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]

While there are important differences between the public health policies of Conservative governments of the 1980s and 90s and the current British Labour government a significant element of continuity is the emphasis on government facilitating informed choice by consumers as a key public health objective. The article considers such approaches to disclosure of health risks with respect to policy on the regulation of smoking. It argues that regulation, in this area, under the Conservatives has not served to ‘empower’ consumers and that such regulatory weaknesses appear to be replicated under its successor. Defects in regulation are traced with respect to disclosure of information on tar and nicotine ‘yields’; and cigarette design with respect to tip ventilation and the use of additives to increase nicotine delivery. It is argued that lack of disclosure and insufficient controls on the industry have led to consumers being misled concerning the relative risks of different types of cigarette. Equally, it is also likely that such deficiencies have enabled manufacturers to represent some cigarette types as ‘safe’. The paper concludes by arguing that, while the weaknesses of the current regulatory regime suggest the need for measures of increased disclosure and control of product design, there is also an unresolved tension as to whether ‘empowerment’ is an intrinsic goal of policy or a means to the achievement of public health targets. [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]