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]

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]

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]

National decisions on the drugs, treatments and medical devices that should be funded through public expenditure are a fundamental element of health policy. But despite a political emphasis upon evidence-based policy, the results of rigorous clinical trials and statistical modelling techniques rarely speak for themselves. So, does the pre-eminence traditionally accorded to quantitative data in the medical field underpin policy decisions on a consistent basis? Or are more subtle, less transparent characteristics of context and interaction evident in the shaping of attendant decisions? This article considers these questions by drawing on a study of decision-making in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—an organization established by the British government in 1999 to decide whether selected health technologies should be made available throughout the National Health Service in England and Wales. In broad terms, the findings point to the primacy of arguments based on quantitatively oriented, experimentally derived data but also to a discursive hegemony of clinicians and health economists in mediating, including or debarring more qualitative, experientially based evidence. A more complex, dynamic understanding of policy governance in the field of health technology appraisal—founded on a discursive appropriation of the idea of the “common good”—goes some way to explaining the persistence of this hegemony despite an avowedly inclusive, plural approach to decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]