scholarly journals The divergence of minimum unit pricing policy across the UK: opportunities for public health policy development

2017 ◽  
Vol 110 (9) ◽  
pp. 358-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ailsa J McKay ◽  
Anthony A Laverty ◽  
Azeem Majeed
2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Hilton ◽  
C Buckton ◽  
G Fergie ◽  
T Henrichsen ◽  
P Leifeld

Abstract Background Public health policy development is subject to a large number of stakeholders seeking to influence government thinking on policy options. One approach is via the news media. We compare the competing discourse coalitions evident in the UK public debate across two pricing policies, Minimum Unit Pricing (MUP) for alcohol and the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL). Methods Existing discourse network analyses (DNA) for MUP and SDIL were harmonised in Visone to allow direct comparison. We applied a common tie-weight threshold to reduce ties to robust argumentative similarities and to maximise the identification of both network structures. We used network measures (size, density and EI index) to compare the two networks and principal coalitions. Results Both networks involve a similar range of stakeholder types and form two discourse coalitions representing proponents and opponents of the policies. The SDIL network is larger, particularly the proponents coalition with over three times as many nodes and a lower EI index. Both networks show tight discourse coalitions of manufactures and commercial analysts acting in opposition to policy supporters. The only actors that appear in both debates are politicians, government advisors, commercial analysts and supermarkets. While public health actors appear in both debates they appear siloed in their interests. Conclusions DNA enabled direct comparison of the discourse coalitions across two highly contested pricing policy debates, visualising the complex network of actors and relationships operating to influence policy-making via the media. Use of comparative DNA across policy debates shows promise for better understanding the common tactics of different unhealthy commodity industries (UCIs) to disrupt public health policies. Public health actors could improve their response to UCIs by seeking to work across policy and commodity arenas. Key messages We compared the competing discourse coalitions across two pricing policy debates, MUP and SDIL. Public health advocates could improve their response by working across policy arenas.


2007 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. M. Francis

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.


Author(s):  
Adnan A. Hyder ◽  
David M. Bishai

An understanding of what influences policy decisions, what determines investments for specific public health interventions, and how agreements are made regarding new programs in public health is crucial for helping navigate the ethical implications of public health programs and interventions. This chapter provides an overview of the Public Health Policy and Politics section of The Oxford Handbook of Public Health Ethics. The section’s overall goal is to highlight ethical issues emerging from the work in, and study of, politics and policy development in public health, both within countries and globally. The chapters in this section analyze a set of ethical issues related to politics and public health policies, interventions, and programs, and emphasize the importance of communication among various disciplines, such as bioethics, political science, and development studies.


Author(s):  
Paul Cairney ◽  
Emily St Denny

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.


Author(s):  
Mike Millar ◽  
Yannis Gourtsoyannis ◽  
Angelina jayakumar

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document