A critique of the English national policy from a social determinants of health perspective using a realist and problem representation approach: the 'Childhood Obesity: a plan for action' (2016, 2018, 2019).


Journal

BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
14 12 2021
Historique:
received: 09 06 2021
accepted: 29 11 2021
entrez: 15 12 2021
pubmed: 16 12 2021
medline: 9 3 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The UK government released Chapter 1 of the 'Childhood Obesity: a plan for action' (2016), followed by Chapter 2 (2018) and preliminary Chapter 3 was published for consultation in 2019 (hereon collectively 'The Policy'). The stated policy aims were to reduce the prevalence of childhood obesity in England, addressing disparities in health by reducing the gap (approximately two-fold) in childhood obesity between those from the most and least deprived areas. Combining a realist approach with an analysis of policy discourses, we analysed the policies using a social determinants of health (SDH) perspective (focusing on socio-economic inequalities). This novel approach reveals how the framing of policy 'problems' leads to particular approaches and interventions. While recognising a social gradient in relation to obesity measures, we critique obesity problem narratives. The Policy included some upstream, structural approaches (e.g. restrictions in food advertising and the soft-drinks industry levy). However, the focus on downstream individual-level behavioural approaches to reduce calorie intake and increase physical activity does not account for the SDH and the complexity and contestedness of 'obesity' and pays insufficient attention to how proposals will help to reduce inequalities. Our findings illustrate that individualising of responsibility to respond to what wider evidence shows is structural inequalities, can perpetuate damaging narratives and lead to ineffective interventions, providing caution to academics, practitioners and policy makers (local and national), of the power of problem representation. Our findings also show that the problem framing in The Policy risks reducing important public health aims to encourage healthy diets and increase opportunities for physical activity (and the physical and mental health benefits of both) for children to weight management with a focus on particular children. We propose an alternative conceptualisation of the policy 'problem', that obesity rates are illustrative of inequality, arguing there needs to be policy focus on the structural and factors that maintain health inequalities, including poverty and food insecurity. We hope that our findings can be used to challenge and strengthen future policy development, leading to more effective action against health inequalities and intervention-generated inequalities in health.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The UK government released Chapter 1 of the 'Childhood Obesity: a plan for action' (2016), followed by Chapter 2 (2018) and preliminary Chapter 3 was published for consultation in 2019 (hereon collectively 'The Policy'). The stated policy aims were to reduce the prevalence of childhood obesity in England, addressing disparities in health by reducing the gap (approximately two-fold) in childhood obesity between those from the most and least deprived areas.
METHODS
Combining a realist approach with an analysis of policy discourses, we analysed the policies using a social determinants of health (SDH) perspective (focusing on socio-economic inequalities). This novel approach reveals how the framing of policy 'problems' leads to particular approaches and interventions.
RESULTS
While recognising a social gradient in relation to obesity measures, we critique obesity problem narratives. The Policy included some upstream, structural approaches (e.g. restrictions in food advertising and the soft-drinks industry levy). However, the focus on downstream individual-level behavioural approaches to reduce calorie intake and increase physical activity does not account for the SDH and the complexity and contestedness of 'obesity' and pays insufficient attention to how proposals will help to reduce inequalities. Our findings illustrate that individualising of responsibility to respond to what wider evidence shows is structural inequalities, can perpetuate damaging narratives and lead to ineffective interventions, providing caution to academics, practitioners and policy makers (local and national), of the power of problem representation. Our findings also show that the problem framing in The Policy risks reducing important public health aims to encourage healthy diets and increase opportunities for physical activity (and the physical and mental health benefits of both) for children to weight management with a focus on particular children.
CONCLUSIONS
We propose an alternative conceptualisation of the policy 'problem', that obesity rates are illustrative of inequality, arguing there needs to be policy focus on the structural and factors that maintain health inequalities, including poverty and food insecurity. We hope that our findings can be used to challenge and strengthen future policy development, leading to more effective action against health inequalities and intervention-generated inequalities in health.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34906093
doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-12364-6
pii: 10.1186/s12889-021-12364-6
pmc: PMC8669235
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

2284

Informations de copyright

© 2021. The Author(s).

Références

PLoS Med. 2016 Apr 05;13(4):e1001990
pubmed: 27046234
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Sep;141:27-35
pubmed: 26246031
J Transp Health. 2020 Mar;16:100815
pubmed: 32382501
Appetite. 2020 Apr 1;147:104547
pubmed: 31812558
PLoS One. 2020 Sep 30;15(9):e0239402
pubmed: 32997681
Pediatrics. 2017 Dec;140(6):
pubmed: 29158228
Health Policy. 2019 Oct;123(10):998-1003
pubmed: 31431294
Int J Obes (Lond). 2020 Aug;44(8):1790-1792
pubmed: 32409680
BMC Public Health. 2017 Aug 29;17(1):683
pubmed: 28851330
Nat Med. 2020 Apr;26(4):485-497
pubmed: 32127716
Obes Rev. 2013 Nov;14 Suppl 2:42-59
pubmed: 24102966
Can J Public Health. 2017 Sep;108(5-6):e598-e608
pubmed: 31823280
BMC Public Health. 2014 Aug 11;14:834
pubmed: 25113624
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jul 23;7:CD001871
pubmed: 31332776
Obes Rev. 2016 Feb;17(2):95-107
pubmed: 26696565
BMC Public Health. 2012 Jan 09;12:18
pubmed: 22230643
J Public Health (Oxf). 2018 Dec 1;40(4):764-775
pubmed: 29546404
Sociol Health Illn. 2014 Feb;36(2):213-25
pubmed: 24528303
Can J Public Health. 2015 Feb 03;106(2):e79-81
pubmed: 25955676
Int J Obes (Lond). 2013 Jun;37(6):774-82
pubmed: 22964792
Obes Facts. 2017;10(3):216-222
pubmed: 28564658
BMC Public Health. 2014 Feb 11;14:148
pubmed: 24517737
Rev Med Suisse. 2020 Mar 25;16(687):573-577
pubmed: 32216179
Obes Rev. 2016 Mar;17(3):276-95
pubmed: 26693831
Int J Obes (Lond). 2012 Jan;36(1):1-11
pubmed: 22041985
J Public Health (Oxf). 2012 Aug;34(3):322-7
pubmed: 22696599
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014 Jun;68(6):534-41
pubmed: 24441645
BMC Public Health. 2021 May 10;21(1):887
pubmed: 33971842
BMJ. 2016 Aug 25;354:i4613
pubmed: 27562654
BMJ. 2020 Feb 24;368:m693
pubmed: 32094110
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2020 Nov;74(11):964-968
pubmed: 32535550
Appetite. 2016 Apr 1;99:235-244
pubmed: 26767615
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021 Feb 10;18(1):22
pubmed: 33563281
Milbank Q. 2021 Mar;99(1):126-170
pubmed: 33464689

Auteurs

Naomi Griffin (N)

Fuse, the NIHR (UK) Centre for Translational Research in Public Health (website), Newcastle, UK. naomi.c.griffin@durham.ac.uk.
Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Durham University, Durham, UK. naomi.c.griffin@durham.ac.uk.

Sophie M Phillips (SM)

Fuse, the NIHR (UK) Centre for Translational Research in Public Health (website), Newcastle, UK.
Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Durham University, Durham, UK.

Frances Hillier-Brown (F)

Fuse, the NIHR (UK) Centre for Translational Research in Public Health (website), Newcastle, UK.
Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.

Jonathan Wistow (J)

Fuse, the NIHR (UK) Centre for Translational Research in Public Health (website), Newcastle, UK.
Department of Sociology, Durham University, Durham, UK.

Hannah Fairbrother (H)

Health Sciences School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Eleanor Holding (E)

ScHARR, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Katie Powell (K)

ScHARR, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Carolyn Summerbell (C)

Fuse, the NIHR (UK) Centre for Translational Research in Public Health (website), Newcastle, UK.
Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Durham University, Durham, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH