Why do the public support or oppose obesity prevention regulations? Results from a South Australian population survey.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Australian policymakers have acknowledged that implementing obesity prevention regulations is likely to be facilitated or hindered by public opinion. Accordingly, we investigated public views about possible regulations. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of 2732 persons, designed to be representative of South Australians aged 15 years and over. Questions examined views about four obesity prevention regulations (mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling for packaged foods; zoning restrictions to prohibit fast food outlets near schools; taxes on unhealthy high fat foods; and taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages). Levels of support (Likert scale) for each intervention and reasons for support/opposition were ascertained. RESULTS: Views about the regulations were mixed: support was highest for mandatory nutrition labelling (90%) and lowest for taxes (40%-42%). High levels of support for labelling were generally underpinned by a belief that this regulation would educate "Other" people about nutrition. Lower levels of support for zoning restrictions and taxes were associated with concerns about government overreach and the questionable effectiveness of these regulations in changing behaviours. Levels of support for each regulation, and reasons for support or opposition, differed by gender and socio-economic status. CONCLUSION: Socio-demographic differences in support appeared to reflect gendered responsibilities for food provision and concerns about the material constraints of socio-economic deprivation. Engagement with target populations may offer insights to optimise the acceptability of regulations and minimise unintended social consequences. SO WHAT?: Resistance to regulations amongst socio-economically disadvantaged target populations warrants attention from public health advocates. Failure to accommodate concerns identified may further marginalise these groups.

CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015.

BACKGROUND: Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizen's juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs, to develop an initial checklist and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards. DESIGN: Using the literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting. RESULTS: CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38), while least reported was the availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38); however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38). CONCLUSIONS: Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardized, systematic and transparent reporting.

Emotion in obesity discourse: understanding public attitudes towards regulations for obesity prevention.

Intense concern about obesity in the public imagination and in political, academic and media discourses has catalysed advocacy efforts to implement regulatory measures to reduce the occurrence of obesity in Australia and elsewhere. This article explores public attitudes towards the possible implementation of regulations to address obesity by analysing emotions within popular discourses. Drawing on reader comments attached to obesity-relevant news articles published on Australian news and current affairs websites, we examine how popular anxieties about the 'obesity crisis' and vitriol directed at obese individuals circulate alongside understandings of the appropriate role of government to legitimise regulatory reform to address obesity. Employing Ahmed's theorisation of 'affective economies' and broader literature on emotional cultures, we argue that obesity regulations achieve popular support within affective economies oriented to neoliberal and individualist constructions of obesity. These economies preclude constructions of obesity as a structural problem in popular discourse; instead positioning anti-obesity regulations as a government-endorsed vehicle for discrimination directed at obese people. Findings implicate a new set of ethical challenges for those championing regulatory reform for obesity prevention.

Citizens' Perspectives on Disinvestment from Publicly Funded Pathology Tests: A Deliberative Forum.

BACKGROUND: Deliberative forums can be useful tools in policy decision making for balancing citizen voice and community values against dominant interests. OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of a deliberative forum to explore community perspectives on a complex health problem-disinvestment. METHODS: A deliberative forum of citizens was convened in Adelaide, South Australia, to develop criteria to support disinvestment from public funding of ineffective pathology tests. The case study of potential disinvestment from vitamin B12/folate pathology testing was used to shape the debate. The forum was informed by a systematic review of B12/folate pathology test effectiveness and expert testimony. RESULTS: The citizens identified seven criteria: cost of the test, potential impact on individual health/capacity to benefit, potential cost to society, public good, alternatives to testing, severity of the condition, and accuracy of the test. The participants not only saw these criteria as an interdependent network but also questioned "the authority" of policymakers to make these decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Coherence between the criteria devised by the forum and those described by an expert group was considerable, the major differences being that the citizens did not consider equity issues and the experts neglected the "cost" of social and emotional impact of disinvestment on users and the society.

Disinvestment policy and the public funding of assisted reproductive technologies: outcomes of deliberative engagements with three key stakeholder groups.

BACKGROUND: Measures to improve the quality and sustainability of healthcare practice and provision have become a policy concern. In addition, the involvement of stakeholders in health policy decision-making has been advocated, as complex questions arise around the structure of funding arrangements in a context of limited resources. Using a case study of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), deliberative engagements with a range of stakeholder groups were held on the topic of how best to structure the distribution of Australian public funding in this domain. METHODS: Deliberative engagements were carried out with groups of ART consumers, clinicians and community members. The forums were informed by a systematic review of ART treatment safety and effectiveness (focusing, in particular, on maternal age and number of treatment cycles), as well as by international policy comparisons, and ethical and cost analyses. Forum discussions were transcribed and subject to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Each forum demonstrated stakeholders' capacity to understand concepts of choice under resource scarcity and disinvestment, and to countenance options for ART funding not always aligned with their interests. Deliberations in each engagement identified concerns around 'equity' and 'patient responsibility', culminating in a broad preference for (potential) ART subsidy restrictions to be based upon individual factors rather than maternal age or number of treatment cycles. Community participants were open to restrictions based upon measures of body mass index (BMI) and smoking status, while consumers and clinicians saw support to improve these factors as part of an ART treatment program, as distinct from a funding criterion. All groups advocated continued patient co-payments, with measures in place to provide treatment access to those unable to pay (namely, equity of access). CONCLUSIONS: Deliberations yielded qualitative, socially-negotiated evidence required to inform ethical, accountable policy decisions in the specific area of ART and health care more broadly. Notably, reductionist, deterministic characterizations of stakeholder 'self-interest' proved unfounded as each group sought to prioritise universal values (in particular, 'equity' and 'responsibility') over specific, within-group concerns. Our results--from an emotive case study in ART--highlight that evidence-informed disinvestment decision-making is feasible, and potentially less controversial than often presumed.

Understanding the school community's response to school closures during the H1N1 2009 influenza pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, Australian public health officials closed schools as a strategy to mitigate the spread of the infection. This article examines school communities' understanding of, and participation in, school closures and the beliefs and values which underpinned school responses to the closures. METHODS: We interviewed four school principals, 25 staff, 14 parents and 13 students in five schools in one Australian city which were either fully or partially closed during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. RESULTS: Drawing on Thompson et al's ethical framework for pandemic planning, we show that considerable variation existed between and within schools in their attention to ethical processes and values. In all schools, health officials and school leaders were strongly committed to providing high quality care for members of the school community. There was variation in the extent to which information was shared openly and transparently, the degree to which school community members considered themselves participants in decision-making, and the responsiveness of decision-makers to the changing situation. Reservations were expressed about the need for closures and quarantine and there was a lack of understanding of the rationale for the closures. All schools displayed a strong duty of care toward those in need, although school communities had a broader view of care than that of the public health officials. Similarly, there was a clear understanding of and commitment to protect the public from harm and to demonstrate responsible stewardship. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that school closures during an influenza pandemic represent both a challenge for public health officials and a litmus test for the level of trust in public officials, government and the school as institution. In our study, trust was the foundation upon which effective responses to the school closure were built. Trust relations within the school were the basis on which different values and beliefs were used to develop and justify the practices and strategies in response to the pandemic.

News and social media: windows into community perspectives on disinvestment.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study, in the context of disinvestment related health technology assessment, is to examine whether analysis of Web 2.0--commercial media output, blogs, and discussion forums--can provide an understanding of media framing, community perspectives, and the sociopolitical aspects of an entrenched technology. METHODS: Thematic analysis of relevant data from fifty-nine media articles, thirty-nine discussion forums, thirteen blogs, and three Facebook pages relating to our case study: public funding for assisted reproductive technology services. Mainstream media and community-based social media responses were compared. RESULTS: Media responses were narrow, primarily describing emotive individual narratives or the political nexus of interests. Community (including patient) responses were broader including discussion of opportunity cost and vested interests but mostly reflected the polar ends of the debate, diverging strongly for or against disinvestment from public funding. CONCLUSION: Web2.0 and media analysis offers an inexpensive method to capture media portrayal, divergent community responses both to that portrayal and independent of it, and insight into the sociopolitical aspects of an entrenched technology undergoing disinvestment debate.

Including the public in pandemic planning: a deliberative approach.

BACKGROUND: Against a background of pandemic threat posed by SARS and avian H5N1 influenza, this study used deliberative forums to elucidate informed community perspectives on aspects of pandemic planning. METHODS: Two deliberative forums were carried out with members of the South Australian community. The forums were supported by a qualitative study with adults and youths, systematic reviews of the literature and the involvement of an extended group of academic experts and policy makers. The forum discussions were recorded with simultaneous transcription and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Participants allocated scarce resources of antiviral drugs and pandemic vaccine based on a desire to preserve society function in a time of crisis. Participants were divided on the acceptability of social distancing and quarantine measures. However, should such measures be adopted, they thought that reasonable financial, household and psychological support was essential. In addition, provided such support was present, the participants, in general, were willing to impose strict sanctions on those who violated quarantine and social distancing measures. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations from the forums suggest that the implementation of pandemic plans in a severe pandemic will be challenging, but not impossible. Implementation may be more successful if the public is engaged in pandemic planning before a pandemic, effective communication of key points is practiced before and during a pandemic and if judicious use is made of supportive measures to assist those in quarantine or affected by social isolation measures.

Pandemic influenza communication: views from a deliberative forum.

OBJECTIVE: To use a deliberative forum to elicit community perspectives on communication about pandemic influenza planning, and to compare these findings with the current Australian national communication strategy. DESIGN: Deliberative forum of 12 persons randomly selected from urban South Australia. Forum members were briefed by experts in infection control, virology, ethics and public policy before deliberating on four key questions: what, how and when should the community be told about pandemic influenza and by whom? RESULTS: The forum recommended provision of detailed and comprehensive information by credible experts, rather than politicians, using a variety of media including television and internet. Recommendations included cumulative communication to build expertise in the community, and specific strategies to include groups such as young people, people with physical or mental disabilities, and rural and remote communities. Information provided should be practical, accurate, and timely, with no 'holding back' about the seriousness of a pandemic. The forum expressed confidence in the expert witnesses, despite the acknowledged uncertainty of many of the predictions. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The deliberative forum's recommendations were largely consistent with the Australian national pandemic influenza communication strategy and the relevant literature. However, the forum recommended: release of more detailed information than currently proposed in the national strategy; use of non-political spokespersons; and use of novel communication methods. Their acceptance of uncertainty suggests that policy makers should be open about the limits of knowledge in potentially threatening situations. Our findings show that deliberative forums can provide community perspectives on topics such as communication about pandemic influenza.

Virtual community consultation? Using the literature and weblogs to link community perspectives and health technology assessment.

BACKGROUND: Community views, expressed in social impact assessments and collected through community consultation, should play an important role in health technology assessment (HTA). Yet HTA methodologists have been slow to include outcomes of these forms of inquiry in analyses, in part because collecting community views is time-consuming and resource intensive. OBJECTIVE: To explore how community views sourced from published studies, grey literature and informal internet web pages can inform HTA. METHODS: A technology reviewed by Adelaide HTA in 2004 was selected: retinal photography for detection of diabetic retinopathy. Published literature, 'grey' literature and informal web pages were searched to examine the availability of evidence about service community and user community views with respect to this technology. Particular efforts were made to source evidence relating to rural, remote and Aboriginal populations. RESULTS: We found that journal articles, reports from the grey literature and informal internet web pages (including blogs and discussion forums) can provide valuable insight into community views. Although there was little empirical evidence relating to the experience of diabetes and diabetes management in rural, remote and Aboriginal communities, there were indications that some evidence may be transferable from other populations. CONCLUSIONS: Community perspectives on selected health technologies can be gauged from available resources in published and grey literature and perspectives collected in this way can provide insight into whether the introduction of the technology would be acceptable to the community. The limitations of this approach are discussed.

Improving food environments and tackling obesity: A realist systematic review of the policy success of regulatory interventions targeting population nutrition.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42015025276) employs a realist approach to investigate the effect of "real-world" policies targeting different aspects of the food environment that shape individual and collective nutrition. OBJECTIVES: We were interested in assessing intermediate outcomes along the assumed causal pathway to "policy success", in addition to the final outcome of changed consumption patterns. DATA SOURCES: We performed a search of 16 databases through October 2015, with no initial restriction by language. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all publications that reported the effect of statutory provisions aimed at reducing the consumption of energy-dense foods and beverages in the general population. We allowed all methodological approaches that contained some measure of comparison, including studies of implementation progress. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: We reviewed included studies using the appraisal tools for pre-post and observational studies developed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Given the considerable heterogeneity in interventions assessed, study designs employed, and outcome measures reported, we opted for a narrative synthesis of results. RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS: Results drawn from 36 peer-reviewed articles and grey literature reports demonstrated that isolated regulatory interventions can improve intermediate outcomes, but fail to affect consumption at clinically significant levels. The included literature covered six different types of interventions, with 19 studies reporting on calorie posting on chain restaurant menus. The large majority of the identified interventions were conducted in the US. Early results from recent taxation measures were published after the review cut-off date but these suggested more favorable effects on consumption levels. Nevertheless, the evidence assessed in this review suggests that current policies are generally falling short of anticipated health impacts.

Community perspectives on the use of regulation and law for obesity prevention in children: A citizens' jury.

INTRODUCTION: Childhood obesity is a significant challenge for public health internationally. Regulatory and fiscal measures propagated by governments offer a potentially effective response to this issue. Fearing public criticism, governments are often reluctant to use such measures. In this study we asked a descriptively representative and informed group of Australians their views on the use of legislation and fiscal measures by governments to address childhood obesity. METHODS: A citizens' jury, held in South Australia in April 2015, was asked to consider the question: What laws, if any, should we have in Australia to address childhood obesity? RESULTS: The jury agreed that prevention of obesity was complex requiring multifaceted government intervention. Recommendations fell into the areas of health promotion and education (n=4), regulation of food marketing (n=3), taxation/subsidies (n=2) and a parliamentary enquiry. School-based nutrition education and health promotion and mandatory front-of-pack interpretive labelling of food and drink were ranked 1 and 2 with taxation of high fat, high sugar food and drink third. CONCLUSION: The recommendations were similar to findings from other citizens' juries held in Australia suggesting that the reticence of decision makers in Australia, and potentially elsewhere, to use legislative and fiscal measures to address childhood obesity is misguided. Supporting relevant informed public discussion could facilitate a politically acceptable legislative approach.

Socio-economic divergence in public opinions about preventive obesity regulations: Is the purpose to 'make some things cheaper, more affordable' or to 'help them get over their own ignorance'?

The potential for regulatory measures to address escalating rates of obesity is widely acknowledged in public health circles. Many advocates support regulations for their potential to reduce health inequalities, in light of the well-documented social gradient in obesity. This paper examines how different social groups understand the role of regulations and other public health interventions in addressing obesity. Drawing upon focus group data from a metropolitan city in southern Australia, we argue that implementing obesity regulations without attention to the ways in which disadvantaged communities problematise obesity may lead to further stigmatisation of this key target population. Tuana's work on the politics of ignorance, and broader literature on classed asymmetries of power, provides a theoretical framework to demonstrate how middle class understandings of obesity align with dominant 'obesity epidemic' discourses. These position obese people as lacking knowledge; underpinning support for food labelling and mandatory nutrition education for welfare recipients as well as food taxes. In contrast, disadvantaged groups emphasised the potential for a different set of interventions to improve material circumstances that constrain their ability to act upon existing health promotion messages, while also describing priorities of everyday living that are not oriented to improving health status. Findings demonstrate how ignorance is produced as an explanation for obesity, widely replicated in political settings and mainstream public health agendas. This politics of ignorance and its logical reparation serve to reproduce power relations in which particular groups are constructed as lacking capacity to act on knowledge, whilst maintaining others in privileged positions of knowing.

Regulatory approaches to obesity prevention: A systematic overview of current laws addressing diet-related risk factors in the European Union and the United States.

High prevalence of overweight and obesity remains a significant international public health problem. Law has been identified as a tool for obesity prevention and selected high-profile measures have been reported. However, the nature and extent of enacted legislation internationally are unclear. This research provides an overview of regulatory approaches enacted in the United States, the European Union, and EU Member States since 2004. To this end, relevant databases of primary and secondary legislation were systematically searched to identify and explore laws addressing dietary risk factors for obesity. Across jurisdictions, current regulatory approaches to obesity prevention are limited in reach and scope. Target groups are rarely the general population, but instead sub-populations in government-supported settings. Consumer information provision is preferred over taxation and marketing restrictions other than the regulation of health and nutrition claims. In the EU in particular, product reformulation with industry consent has also emerged as a popular small-scale measure. While consistent and widespread use of law is lacking, governments have employed a range of regulatory measures in the name of obesity prevention, indicating that there is, in principle, political will. Results from this study may serve as a starting point for future research and policy development.

Community knowledge, behaviours and attitudes about the 2009 H1N1 Influenza pandemic: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Effectiveness of pandemic plans and community compliance was extensively researched following the H1N1 pandemic. This systematic review examined community response studies to determine whether behavioural responses to the pandemic were related to level of knowledge about the pandemic, perceived severity of the pandemic and level of concern about the pandemic. METHODS: Literature databases were searched from March 2009 to August 2011 and included cross-sectional or repeated population surveys undertaken during or following the H1N1 pandemic which reported on community response to the pandemic. Studies using population subgroups and other respiratory diseases were excluded, as were mathematical modelling and qualitative studies. RESULTS: Nineteen unique studies were included. Fourteen reported pandemic knowledge, 14 reported levels of concern and risk perception and 18 reported pandemic behaviours. Awareness of the pandemic was high, and knowledge was moderate. Levels of concern and risk were low moderate and precautionary behavioural actions lower than intentions. The most commonly reported factors influencing adopting recommended behaviours were increased risk perception and older age, increased pandemic knowledge and being female. CONCLUSIONS: Important implications for future pandemic planning were identified. A remarkable lack of intercountry variability in responses existed; however, differences between populations within a single country suggest one-size-fits-all plans may be ineffective. Secondly, differences between reported precautionary intentions and preventive behaviours undertaken may be related to people's perceived risk of infection.

The ASTUTE Health study protocol: deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment.

BACKGROUND: Governments and other payers are yet to determine optimal processes by which to review the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of technologies and procedures that are in active use within health systems, and rescind funding (partially or fully) from those that display poor profiles against these parameters. To further progress a disinvestment agenda, a model is required to support payers in implementing disinvestment in a transparent manner that may withstand challenge from vested interests and concerned citizens. Combining approaches from health technology assessment and deliberative democratic theory, this project seeks to determine if and how wide stakeholder engagement can contribute to improved decision-making processes, wherein the views of both vested and non-vested stakeholders are seen to contribute to informing policy implementation within a disinvestment context. METHODS/DESIGN: Systematic reviews pertaining to illustrative case studies were developed and formed the evidence base for discussion. Review findings were presented at a series of deliberative, evidence-informed stakeholder engagements, including partisan (clinicians and consumers) and non-partisan (representative community members) stakeholders. Participants were actively facilitated towards identifying shared and dissenting perspectives regarding public funding policy for each of the case studies and developing their own funding models in response to the evidence presented. Policy advisors will subsequently be invited to evaluate disinvestment options based on the scientific and colloquial evidence presented to them, and to explore the value of this information to their decision-making processes with reference to disinvestment. DISCUSSION: Analysis of the varied outputs of the deliberative engagements will contribute to the methodological development around how to best integrate scientific and colloquial evidence for consideration by policy advisors. It may contribute to the legitimization of broad and transparent stakeholder engagement in this context. It is anticipated that decision making will benefit from the knowledge delivered through informed deliberation with engaged stakeholders, and this will be explored through interviews with key decision makers.

Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences.

Despite attempts at clear direction in international, national and journal guidelines, attribution of authorship can be a confusing area for both new and established researchers. As journal articles are valuable intellectual property, authorship can be hotly contested. Individual authors' responsibilities for the integrity of article content have not been well explored. Semi-structured interviews (n = 17) were conducted with staff, student advocates and doctoral candidates working in health research in two universities in Australia. Stratified sampling ensured participants reflected a range of experience across biomedical, clinical and social science disciplines. Participants were asked about their experience with research publication and their views on the responsibilities of authorship. Participants gave a variety of reasons for attribution of authorship including: writing the paper; seniority; and student supervision. Gift authorship was seen by some participants as: a way of maintaining relationships; a reward; a means to increase a paper's credibility; or a demonstration of collaboration between authors. Norms and beliefs differed markedly between disciplines for authorship attribution and, to a lesser extent, for authors' responsibility for content integrity. Discussions about the effect of power differentials on authorship were common across disciplines. This paper describes a broad range of beliefs, values and practice norms held by health science researchers with respect to attribution of authorship and author responsibility for scientific publications. The findings support the need for clarity in relation to authorship, and a research environment which is supportive of ethical behaviour in the publication of research.

How will Australian general practitioners respond to an influenza pandemic? A qualitative study of ethical values.

OBJECTIVES: To explore general practitioners' perceptions of their preparedness for an influenza pandemic, the changes they would make to their practice, and the ethical justifications for their planned actions. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study was performed among South Australian GPs between March and October 2007. A semi-structured interview was carried out with each participant in his or her practice, and the interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. PARTICIPANTS: 10 GPs were recruited: five from a metropolitan Division and five from a rural Division of General Practice. RESULTS: Some participants felt they would not be able to cope with an influenza pandemic, while others felt it would simply mean an increase in their workloads. Most respondents considered creating separate waiting rooms, moving the reception desk outside of the practice and delaying all non-urgent consultations in order to deal with a pandemic more effectively. Respondents mentioned the conflict between their various roles and responsibilities as a primary source of tension when thinking about the way they would organise their work in the event of a pandemic. A number of GPs said they would not practise in the event of a pandemic, as they felt their responsibility to their families outweighed that to their patients. CONCLUSIONS: Professional codes of ethics should include guidance about the scope of the duty to treat during infectious disease outbreaks. The community has to uphold the value of reciprocity, and ensure that GPs and their families are provided with support during a pandemic and are given the opportunity to be actively involved in pandemic preparedness planning.