Competing public narratives in nutrition policy: insights into the ideational barriers of public support for regulatory nutrition measures.
Commercial determinants of health
Framing
Narrative policy framework
Narratives
Neoliberalism
Nutrition policy
Public attitude
Street intercept
Journal
Health research policy and systems
ISSN: 1478-4505
Titre abrégé: Health Res Policy Syst
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Aug 2022
09 Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
09
09
2021
accepted:
22
07
2022
entrez:
9
8
2022
pubmed:
10
8
2022
medline:
12
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Enacting evidence-based public health policy can be challenging. One factor contributing to this challenge is a lack of public support for specific policies, which may stem from limited interest or conviction by policy arguments. This can happen when messaging strategies regarding policy do not resonate with the target group and/or policy narratives compete in public discourse. To understand how policy messaging can better resonate with a target audience, we examined the frames and narratives used by the Australian public when discussing nutrition policies. We conducted 76 street intercept interviews in urban and regional settings in Queensland, Australia. Quantitative data were analysed using mean agreement scores and t-tests, and the qualitative data were analysed using an adapted qualitative narrative policy framework (QNPF). The QNPF is used to illustrate how competing narratives vary in the way they define different elements. These elements often include setting, characters, plot, policy solution and belief systems. Level of support for all nutrition policies was generally moderate to high, although nutrition policies perceived to be most intrusive to personal freedoms were the least popular among the public. The value of fairness was consistently invoked when participants discussed their support for or opposition to policy. Using the QNPF, two distinct settings were evident in the narratives: concern for the community or concern for self. Villains were identified as either "other individuals, in particular parents" or "Big Food". Victims were identified as "children" or "the food industry, in particular farmers". Frequently used plots focused on individuals making poor choices because they were uneducated, versus Big Food being powerful and controlling people and the government. The study examined the frames and narratives used by the Australian public when discussing nutrition policies. By examining these frames and narratives, we gained insight into multiple strategies which may increase public support for certain nutrition policies in Australia.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Enacting evidence-based public health policy can be challenging. One factor contributing to this challenge is a lack of public support for specific policies, which may stem from limited interest or conviction by policy arguments. This can happen when messaging strategies regarding policy do not resonate with the target group and/or policy narratives compete in public discourse. To understand how policy messaging can better resonate with a target audience, we examined the frames and narratives used by the Australian public when discussing nutrition policies.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted 76 street intercept interviews in urban and regional settings in Queensland, Australia. Quantitative data were analysed using mean agreement scores and t-tests, and the qualitative data were analysed using an adapted qualitative narrative policy framework (QNPF). The QNPF is used to illustrate how competing narratives vary in the way they define different elements. These elements often include setting, characters, plot, policy solution and belief systems.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Level of support for all nutrition policies was generally moderate to high, although nutrition policies perceived to be most intrusive to personal freedoms were the least popular among the public. The value of fairness was consistently invoked when participants discussed their support for or opposition to policy. Using the QNPF, two distinct settings were evident in the narratives: concern for the community or concern for self. Villains were identified as either "other individuals, in particular parents" or "Big Food". Victims were identified as "children" or "the food industry, in particular farmers". Frequently used plots focused on individuals making poor choices because they were uneducated, versus Big Food being powerful and controlling people and the government.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The study examined the frames and narratives used by the Australian public when discussing nutrition policies. By examining these frames and narratives, we gained insight into multiple strategies which may increase public support for certain nutrition policies in Australia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35945586
doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00891-6
pii: 10.1186/s12961-022-00891-6
pmc: PMC9361541
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
86Subventions
Organisme : Australian Government Medical Research Future Fund
ID : BP3
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Global Health. 2017 Jun 15;13(1):34
pubmed: 28619031
BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 27;9(6):e027962
pubmed: 31248926
Sociol Health Illn. 2016 May;38(4):543-58
pubmed: 26564262
BMJ. 2022 May 4;377:o1128
pubmed: 35508319
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2015 Apr;39(2):172-6
pubmed: 25716535
Obes Rev. 2016 Dec;17(12):1218-1225
pubmed: 27706891
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019 Sep 4;16(1):78
pubmed: 31484538
Public Health Nutr. 2019 Dec;22(17):3270-3280
pubmed: 31544722
Public Health Nutr. 2016 Oct;19(14):2643-53
pubmed: 27034196
Obes Rev. 2019 Nov;20 Suppl 2:57-66
pubmed: 30609260
Drug Alcohol Rev. 2014 Jul;33(4):449-55
pubmed: 24890452
BMC Public Health. 2013 Aug 15;13:756
pubmed: 23947336
BMC Public Health. 2010 Jul 15;10:420
pubmed: 20633250
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Apr;154:1-8
pubmed: 26943008
PLoS Med. 2016 Apr 05;13(4):e1001990
pubmed: 27046234
Health Policy. 2017 May;121(5):566-573
pubmed: 28341330
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2011 Aug;35(4):319-24
pubmed: 21806725
Obes Rev. 2021 Jan;22(1):e13106
pubmed: 32748480
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021 Dec 01;10(12):766-783
pubmed: 33105968
Health Promot J Austr. 2019 Jan;30(1):47-59
pubmed: 29999550
Am J Public Health. 1997 Apr;87(4):655-8
pubmed: 9146448
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 Feb 27;11(3):2456-71
pubmed: 24583829
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Mar;273:113761
pubmed: 33621752
Obes Rev. 2019 Nov;20(11):1542-1556
pubmed: 31408577
Soc Sci Med. 2017 May;181:139-147
pubmed: 28395251