Suchergebnisse

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. ; Objectives: 1) To report outcomes from a citizens' jury examining regulatory responses to the health impacts of McDonald's Australia; 2) To determine the value of using citizens' juries to develop policy recommendations based on the findings of health impact assessment of transnational corporations (TNCs). Methods: A citizens' jury engaged 15 randomly selected and demographically representative jurors from metropolitan Adelaide to deliberate on the findings of a Corporate Health Impact Assessment, and to decide on appropriate policy actions. Results: Jurors unanimously called for government regulation to ensure that transnational fast food corporations pay taxes on profits in the country of income. A majority (two‐thirds) also recommended government regulation to reduce fast food advertising, and improve standards of consumer information including a star‐ratings system. A minority held the view that no further regulation is required of the corporate fast food industry in Australia. Conclusion: The jury's recommendations can help inform policy makers about the importance of ending the legal profit‐shifting strategies by TNCs that affect taxation revenue. They also endorse regulating the fast food industry to provide healthier food, and employing forms of community education and awareness‐raising. Implications for public health: Citizens' juries can play an important role in providing feedback and policy recommendations in response to the findings of a health impact assessment of transnational corporations.

Critical social and economic resources, such as employment, education, and health services, increasingly require online access, highlighting the growing need to address equity of access to high-speed broadband telecommunications. Ensuring access to broadband requires the necessary infrastructure which, in Australia, is the National Broadband Network (NBN). In this paper, we use policy implementation theory to examine the translation of the government's NBN policy into service delivery, specifically in relation to the choice of policy instruments to install the broadband infrastructure, the associated barriers and enablers to their implementation, and the equity considerations that are emerging as the policy is implemented. We conducted a rapid review of NBN policy documents and academic and grey literature to map the NBN policy instruments and to examine how key contextual, political, and technical aspects of NBN policy implementation are likely to affect equity. Our findings indicate a range of equity concerns in the implementation of NBN policy. The instrument choice of a public–private 'hybrid' organisation to implement NBN policy has created a fertile ground for competing political, social, and commercial priorities, thereby affecting how the policy is implemented and thus increasing the risks to equity as it competes with other priorities. As these mixed public–private instruments become more prevalent as policy tools to deliver major infrastructure, determining the best means to safeguard equity is a vital consideration to ensure the benefits are distributed fairly.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. ; Abstract Background Operations of transnational corporations (TNCs) affect population health through production methods, shaping social determinants of health, or by influencing regulation of their activities. Research on community exposures to TNC practices and policies has been limited. Our research on extractive industries examined Rio Tinto in Australia and Southern Africa to test methods for assessing the health impacts of corporates in high and middle income jurisdictions with different regulatory frameworks. Methods We adapted existing Health Impact Assessment methods. Data identifying potential impacts were sourced through media analysis, document analysis, company literature and semi-structured interviews. The data were mapped against a corporate health impact assessment framework (CHIA) which included Rio Tinto's political and business practices; productions; and workforce, social, environmental and economic conditions. Results Both positive and detrimental aspects of Rio Tinto's operations were identified. Requirements imposed by Rio Tinto on its global supply chain are likely to have positive health impacts for workers. However, political lobbying and membership of representative organisations can influence government policy in ways that are unfavourable to health and equity. Positive impacts include provision of direct employment under decent working conditions, but countered by an increase in precariousness of employment. Commitments to upholding sustainable development principles are undermined by limited site remediation and other environmental impacts. Positive contributions are made to national and local economies but then undermined by business strategies that include tax minimisation. Conclusion Our study confirmed that it is possible to undertake a CHIA on an extractive industry TNC. The different methods provided sufficient information to understand the need to strengthen regulations that are conducive to health; the opportunity for Rio Tinto to extend corporate responsibility initiatives and support their social licence to operate; and for civil society actors to inform their advocacy towards improving health and equity outcomes from TNC operations.

AbstractIndigenous peoples in Australia and similar colonised countries are subject to racism and systemic socioeconomic disadvantages, resulting in worse health outcomes compared to non‐Indigenous counterparts. Such inequities persist despite governments' attempts to reduce them. Since 2008, Australian governments have committed to a national 'Closing the Gap' (CTG) to reduce inequities in health, education, and employment outcomes between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other Australians, but with limited success. We applied policy theory and a cultural safety framework developed for the research to analyse stakeholder perceptions of CTG policy implementation between 2008 and 2019. We identified policy‐shaping ideas and policy incoherence in the environment surrounding CTG policy that obstructed culturally safe policy. Top‐down, prescriptive modes of implementation were also a barrier. However, Indigenous‐led policy partnerships and community‐controlled services in the health sector have met principles of cultural safety. Identifying these strengths and weaknesses points to ways in which implementation of CTG policies can be improved to achieve cultural safety and reduce Indigenous health inequities. These results may hold lessons for similar countries such as the United States, New Zealand, and Canada.

Inequities in access to fast and reliable internet connections, essential for digital access to services and information that are important for health, can exacerbate social inequalities in health. We evaluated the social equity of the rollout of the National Broadband Network (NBN) in Australia based on the type of digital infrastructure delivered to areas of varying socioeconomic status. We found that areas of greater socioeconomic disadvantage were significantly less likely to receive the highest quality infrastructure, controlling for level of remoteness. These social inequities in provision of quality infrastructure will shape and possibly exacerbate inequities in health. In our discussion we consider how political decisions have obstructed equitable implementation of the policy. Lessons from the Australian case study may be valuable for other countries investing in public digital infrastructure who want to ensure equity of provision and can also inform Australian policy in the NBN's remaining rollout. ; This study is part of a wider National Health and Medical Research Council funded Centre for Research Excellence in the Social Determinants of Health Equity (APP1078046) examining the policy cycle in areas that shape the distribution of power, money, and resources that affect people's daily living conditions, including infrastructure policy, and the implications for health equity.

AbstractThe paper analyses the policy process which enabled the successful adoption of Australia's National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan 2013–2023 (NATSIHP), which is grounded in an understanding of the Social Determinants of Indigenous Health (SDIH). Ten interviews were conducted with key policy actors directly involved in its development. The theories we used to analyse qualitative data were the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Multiple Streams Approach, policy framing and critical constructionism. We used a complementary approach to policy analysis. The NATSIHP acknowledges the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter, Aboriginal) culture and the health effects of racism, and explicitly adopts a human-rights-based approach. This was enabled by a coalition campaigning to 'Close the Gap' (CTG) in health status between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. The CTG campaign, and key Aboriginal health networks associated with it, operated as an effective advocacy coalition, and policy entrepreneurs emerged to lead the policy agenda. Thus, Aboriginal health networks were able to successfully contest conventional problem conceptions and policy framings offered by government policy actors and drive a paradigm shift for Aboriginal health to place SDIH at the centre of the NATSIHP policy. Implications of this research for policy theory and for other policy environments are considered along with suggestions for future research.

Despite abundant evidence on social determinants of health (SDH) and health inequities, effective uptake of the evidence in health policies of high-income countries has been limited. Health policies might acknowledge evidence on SDH but still direct most strategies towards biomedical and behavioural interventions. This article reports on a framework developed for qualitative analysis of health policy documents to assess how and to what extent policies address health inequities and SDH outside health care services. This framework provides an effective way to interrogate health policies on key points raised in recent literature about the translation of evidence on SDH into policy.

Abstract
Percentage changes greater than 100% are frequently used in consumer contexts; for example, a cordless vacuum cleaner may boast "125% longer runtime" compared to competitors. Via six studies (n = 2,395) and 11 supplementary studies (n = 3,249), the current research shows that consumers systematically underestimate the magnitude of percentage changes greater than 100%. Specifically, many consumers apply the relative size usage (e.g., "125% of," equivalent to 25% more) instead of the appropriate relative change (e.g., "125% more," equivalent to 100% more + 25% more), which leads them to be off by exactly 100% in their magnitude estimates. The rate of bias decreases when the difference between these two usages is emphasized. The Off by 100% bias occurs across a variety of consumer contexts, influencing behavioral intentions and incentive-compatible choice. The findings make theoretical contributions to research on processing of percentages, probability versus frequency formats, and magnitude judgments. Finally, understanding how different presentation formats of the same information can lead to different magnitude judgments enables marketers and policymakers to ensure more effective communication.

AbstractInequities in access to fast and reliable internet connections, essential for digital access to services and information that are important for health, can exacerbate social inequalities in health. We evaluated the social equity of the rollout of the National Broadband Network (NBN) in Australia based on the type of digital infrastructure delivered to areas of varying socioeconomic status. We found that areas of greater socioeconomic disadvantage were significantly less likely to receive the highest quality infrastructure, controlling for level of remoteness. These social inequities in provision of quality infrastructure will shape and possibly exacerbate inequities in health. In our discussion we consider how political decisions have obstructed equitable implementation of the policy. Lessons from the Australian case study may be valuable for other countries investing in public digital infrastructure who want to ensure equity of provision and can also inform Australian policy in the NBN's remaining rollout.

AbstractAcross many different contexts, individuals consult customer ratings to inform their purchase decisions. The present studies document a novel phenomenon, dubbed "the binary bias," which plays an important role in how individuals evaluate customer reviews. Our main proposal is that people tend to make a categorical distinction between positive ratings (e.g., 4s and 5s) and negative ratings (e.g., 1s and 2s). However, within those bins, people do not sufficiently distinguish between more extreme values (5s and 1s) and less extreme values (4s and 2s). As a result, people's subjective representations of distributions are heavily impacted by the extent to which those distributions are imbalanced (having more 4s and 5s vs. more 1s and 2s). Ten studies demonstrate that this effect has important consequences for people's product evaluations and purchase decisions. Additionally, we show this effect is not driven by the salience of particular bars, unrealistic distributions, certain statistical properties of a distribution, or diminishing subjective utility. Furthermore, we demonstrate this phenomenon's relevance to other domains besides product reviews, and discuss the implications for existing research on how people integrate conflicting evidence.

This study identifies current practices of private health funds (PHFs) in Australian primary health care (PHC), including areas where their involvement is increasing, and examines the risks and benefits of these practices for quality of, and equity of access to PHC. The paper draws on research to investigate equity implications of current PHF involvement in PHC in Australia. We reviewed literature, analysed documents relating to a Senate Committee inquiry and interviewed stakeholders and experts in private health insurance policy from government, private sector and nongovernment organisations. Involvement of PHFs in the PHC sector in Australia is increasing, presenting risk of increased inequities in access to PHC based on insurance status, which could undermine the universality of PHC under Medicare. However, some stakeholders think these risks can be managed within current policy arrangements. There are also risks for quality of PHC services arising from greater involvement of PHFs in service delivery and "preferred provider" models. Differing stakeholder views on equity implications of PHF involvement in PHC are associated with different views on desirable policy action. We conclude that there is a risk of increased involvement of PHFs in PHC risks exacerbating existing inequities in the health system, but this is moderated by public support for Medicare. ; This work was supported by the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence on the Social Determinants of Health Equity: Policy research on the social determinants of health equity (APP1078046) and by a Flinders University, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences research grant.

AbstractThis study identifies current practices of private health funds (PHFs) in Australian primary health care (PHC), including areas where their involvement is increasing, and examines the risks and benefits of these practices for quality of, and equity of access to PHC. The paper draws on research to investigate equity implications of current PHF involvement in PHC in Australia. We reviewed literature, analysed documents relating to a Senate Committee inquiry and interviewed stakeholders and experts in private health insurance policy from government, private sector and nongovernment organisations. Involvement of PHFs in the PHC sector in Australia is increasing, presenting risk of increased inequities in access to PHC based on insurance status, which could undermine the universality of PHC under Medicare. However, some stakeholders think these risks can be managed within current policy arrangements. There are also risks for quality of PHC services arising from greater involvement of PHFs in service delivery and "preferred provider" models. Differing stakeholder views on equity implications of PHF involvement in PHC are associated with different views on desirable policy action. We conclude that there is a risk of increased involvement of PHFs in PHC risks exacerbating existing inequities in the health system, but this is moderated by public support for Medicare.