scholarly journals The Public Health Responsibility Deal: Using a Systems-Level Analysis to Understand the Lack of Impact on Alcohol, Food, Physical Activity, and Workplace Health Sub-Systems

Author(s):  
Cécile Knai ◽  
Mark Petticrew ◽  
Nick Douglas ◽  
Mary Durand ◽  
Elizabeth Eastmure ◽  
...  

The extent to which government should partner with business interests such as the alcohol, food, and other industries in order to improve public health is a subject of ongoing debate. A common approach involves developing voluntary agreements with industry or allowing them to self-regulate. In England, the most recent example of this was the Public Health Responsibility Deal (RD), a public–private partnership launched in 2011 under the then Conservative-led coalition government. The RD was organised around a series of voluntary agreements that aim to bring together government, academic experts, and commercial, public sector and voluntary organisations to commit to pledges to undertake actions of public health benefit. This paper brings together the main findings and implications of the evaluation of the RD using a systems approach. We analysed the functioning of the RD exploring the causal pathways involved and how they helped or hindered the RD; the structures and processes; feedback loops and how they might have constrained or potentiated the effects of the RD; and how resilient the wider systems were to change (i.e., the alcohol, food, and other systems interacted with). Both the production and uptake of pledges by RD partners were largely driven by the interests of partners themselves, enabling these wider systems to resist change. This analysis demonstrates how and why the RD did not meet its objectives. The findings have lessons for the development of effective alcohol, food and other policies, for defining the role of unhealthy commodity industries, and for understanding the limits of industry self-regulation as a public health measure.

2003 ◽  
Vol 37 (9) ◽  
pp. 1882-1891 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey A. Soller ◽  
Adam W. Olivieri ◽  
James Crook ◽  
Robert C. Cooper ◽  
George Tchobanoglous ◽  
...  

The Lancet ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 380 ◽  
pp. S11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Petticrew ◽  
Elizabeth Eastmure ◽  
Nicholas Mays ◽  
Cecile Knai ◽  
Anna Bryden

Addiction ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 110 (8) ◽  
pp. 1217-1225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cécile Knai ◽  
Mark Petticrew ◽  
Mary Alison Durand ◽  
Courtney Scott ◽  
Lesley James ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 188 (9) ◽  
pp. 1586-1594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Greenhalgh ◽  
Rebecca Schmidt ◽  
Troy Day

Abstract Highly active antiretroviral therapy has revolutionized the battle against human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS). From its current global rollout, HIV/AIDS morbidity and mortality has been greatly reduced, yet there exists substantial interest in the development of new therapies to further mitigate the HIV/AIDS health burden and to inhibit any fallout from the development of antiretroviral drug resistance. One potential intervention is the human pegivirus (HPgV). HPgV is not known to cause disease, and most remarkably it is shown to delay the progression of HIV to AIDS. However, the health benefit of increasing HPgV prevalence in the community of HIV-infected men remains unknown at the public health level. We evaluated the utility of HPgV biovaccination for mitigating the HIV/AIDS health burden using mathematical models. Importantly, our work considers the potential concern that HPgV will, itself, evolve to become disease-causing by permitting mutant disease-causing HPgV strains to potentially arise during treatment. Our findings show that HPgV biovaccination rates of 12.5%–50% annually could prevent 4.2–23.6 AIDS incidences and 3.3–18.8 AIDS deaths, and could save 2.9–18.6 disability-adjusted life years per 1,000 people. Together, these findings indicate that HPgV biovaccination could be an effective therapy for reducing HIV/AIDS morbidity and mortality, and thus warrants further exploration.


2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca L. Haffajee

Opioid litigation continues a growing public health litigation trend in which governments seek to hold companies responsible for population harms related to their products. The litigation can serve to address gaps in regulatory and legislative policymaking and in market self-regulation pervasive in the prescription opioid domain. Moreover, prior opioid settlements have satisfied civil tort litigation objectives of obtaining compensation for injured parties, deterring harmful behavior, and holding certain opioid manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies accountable for their actions. In this way, opioid litigation represents progress over prior public health litigation campaigns involving tobacco, lead paint, and asbestos, which had more limited tort litigation effects. Although opioid litigation is not a comprehensive solution to the opioid crisis, it can complement other strategies and infuse much needed money, behavior changes, and public accountability for prescription opioid and related harms.


Health Policy ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 119 (1) ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Mark Petticrew ◽  
Nicholas Mays ◽  
Elizabeth Eastmure ◽  
Mary Alison Durand ◽  
Cecile Knai ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 495-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Petticrew ◽  
Elizabeth Eastmure ◽  
Nicholas Mays ◽  
Cecile Knai ◽  
Mary Alison Durand ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 41 (3p2) ◽  
pp. 1045-1060 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara B. McMenamin ◽  
Helen A. Halpin ◽  
Theodore G. Ganiats

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document