"Don't think of a soda": Contradictory public health messaging from a content analysis of Twitter posts about sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in California from 2015 to 2018.

To show how sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes were framed in posts on Twitter (now known as X) through text and images, we conducted a content analysis on a sample of Tweets from California users posted between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018 about SSB taxes in Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland, and/or Albany, California. We evaluated posts for information sources, arguments for or against SSB tax policies, and images used. We found that posts presented a mix of messages through text and images. The majority of posts (64%) included arguments supporting SSB taxes, 28% presented a neutral position (e.g., factual information) or a mix of both pro-and anti-tax arguments, and 8% opposed. One-third of posts included an image, almost half of which appeared to be stock photos from SSB advertisements: many of these were shared by medical and public health users. Some tax supporters also reposted messages and images from opposition campaigns and added their own criticisms. By reposting opponents' anti-tax messages and images of SSBs, tax supporters may have inadvertently promoted SSBs, reinforced opposition to SSB taxes, and normalized SSBs. While advocates effectively shared pro-tax arguments, they should also ensure that accompanying images reflect the solutions they seek, not just the problem they are trying to combat.

Picturing the populations who could benefit from health insurance access expansions: An analysis of US health insurance television ads airing in 2018.

Efforts to expand access to health insurance in the United States are key to addressing health inequities and ensuring that all individuals have access to health care during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Yet, attempts to expand public insurance programs, including Medicaid, continue to face opposition in state and federal policymaking. Limited policy success raises questions about the health insurance information environment and the extent that available information signals both available resources and the need for policy reform. In this study, we explore one way that consumers and policymakers learn about health insurance-television advertisements-and analyze content in ads that could contribute to an understanding of who needs health insurance or who deserves to benefit from policies to expand insurance access. Specifically, we implement a content analysis of health insurance ads airing throughout 2018 on broadcast television or national cable, focusing on the depictions of people in those ads. Our findings indicate that individuals depicted in ads for Medicaid plans differ from those in ads for non-Medicaid plans. Groups that comprise large populations of current Medicaid enrollees, children and pregnant people, were more likely to appear in ads for non-Medicaid plans than in ads for Medicaid plans. This has implications for potential enrollees' understanding of who is eligible as well as the general public's and policymakers' perspectives on who should be targeted for current or future policies.

Pro- and Anti-Tax Framing in News Articles About California Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Campaigns from 2014-2018.

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) contribute to illness, especially among marginalized communities and children targeted by the beverage industry. SSB taxes can reduce consumption, illness burden, and health inequities, while generating revenue for health programs, and as one way to hold the industry responsible for their harmful products and marketing malpractices. Supporters and opponents have debated SSB tax proposals in news coverage - a key source of information that helps to shape public policy debates. To learn how four successful California-based SSB tax campaigns were covered in the news, we conducted a content analysis, comparing how SSB taxes were portrayed. We found that pro-tax arguments frequently reported data to expose the beverage industry's outsized campaign spending and emphasize the health harms of SSBs, often from health professionals. However, pro-tax arguments rarely described the benefits of SSB taxes, or how they can act as a tool for industry accountability. By contrast, anti-tax arguments overtly appealed to values and promoted misinformation, often from representatives from industry-funded front groups. As experts recommend additional SSB tax proposals, and as the industry mounts legislative counter-tactics to prevent them, advocates should consider harnessing community representatives as messengers and values-based messages to highlight the benefits of SSB taxes.

"Those Who Need It the Most": Equity Framing in 2021 U.S. Print News About Food Assistance.

Objective: To understand how equity appeared in news about food assistance from 2021. Methods: We assessed a national sample of news articles (N=298) for equity arguments and language about racial and health equity. Results: Only 28% of coverage argued that food assistance programs promote equity. Just 6% mentioned people of color or named racial disparities in food access. Discussion: Narratives that explain how food assistance programs reduce inequities could deepen their policy appeal and broaden public perceptions around recipients. Health Equity Implications: There are opportunities for news coverage to expand the discussion of how food assistance programs improve racial and health equity outcomes.

The news about rollover protective structures: Findings from an analysis of news from Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri.

INTRODUCTION: Rollover protective structures (ROPS) can prevent fatal tractor overturns, a leading cause of death among farmers. This content analysis aims to understand how this life-saving strategy appears in news about farm safety. METHODS: As part of a larger study of farm safety news coverage from four agricultural states, we conducted a content analysis of articles that mentioned ROPS. RESULTS: Few (10%) articles about farm safety explicitly mentioned ROPS. When ROPS were mentioned, they were described in terms of their potential to save lives or prevent injury. CONCLUSION: Despite proven success, ROPS-and programs to make ROPS more widely available to farmers-are all but absent from news coverage in key agricultural states. This represents a missed opportunity not only to motivate farmers to install ROPS, but also to demonstrate to policymakers the importance of establishing and maintaining funding to prevent the most frequent cause of death on farms. Farmers face barriers to installing life-saving equipment. Without an increase in ROPS utilization and improved access to prevention programs, farmers, especially low-income farmers, will remain at disproportionate risk for death and injury.

ROPS commentary-Addressing our fatal blind spot: Applying evidence-based solutions to reduce the most frequent cause of death on U.S. farms.

Tractor overturns are the most prominent contributing factor to death on U.S. farms and have been for decades. While public health researchers hypothesized years ago that overturn fatalities would largely disappear as older tractors were replaced by newer ones, this has not happened. In the meantime, farmers continue to die in these easily preventable and tragic events. Not only are tractor rollover protective structures (ROPS) 99% effective in preventing death in the event of an overturn, a national program exists to connect farmers with ROPS. While this program has been popular with farmers, and the cost-effectiveness of providing farmers with technical support and cost-sharing rebates has been demonstrated, many states lack access to ROPS rebates, even those states with the highest number of overturn fatalities. Given the evidence, it is difficult to reconcile the lack of policy or public investment in a solution that decisively addresses the most pernicious contributor to death in the agricultural industry. In this commentary, we highlight the science behind this proven solution to tractor overturns and the essential role that the media and implementation science can play in encouraging policy-makers to save lives.

"People Like Us": News Coverage of Food Assistance During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: To understand how the public discourse around food assistance and social responsibility evolved during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic by analyzing news coverage. Methods: We conducted an ethnographic content analysis of news articles and photographs about food insecurity or food assistance published by U.S. newspapers and wire services between December 1, 2019, and November 30, 2020. We analyzed a random sample of 241 articles and 223 photographs to assess how they depicted food assistance programs, the program participants, and whether they included cues for deservingness. Results: Before the pandemic, news about food assistance was dominated by stories about abuse and fraud. Once COVID-19 began, news coverage contained cues known to engender beliefs about the deservingness of people receiving assistance. During the pandemic, news also highlighted misconceptions about food assistance programs, called for policy changes to reduce logistical barriers, and described the plight of families and other "people like us" in need of food assistance. Discussion: News coverage during the pandemic cued audience empathy, highlighted the logistical strains faced by food assistance programs, and elevated values of government accountability. The narrative about society's obligation to care for communities in need can be transferred to other safety net programs that protect the public's health. Health Equity Implications: As the pandemic evolves, public health leaders can maintain the narrative about the importance of food assistance and expand the characteristics of this narrative to challenge well-entrenched, but false, narratives about those who need help.

Health Insurance Ad Messages Targeted to English- and Spanish-Speaking Populations in a Period of Limited Federal Investment in Marketplace Outreach.

Federal funding cuts to enrollment outreach and marketing of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace options in 2017 has raised questions about the adequacy of the information the public has received, especially among populations vulnerable to uninsurance. Using health insurance ads aired from January 1, 2018, through December 21, 2018, we conducted a content analysis focused on (a) the messaging differences by ad language (English vs. Spanish) and (b) the messaging appeals used by nonfederally sponsored health insurance ads in 2018. The results reveal that privately sponsored ads focused on benefit appeals (e.g., prescription drugs), while publicly sponsored ads emphasized financial assistance subsidies. Few ads, regardless of language, referenced the ACA explicitly and privately sponsored Spanish-language ads emphasized benefits (e.g., choice of doctor) over enrollment-relevant details. This study emphasizes that private-sponsored television marketing may not provide specific and actionable health insurance information to the public, especially for the Spanish-speaking populations.