Are limited, and other jurisdictions (e.g., public security) are regarded as critical problems, even though wellness promotion is regarded significantly less interesting, depending around the political priority offered to specific policy domains. `Wicked’ nature of obesity makes it very unattractive to invest in its prevention. Decreasing the incidence of childhood obesity is quite unlikely inside 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 establishing consensus about strategies to tackle the problem due to the lack of difficult scientific evidence about successful solutions. Han et al. [25] Aarts et al. [62] Head [14] Trivedi et al. [67] National Institute for Health and Clinical Evidence [68] Framing of childhood obesity (specially by neo-liberal governments) as an individual health difficulty rather than a societal difficulty. Responsibility for reaching healthy-weight promoting lifestyles is as a result shifted fully away from governments to individual children and their parents. Lack of political assistance. Ambiguous political climate: governments don’t seem eager to implement restrictive or legislative policy measures given that this would imply they have to confront potent 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 expertise and capabilities to collaborate with actors outside their very own division. Insufficient sources (time, budget). Steenbakkers [64] Aarts et al. [62] Steenbakkers [64] Woulfe et al. [75] Lack of membership diversity within the collaborative partnerships, resulting in issues of implementation Lack of clarity concerning the notion of intersectoral collaboration. Not being clear about the aims and added worth on the intersectoral strategy. Top-down bureaucracy and hierarchy, disciplinarity and territoriality, sectoral budgets, and diverse priorities and procedures in every single 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 high-quality of interpersonal or interorganizational relationships. Woulfe et al. [75] Isett and Provan [78] Major management not supporting intersectoral collaboration. Bovill [76]purchase Dimethylenastron Hendriks et al. Implementation Science 2013, 8:46 http:www.implementationscience.comcontent81Page 5 ofTable 1 Barriers concerning improvement and implementation of integrated public overall health policies, as reported in the literature (Continued)Lack of involvement by managers in collaborative efforts. Lack of widespread vision and leadership. Steenbakkers et al. [79] Woulfe et al. [75] Hunter [62] Innovation in local governance is hampered by: – asymmetric incentives that punish unsuccessful innovations a lot more severely than they reward successful ones – absence of venture capital to seed PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2125737 inventive challenge solving – disincentives lead to adverse selection: innovative persons decide on careers outdoors the public sector. Adaptive management flexibility of management necessary, focusing on finding out by performing. Lack of communication and insufficient join.