Search

Objectives. To estimate the impact of communicating to the public that men who have sex with men (MSM) are most at risk for mpox on potential stigmatization and risk perception. Methods. We conducted a survey experiment randomizing exposure to messages about mpox among a sample of the South Korean public (n = 1500) in July 2022. We randomized respondents to receive an informational message about mpox that was (1) a neutral informational message about mpox that did not highlight its origins or risk groups (control group), (2) a message explaining that the virus originated in Africa, or (3) a message emphasizing that MSM are most at risk. Results. We found that emphasizing that MSM are most at risk increases support for policies that would restrict lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/-sexual, queer or questioning–related events by about 7 percentage points compared with the control condition. However, the message describing African origins did not affect support for restricting travel from Africa. Neither changed risk perceptions or willingness to be vaccinated against mpox. Conclusions. Messages aimed at educating the public about most at-risk groups may trigger increased stigmatization of those groups in ways that could contribute to unnecessary persecution. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(10):1120–1127. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307347) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While few would advocate that policy decisions be based solely on interest group influence or political pandering, few would also agree that decisions be based solely on evidence from randomized trials devoid of context or attention to stakeholder concerns. Yet, this is the implicit tension that has emerged between scholars, who privilege rigorously established research evidence as the primary legitimate basis for policy decision-making, and their critics, who advocate for a broader evidence boundary. However, the policy literature has hitherto failed to suggest an appropriate means of processing various forms of evidence to inform the policy decision-making process. This challenge is especially apparent in public hearings, a frequently used participatory medium where a great variety of evidence is presented. In this paper, we aim to reevaluate the value of public hearings as a means of collecting evidence by exploring 189 testimonies across six public hearings on single-payer healthcare in New York State. At the same time, we evaluate and categorize the types of evidence invoked in public hearings and compare this against what might "count" as evidence from an EBP perspective. Results highlight nine types of "evidence", along two dimensions: observation span and form of knowledge. We find that applying a narrow boundary of research evidence, only one of nine types of evidence fit that classification: problem-based research. We conclude by suggesting that policy scholars expand their consideration of what types of evidence claims are useful to policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

That policy should be evidence‐based has become a widely accepted dictum, especially in public health, where evidence‐based policy is strongly emphasized. Yet, most public health controversies arise because there is a conflict over values, which facts alone cannot resolve. Moreover, promoting population‐based health interventions requires the art of political actors to arouse public support. In discussing this tension in public health, studies often frame value conflicts as a barrier to rational decision‐making rather than viewing value considerations as an inherent part of democratic policymaking. We argue that by failing to engage value‐conflicts directly, public health professionals actually stymie evidence translation, which requires public and political buy‐in. We suggest a two‐by‐two framework that seeks to make value concerns more explicit in public health policymaking by breaking out policy controversies and alternatives along two dimensions—factual debates and value debates, creating four categories: uncontested alternatives, value debates, fact debates, and contested alternatives. We demonstrate that the policies that are most likely to be contested are those with a strong value conflict and where the evidence‐base is less solid. We also show that the framework is dynamic: fact and value conflicts are neither static nor inevitable. Rather, interested actors use both fact and value to try to push issues from contested to uncontested and vice‐versa. We conclude by demonstrating how the framework can help specify the role of both value and fact debates in public health policymaking through examples from U.S. public health policy controversies, including during the present COVID‐19 crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Has political polarization undermined the media' informational role during the COVID-19 pandemic? Recent studies show that politicized reporting from conservative media discouraged compliance with COVID-19 guidelines in the U.S. However, greater attention to the 24-hour news cycle may make high-consumption viewers better factually informed regardless of the source. We examine how the extent of media consumption affects people's emotions, attitudes, and behaviors toward the pandemic. With an online survey of 1128 respondents, we found a strong convergence in anxiety and health-protective behaviors in more avid media viewers regardless of media outlet while finding a divergence in attitudes toward specific mitigation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US remains the only high-income country that lacks a universal health financing system and instead relies on a fragmented system with the largest segment of the population receiving health insurance through private, voluntary employer-sponsored health insurance plans. While not "universal" in the sense of being mandatory and tax-financed, through a series of reforms, the US has managed to provide some form of health insurance coverage to 90% of the population. Yet, the high cost of this system, the insufficient coverage afforded to many, and continued concerns about equity have led to calls for a national health insurance program that can reduce costs across the board while providing high-quality coverage for all. Given the policy gridlock at the national level, the states have often sought to achieve universal health financing on their own, but these bills have met with little success so far. Why has the ideal of states as "laboratories of democracy" failed to produce policy change towards national health insurance? This article examines the prospects for the New York Health Act, a single-payer bill that would create a universal health financing plan for all New York State residents. Applying the Political Economy of Health Financing Framework, we analyze the politics of health reform in New York State and identify strategies to overcome opposition to this policy proposal. We find that while a clear political opportunity is in place, the prospects for adoption remain low given the power of symbolic politics and institutional inertia on the reform process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]