Priority setting for non-communicable disease prevention - Co-producing a regulatory agenda informing novel codes of practice in Australia.
Co-production
Political economy
Priority setting
Public health policy
ncd prevention
Journal
Social science & medicine (1982)
ISSN: 1873-5347
Titre abrégé: Soc Sci Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8303205
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2023
09 2023
Historique:
received:
21
08
2022
revised:
29
04
2023
accepted:
04
08
2023
medline:
7
9
2023
pubmed:
14
8
2023
entrez:
13
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There are a range of priority setting methods for non-communicable disease (NCDs) prevention. However, existing methods are often designed without detailed consideration of local context and political economy- critical success factors for implementation. In Australia, codes of practice under state government Public Health Acts could be used for NCD prevention. To inform the potential development of codes of practice under Public Health Acts, this study aimed to co-create a priority setting framework that accounts for local context and the prevailing regulatory agenda. A priority setting framework was co-produced by a multidisciplinary technical advisory group consisting of government representatives, public health lawyers and academic experts. It incorporated general prioritisation criteria (evidence, cost-effectiveness, equity, burden of disease) and local contextual criteria (legal compatibility, unmet-needs, political acceptability, structural and technical feasibility, community support). The framework was then applied in practice through surveys and policy dialogue workshops to discuss political economy factors. Policies were limited to nutrition, alcohol and physical activity risk factors. Through the prioritisation process, the most impactful, feasible and acceptable policies for NCD prevention via state government codes of practice were: restrictions on in-store placement of unhealthy products, enhancing data systems and capabilities for health surveillance and implementation monitoring, removal of unhealthy foods and drinks sold and supplied in public institutions, prohibition of marketing of unhealthy foods and drinks on assets controlled by government, and implementation of subsidies or grants to increase fruit and vegetable intake. The process illustrated that explicit consideration of local context, legal compatibility and the political economy had a substantial influence on the prioritised list of actions. The proposed priority setting framework is designed to be flexible and adaptable to varying contexts, can be embedded in government processes or utilised by researchers and practitioners to co-produce a regulatory agenda that is locally relevant.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37573676
pii: S0277-9536(23)00506-3
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116149
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
116149Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest None.