Search

Background and Aim: Public health policy development is subject to a range of stakeholders presenting their arguments to influence opinion on the best options for policy action. This paper compares stakeholders' positions in the discourse networks of two pricing policy debates in the United Kingdom: minimum unit pricing for alcohol (MUP) and the soft drinks industry levy (SDIL). Design Discourse analysis was combined with network visualization to create representations of stakeholders' positions across the two policy debates as they were represented in 11 national UK newspapers. Setting: United Kingdom. Observations: For the MUP debate 1924 statements by 152 people from 87 organizations were coded from 348 articles. For the SDIL debate 3883 statements by 214 people from 175 organizations were coded from 511 articles. Measurements Network analysis techniques were used to identify robust argumentative similarities and maximize the identification of network structures. Network measures of size, connectedness and cohesion were used to compare discourse networks. Findings The networks for both pricing debates involve a similar range of stakeholder types and form clusters representing policy discourse coalitions. The SDIL network is larger than the MUP network, particularly the proponents' cluster, with more than three times as many stakeholders. Both networks have tight clusters of manufacturers, think‐tanks and commercial analysts in the opponents' coalition. Public health stakeholders appear in both networks, but no health charity or advocacy group is common to both. Conclusion: A comparison of the discourse in the UK press during the policy development processes for minimum unit pricing for alcohol and the soft drinks industry levy suggests greater cross‐sector collaboration among policy opponents than proponents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Griffith Edwards played an important role in cannabis policy debates within government advisory committees in the United Kingdom from the early 1970s until the early 1980s. This has largely been hidden from public knowledge by the confidentiality of these committee discussions. The purpose of this paper is to use Griffith's writings and the results of recent historical scholarship to outline the views he expressed, the reasons he gave for them, and to provide a brief assessment of his contribution to the development of British cannabis policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer is a major cause of death and ill health, accounting for roughly one in four deaths in the UK. Concern with cancer services was expressed in the 1990s when it was reported that the quality of cancer care was patchy and variable, and clinical outcomes varied in different parts of the country. The Calman-Hine Report (1995) produced specific recommendations for the reorganizing and reconfiguring of cancer services, but although the Conservative government, which commissioned the report, endorsed its suggestions no additional funding was provided to implement the proposed changes, and consequently there remained variations in provision across geographical areas and between patients with different cancer types. However, since 1997 the Labour government has targeted cancer, appointing a Cancer Tsar, announcing a package of measures to“fight the war against cancer”, including the publication of a) and with Tony Blair pledging to end the postcode lottery for cancer treatment. This paper explores the concept of the“postcode lottery of cancer care”, why it exists and whether measures taken since the Calman-Hine Report and the Cancer Plan will address it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]