Public understandings of potential policy responses to health inequalities: Evidence from a UK national survey and citizens' juries in three UK cities.

A substantial body of research describes the distribution, causes and potential reduction of health inequalities, yet little scholarship examines public understandings of these inequalities. Existing work is dominated by small-scale, qualitative studies of the experiences of specific communities. As a result, we know very little about what broader publics think about health inequalities; and even less about public views of potential policy responses. This is an important gap since previous research shows many researchers and policymakers believe proposals for 'upstream' policies are unlikely to attract sufficient public support to be viable. This mixed methods study combined a nationally representative survey with three two-day citizens' juries exploring public views of health inequalities and potential policy responses in three UK cities (Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool) in July 2016. Comparing public opinion elicited via a survey to public reasoning generated through deliberative processes offers insight into the formation of public views. The results challenge perceptions that there is a lack of public support for upstream, macro-level policy proposals and instead demonstrate support for proposals aiming to tackle health inequalities via improvements to living and working conditions, with more limited support for proposals targeting individual behavioural change. At the same time, some macro-economic proposals, notably those involving tax increases, proved controversial among study participants and results varied markedly by data source. Our analysis suggests that this results from three intersecting factors: a resistance to ideas viewed as disempowering (which include, fundamentally, the idea that health inequalities exist); the prevalence of individualising and fatalistic discourses, which inform resistance to diverse policy proposals (but especially those that are more 'upstream', macro-level proposals); and a lack of trust in (local and national) government. This suggests that efforts to enhance public support for evidence-informed policy responses to health inequalities may struggle unless these broader challenges are also addressed.

Content analysis of UK newspaper and online news representations of women's and men's 'binge' drinking: a challenge for communicating evidence-based messages about single-episodic drinking?

OBJECTIVES: In the UK, men's alcohol-related morbidity and mortality still greatly exceeds women's, despite an increase in women's alcohol consumption in recent decades. New UK alcohol guidelines introduce gender-neutral low-risk alcohol consumption guidance. This study explores how UK newspaper and online news represent women's and men's 'binge' drinking to identify opportunities to better align reporting of harmful drinking with evidence. DESIGN: Quantitative and qualitative content analysis of 308 articles published in 7 UK national newspapers and the BBC News website between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2013. RESULTS: Articles associated women with 'binge' drinking more frequently than men, and presented women's drinking as more problematic. Men were more frequently characterised as violent or disorderly, while women were characterised as out of control, putting themselves in danger, harming their physical appearance and burdening men. Descriptions of female 'binge' drinkers' clothing and appearance were typically moralistic. CONCLUSIONS: The UK news media's disproportionate focus on women's 'binge' drinking is at odds with epidemiological evidence, may reproduce harmful gender stereotypes and may obstruct public understandings of the gender-neutral weekly consumption limits in newly proposed alcohol guidelines. In order to better align reporting of harmful drinking with current evidence, public health advocates may engage with the media with a view to shifting media framing of 'binge' drinking away from specific groups (young people; women) and contexts (public drinking) and towards the health risks of specific drinking behaviours, which affect all groups regardless of context.