Risk Perceptions and Ethical Public Health Policy: MMR Vaccination in the UK

2009 ◽  
pp. 53-61
Author(s):  
Angus Dawson
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Public Health Policy ◽  
Risk Perceptions ◽  
The Uk

scholarly journals What do we currently know about nutrition and bone health in relation to United Kingdom public health policy with particular reference to calcium and vitamin D?

2007 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. M. Francis
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Vitamin D ◽  
Body Weight ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Bone Health ◽  
Public Health Policy ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Food Standards ◽  
Prevention Of Osteoporosis ◽  
The Uk

Public health policy in the UK related to nutrition and bone health has been shaped by reports from the Department of Health (DH), Food Standards Agency and WHO. Dietary reference values (DRV) for a number of nutrients were published in 1991 by the DH Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy. The subsequent DH report on nutrition and bone health in 1998 concentrated particularly on Ca and vitamin D, but also briefly addressed the effect of body weight, alcohol and other nutrients. Although this reviewed more recent evidence relating to the effect of higher intakes of Ca and vitamin D from longitudinal and interventional studies, no changes were made to the existing DRV. The Food Standards Agency published a report from their Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals in 2003, which recommended safe upper limits for eight vitamins and minerals, with guidance provided on a further twenty-two nutrients, where there was less information on safety. The WHO report on diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases in 2003 addressed the prevention of osteoporosis, making recommendations on Ca, vitamin D, Na, fruit and vegetables, alcohol and body weight. The present paper examines current views on what constitutes an adequate dietary Ca intake and optimal vitamin D status, the DRV for vitamin D in subjects with little or no exposure to sunlight and the results of recent epidemiological studies on the relationship between fracture risk and body weight, alcohol intake and the consumption of other nutrients.

Prevention Policy and Public Health

2020 ◽  
pp. 137-154
Author(s):  
Paul Cairney ◽  
Emily St Denny
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
Public Health Policy ◽  
Prevention Policy ◽  
Policy Problem ◽  
Tobacco Policies ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Acute Healthcare

Health policy is the traditional home of prevention policies. Public health is at the heart of policies designed to improve population health, and perhaps reduce health inequalities, often through changes in behaviour at an early age. Public health policy tends to be a hub for advocates of EBPM. In theory, healthcare and public health are symbiotic, particularly if early public health interventions reduce demand for acute healthcare. However, in practice, public health is an exemplar of the wide gap between expectations for ‘evidence-based’ prevention policy and actual outcomes. To demonstrate, first, we apply our theoretical approach, outlined in Chapters 1 to 3, to present a broad examination of health policy and the role of prevention within it, considering what a window of opportunity for prevention policy within a complex system means in relation to health and public health policy. Second, we show that the UK and Scottish governments have described different policy styles, but faced and addressed the ambiguity and complexity of preventive health policy in similar ways. Third, our comparison of broad prevention versus specific tobacco policies shows why substantive policy change is more apparent in the latter: there is a clearer definition of the policy problem, a more supportive environment for meaningful policy change, and more windows of opportunity for specific policy changes. These three conditions are not yet fulfilled in the broader prevention agenda.

scholarly journals Ethics of vaccination: measures used to inform SARS-CoV-2 vaccination priorities

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Millar ◽  
Yannis Gourtsoyannis ◽  
Angelina jayakumar
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
International Development ◽  
Public Health Policy ◽  
Limited Range ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Epidemiological Models ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

Proposals for SARS-CoV-2 virus vaccination priorities in the UK and in many other countries are heavily influenced by epidemiological models, which use outcome measures such as deaths or hospitalisation. Limiting the values under consideration to those attributable to the direct effects of infection has the advantage of simplifying the models and the process of decision-making. However, the consequences of the pandemic extend beyond outcomes directly attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The alternative to vaccination (in addition the threat of illness and death) is restrictions on educational and work opportunities, access to services, recreational activities, affiliations and relationships with others, freedom of movement (including escaping abusive relationships), and other determinants of human experience. Capability theory gives emphasis to the freedoms that individuals have to express themselves (in doings and beings). Restrictions on freedoms restrict our capabilities. Capability theory has been used to provide a framework for the evaluation and comparison of international development approaches and in the evaluation of public health policy. There is a clustering of disadvantages associated with this pandemic that adds to pre-existing inequalities. Much of the disadvantage engendered in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is left out when public health policy is based on a limited range of metrics. Acknowledging the impact of policy across the range of human freedoms at both a national and international level has the potential to improve policy, facilitate the mitigation of direct and indirect adverse consequences, and improve public confidence in vaccine deployment strategies.

Food insecurity and public health policy in the UK

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 34-36
Author(s):  
Polly Moffat
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Food Insecurity ◽  
Public Health Policy ◽  
Child Poverty ◽  
Select Committee ◽  
Sustainable Food ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Vulnerable Families ◽  
The Uk

With child poverty increasing year on year, a recent House of Lords evidence session of the Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and Environment asked how healthy, sustainable food can be made accessible for the most vulnerable families

scholarly journals What Proportion of Cancers in the UK and Its Constituent Countries Could Be Prevented? An Updated Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement 2) ◽  
pp. 25s-25s
Author(s):  
K. Brown ◽  
H. Rumgay ◽  
C. Dunlop ◽  
M. Ryan ◽  
F. Quartly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Factor ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Public Health Policy ◽  
Cancer Risk Factors ◽  
Cancer Types ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
The Uk

Background: Understanding population-level exposure to cancer risk factors is vital when devising risk-reduction policies. By reducing exposure to cancer risk factors, many cancers could be prevented. But what impact on cancer incidence do these risk factors have? And what proportion of cancers could be prevented if these risk factors are avoided? Aim: The aim of this analysis was to update the estimates of the number and proportion of theoretically preventable cancers in the UK to reflect the changing behavior as assessed in representative national surveys, and new epidemiologic evidence. Separate estimates were also calculated for England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland because prevalence of risk factor exposure varies between them. Methods: Population attributable fractions (PAFs) were calculated for combinations of risk factor and cancer type with sufficient/convincing evidence of a causal association. Relative risks (RRs) were drawn from meta-analyses of cohort studies where possible. Prevalence of exposure to risk factors was obtained from nationally representative population surveys. Cancer incidence data for 2015 were sourced from national data releases and, where needed, personal communications. Results: Around four in ten (38%) cancer cases in 2015 in the UK were attributable to known risk factors. The proportion was around two percentage points higher in UK males (39%) than UK females (37%). Comparing UK countries, the attributable proportion for persons was highest in Scotland (41%) and lowest in England (37%). Tobacco smoking contributed by far the largest proportion of attributable cancer cases, followed by overweight and obesity, accounting for 15% and 6%, respectively, of all cases in the UK in 2015. Conclusion: Around four in ten (38%) cancer cases in the UK could be prevented. Tobacco and obesity remain the top contributors of attributable cancer cases. Tobacco smoking has the highest PAF because it greatly increases cancer risk and has a large number of cancer types associated with it. Obesity has the second-highest PAF because it affects a high proportion of the UK population and is also linked with many cancer types. Public health policy may seek to reduce the level of harm associated with exposure or reduce exposure levels - both approaches may be effective in preventing cancer. The variation in PAFs between UK countries is affected by sociodemographic differences which drive differences in exposure to theoretically avoidable 'lifestyle' factors. PAFs at UK country level have not been available previously and they should be used by policymakers in the devolved nations to develop more targeted public health measures. This analysis demonstrates the importance of nationally representative exposure prevalence data and cancer registration in informing evidence-based public health policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document