistical suggestions.

[Source]

Back to Top

Assessing Implementation of Clinic–Community Partnerships Treating Pediatric Obesity

April 8, 2026, Childhood Obesity

Background

Although intensive health behavior and lifestyle treatment (IHBLT) is effective for treating youth obesity, it is not accessible to many. Our objective was to examine the implementation of Fit Together, an evidence-based IHBLT clinic–community model delivered by health care and local parks and recreation.

Methods

This study used a hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness design to examine uptake and implementation of the Fit Together model in eight North Carolina counties from 2016 to 2021. Each Fit Together partnership was provided with an implementation manual, training, technical assistance, and financial support. Implementation outcomes included partnership characteristics and program delivery (e.g., hours, referrals, attendance). Effectiveness outcomes included engagement (dose received), changes in child lifestyle habits, quality of life, and body mass index (BMI). Descriptive statistics described implementation outcomes, and linear regression models examined changes in participant-level outcomes.

Results

All eight locations implemented Fit Together (range: 5–18 months). A total of 1193 youth with obesity (12 years ± 3.0, 52.4% female) were referred to a Fit Together program. Of referred youth, 20% (241/1193) attended ≥ 1 session, of which 85% (205/241) attended ≥2 sessions. Nearly a third of engaged participants (29%, 70/241) received ≥26 treatment hours. For each additional session attended, BMI percent of the 95^th percentile declined (β = −0.12, p = 0.06).

Conclusions

The Fit Together model can be delivered in diverse settings, engage priority populations, and deliver IHBLT in a variety of locations. Future work should test scalability and dissemination strategies for clinic–community models of child obesity treatment.

[Source]

Back to Top

Rethinking Obesity Prevention: A Call for Strategic and Operational Clarity

April 7, 2026, Current Obesity Reports

Background

Despite decades of initiatives promoting individual behavior change, obesity rates remain high and continue to rise globally, indicating that what is commonly labelled as “obesity prevention” is not, in practice, preventing obesity. While health promotion strategies and policy interventions have demonstrated improvements in environments, health behaviors, and industry practices, their effects on obesity incidence and prevalence remain modest.

Objective

To examine the mismatch between current obesity prevention practices and contemporary scientific understanding of obesity as a chronic disease, and to propose a reframed approach to prevention.

Methods

Conceptual analysis informed by empirical evidence and field insights. The authors conceptualize a broad misalignment between scientific understanding of obesity and prevention practice.

Results

Current prevention efforts primarily target individual health behaviors and environmental factors related to food and physical activity, rather than addressing the complex causes of obesity. Contemporary clinical guidance defines obesity as a chronic, complex, and relapsing disease characterised by excess or dysfunctional adiposity that impairs health, shaped by biological, genetic, behavioral, and environmental factors. Behavioral interventions produce small changes in BMI and do not reliably prevent the onset or progression of obesity. Evidence demonstrates that behaviors are partly driven by underlying biological and brain-based mechanisms, and that physiological systems resist sustained weight change. As a result, interventions focused primarily on individual behavior are insufficient to prevent a disease governed by interacting biological and systemic processes. Drawing on empirical evidence and field insights, the authors show that prevention efforts are further limited by narrow outcome measures, short-term policy cycles, fragmented accountability, and inconsistent disease classification. Obesity prevention efforts do not align with current scientific understanding of obesity as a chronic, complex, and relapsing disease. Obesity prevention should be redefined to explicitly target disease onset and progression. An integrated, multi-level framework is needed to align health promotion, prevention, and clinical care, addressing biological, behavioral, and system (social, physical, commercial) drivers simultaneously.

[Source]

Back to Top

NIH-FDA Nutrition Regulatory Science Workshop: Advancing Research and Policy

March 10, 2026, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Background

Nutrition plays a pivotal role in health, yet poor dietary habits are now the leading risk factor for illness and death. In the United States, diet-related conditions such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity cause >1 million deaths per year and are leading contributors to the nation’s $4.5 trillion in healthcare spending.

Objectives

Addressing these issues requires coordinated efforts across multiple sectors and government agencies. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are essential partners in this endeavor. A strong foundation of scientific research, coupled with effective, practical, and real-world regulatory activities, is critical to inform consumers and support a healthier food environment.

Methods

In December 2024, NIH and FDA convened a workshop to advance nutrition science for food-related policy decision making. A diverse group of researchers, policymakers, and other experts participated in the event to identify research gaps, explore strategies for enhanced NIH-FDA collaboration, and highlight emerging technologies in nutrition science, with a particular focus on the topic of ultra-processed foods.

Results

The workshop was designed to do the following: 1) identify critical research gaps and priorities in nutrition regulatory science; 2) enhance scientific collaboration between NIH and FDA; 3) explore how scientific evidence informs food-related policies and regulations; and 4) highlight emerging technologies and data resource needs for nutrition research.

Conclusion

This article summarizes the workshop proceedings and describes priority research gaps, opportunities, and suggested next steps that emerged from the discussions.

[Source]

Back to Top