Search

This paper aims to illustrate the tension between public health and civil liberties through the case study of the UK government's emergency response to the Covid-19 pandemic. In the area of public health, this tension is predominantly approached by reference to two theories: liberalism and communitarianism. This paper studies these positions and how they are manifested in evidence-based policymaking by combining a study of public health policy with a study of public health ethics. The studies help demonstrate the UK government's framing of health policy relating to Covid-19 in terms of liberalism and communitarianism. The paper concludes that in the initial UK government response to Covid-19, the government discourse evoked communitarian values and framed its policies as being evidence-led and as prioritising public health. However, the policy measures themselves manifested liberal values: they had the underlying concern of not infringing excessively on civil liberties, and individuals were given autonomy of decision making within the measures that were taken. The article concluded that emergency times require a communitarian response based on preventative action. This article is the first to combine public health policy with public health ethics to demonstrate how values form a key part of decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Support for informal dementia care at a local community level is not working for most carers today. Carers looking after a person with dementia have long lamented the absence of an empowered named support and an effectively actioned care plan. Drawing on literary writing and social research, we argue in this article that these challenges have existed since dementia emerged as a major condition in the West during the 1980s. Based on this historical context, we ask: Why has this issue persisted over the last four decades? How have healthcare politics and policy initiatives responded to these requests? And what can we learn from this for the current, COVID-19 exacerbated crisis of care? This article focuses on the English context, to discuss these ongoing challenges in the light of a series of policy papers, and to ask what is hampering the implementation of such policy initiatives. In England, local authorities are responsible for dementia support. This article focuses on the situation in a county in the Midlands where one of us (AB) has been lobbying local government for over a decade. The discussion contextualises the lived experience of dementia care within the situation exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuing politics of crises and persistent emphasis on cure over care. We find that the absence on two points centrally challenges care: a joined-up approach between health and social care and adequate information on available care support services, accessible through an empowered named contact. To enhance the lived experience of dementia care, consistent provision of individual named support and professional care support, as and when required, should become essential to local implementation of the care policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this study was to uncover perspectives on the COVID‐19 pandemic and the responses implemented by the UK and Scottish Governments to help control the spread of infection. Such understanding could help to inform future responses to pandemics at individual, community and national levels. Method: Q methodology was used to elicit perspectives from people in England and Scotland with different experiences of the pandemic including public health officials, key workers, those on furlough, those who were unvaccinated or vaccinated to different levels, those who were 'shielding' because they were at higher risk and people with different scientific expertise. Participants rank‐ordered phrases about different aspects of COVID‐19 according to their viewpoint. Factor analysis was then conducted in conjunction with interview material from the same respondents. Results: A four‐factor solution was statistically supported and was interpretable alongside the qualitative accounts of participants loading on these factors. These four perspectives are titled Dangerous and Unaccountable Leadership, Fear and Anger at Policy and Public responses, Governing Through a Crisis and Injustices Exposed. Conclusion: The four perspectives demonstrate plurality and nuance in views on COVID‐19 and the associated policies and restrictions, going beyond a binary narrative that has been apparent in popular and social media. The four perspectives include some areas of common ground, as well as disagreement. We argue that understanding the detail of different perspectives might be used to build cohesion around policy initiatives in future. Patient or Public Contribution: The development of the statement set, which is rank‐ordered by participants in a Q study, and factor interpretations were informed by views of the general public. The statement set was initially developed using existing publicly available material based on members of the general public experiencing the pandemic first hand. It was then piloted with members of the public experiencing different challenges as a result of COVID‐19 and the subsequent lockdown and updated based on feedback. Finally, interpretations of the identified factors were presented publicly and edited according to their feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: With the rapid growth of urbanization globally and in the UK, increasing attention is now being directed towards urban green spaces (UGS). The appeal of UGS to policymakers lies in their capacity to address multiple policy objectives, including improving physical and mental wellbeing, mitigating noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), combating climate change through carbon sequestration, providing climate adaptation measures, and enhancing biodiversity. Method: This narrative review gives an overview of the current literature and UK policy relating to urban green and blue spaces, with a particular focus on the use of UGS to increase physical activity levels. Results: UGS have a profound impact on public health, with evidence indicating their positive effect on both physical and psychological health. Thirty‐eight percent of adults in the UK do not live within 15 minutes of UGS, so policy makers at national and international level are aiming to address this gap. One reason for the health benefits of UGS is associated increased physical activity, a vital component needed to address the burden of non‐communicable disease. To effectively harness UGS to promote physical activity various factors must be considered; proximity and diversity of urban green spaces, and the presence of suitable infrastructure features. Tailoring UGS to meet the needs and preferences of different population demographics is essential, as is ensuring safety, and addressing barriers to access particularly for lower socio‐economic groups. The careful planning of UGS must avoid potential gentrification effects and displacement of vulnerable communities, whilst utilising the equigenic nature of UGS. Conclusions: To create a brighter future and capitalize on the potential of UGS, a collaborative approach is needed, involving communities, local governments, and national authorities. Primary‐care professionals, represented by organizations like the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), can play a crucial role in advocating for UGS and physical activity, promoting their use, and providing guidance and support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS) comprised the UK government's primary response to persons forcibly displaced by the Syrian civil war. Recipients were granted immediate recourse to public funds and a locally-based 12-month integration support plan, designed at the discretion of practitioners. Drawing on forty in-depth interviews with refugees and practitioners in two areas with contrasting local approaches, this article explores the tensions that emerged when broader central government policies (distinct from the VPRS), intersected with resettlement support in recipients' lives. Two current welfare reforms are identified and evaluated as having impacted resettled families' housing experiences: firstly; the Two-Child Limit and secondly; the Benefit Cap. The article demonstrates how the financial precarity produced by both policies undermined local practitioners' resettlement support. In doing so, the article challenges dominant policy narratives of exceptionality, locating those resettled within the routinised systems of precarity and conditionality embedded in the welfare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Countries around the world are putting in place sugar reformulation targets for packaged foods to reduce excess sugar consumption. The Australian government released its voluntary sugar reformulation targets for nine food categories in 2020. We estimated the potential impact of these targets on household sugar purchases and examined differences by income. For comparison, we also modelled the potential impact of the UK sugar reduction targets on per capita sugar purchases as the UK has one of the most comprehensive sugar reduction strategies in the world. Methods: Grocery purchase data from a nationally representative consumer panel (n=7,188) in Australia was linked with a large database (FoodSwitch) with product-specific sugar content information for packaged foods (n=25,261); both datasets were collected in 2018. Potential reductions in per capita sugar purchases were calculated overall and by food category. Differences in sugar reduction across income level were assessed by analysis of variance. Results: In 2018, the total sugar acquired from packaged food and beverage purchases consumed at-home was 56.1 g/day per capita. Australia's voluntary reformulation targets for sugar covered 2,471/25,261 (9.8%) unique products in the FoodSwitch dataset. Under the scenario that all food companies adhered to the voluntary targets, sugar purchases were estimated to be reduced by 0.9 g/day per capita, which represents a 1.5% reduction in sugar purchased from packaged foods. However, if Australia adopted the UK targets, over twice as many products would be covered (n=4,667), and this would result in a more than four times greater reduction in sugar purchases (4.1 g/day per capita). It was also estimated that if all food companies complied with Australia's voluntary sugar targets, reductions to sugar would be slightly greater in low-income households compared with high-income households by 0.3 g/day (95%CI 0.2 - 0.4 g/day, p<0.001). Conclusions: Sugar-reduction policies have the potential to substantially reduce population sugar consumption and may help to reduce health inequalities related to excess sugar consumption. However, the current reformulation targets in Australia are estimated to achieve only a small reduction to sugar intakes, particularly in comparison to the UK's sugar reduction program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]