Suchergebnisse

By any standard, the U.S. response to the coronavirus pandemic has been abysmal, with countless unnecessary deaths and suffering. Although the human impact is most important, the pandemic has also had enormous consequences on the U.S. political system. Health policy and politics scholars, particularly from political science orientations, are ideally equipped to evaluate the pandemic response from a political perspective. In this study, we report on the results of a two‐wave survey of academic health policy researchers in April/May (N = 239) and September (N = 158) 2020. Respondents noted an outsized influence of public health, medicine, and economics, while noting limited public engagement of social scientists like sociologists and political scientists. The perceived expert influence declined over the two waves, while assessment of electoral consequences to favor Democrats grew. Respondents also offered a sober perspective on federal and state responses to the pandemic, forecasting lasting implications for health policy and political dynamics for years to come. Given their expertise, health policy and politics scholars appear uniquely qualified to enter the public and policy discourse going forward.

Health issues are increasingly becoming politicized, but little is known about how politicization takes shape in the news and its effect on the public. We analyze the evolution of politicization in news coverage of two health controversies: the uproar over the 2009 mammography screening guidelines and the 2006–2007 debate over mandating the HPV vaccine as a requirement for middle school–aged girls. We then examine the public response to politicization in the HPV case, using original data from a survey-embedded experiment that was linked with news coverage in all fifty states. We find that real-world politicization is associated with decreases in support for HPV vaccine requirements, state immunization programs, and confidence in doctors and in government. In addition, among those less likely to have encountered real-world politicization, we find marginal evidence that exposure to political conflict decreases support for state immunization programs and clear evidence that politicization reduces confidence in doctors. We discuss the implications of these findings and suggest future avenues of research.

The public health and the public education systems in the United States have encountered problems in quality of service, accountability, and availability of resources. Both systems are under pressure to adopt the general organizational reform of privatization. The debate over privatization in public education is contentious, but in public health, the shift of functions from the public to the private sector has been accepted with limited deliberation.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are receiving increasing attention in academic, policy, and media discourses. However, no public opinion research has focused on ACEs. We conducted a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults to address this knowledge gap. A web-based survey was conducted using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel ( N = 503, completion rate = 60.5%) in fall 2019. We found that inter-personal stigma and parental blame related to ACEs were prevalent, with 25.0% of respondents unwilling to have a person with "a lot of ACEs" as a close co-worker and 65.2% believing that parents were very much to blame for the consequences of ACEs. Fifty percent of respondents believed that government intervention to prevent ACEs was very important. After adjustment for demographic characteristics, inter-personal stigma toward people with ACEs and conservative ideology were significantly associated with lower perceived importance of government intervention to prevent ACEs. Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, and female gender were significantly associated with higher perceived importance of government intervention. These findings provide an empirical foundation to inform strategies to communicate ACE science to public and policymaker audiences.

This study examined associations between diagnoses with five chronic health conditions (diabetes, cancer, heart disease, asthma, and arthritis) and turnout in the 2012 US presidential election. We used cross-sectional survey data from 16 states from the 2013 and 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We estimated a logistic regression model with the main dependent variable as a survey item asking respondents if they voted. We also estimated logistic regression models stratified by race/ethnicity to assess whether the chronic health condition–turnout relationships varied within each racial/ethnic group. Results show that individuals diagnosed with diabetes were 7 percentage-points more likely to vote that those who were not. Stratified models revealed these diabetes–turnout relationships are particularly strong among those who identified as Hispanic and multiracial. Other health characteristics demonstrated consistency with previous literature, including lower self-rated health being associated with lower odds of turnout. Our research suggests an intriguing new relationship between the experience of diabetes and a higher propensity to vote and that different chronic health conditions have varying associations with the likelihood to vote, implying that some groups are more vulnerable to being underrepresented in politics.

Policies governing the sale of raw milk—making the sales of raw milk more permissive—are gaining traction on the legislative agendas of dozens of states. This paper examines one contributor to this movement on the policy agenda: the role of competitive framing. By combining theoretical approaches from policy studies and political psychology theories of competitive framing, we offer evidence supporting the recent relative success of raw milk activists in several state legislatures. Using an Internet survey‐based experiment with a sample size of 1,630 respondents from seven Midwestern states, we show that a frame emphasizing consumer choice and food freedom is more effective than the frame that dominates among the policy establishment, that emphasizing public health risks. This is true in both one‐sided and competitive framing contexts. We further show that those previously aware of this issue were less influenced by the public health frame than those naïve to the issue. Our results suggest that the pro‐raw milk movement may be making strides on the state policy agenda because their frames are more resonant among the public. We also highlight the advantages gained from considering psychological and policy processes simultaneously to understand policy change.

Despite the salience of health disparities in media and policy discourse, little previous research has investigated if imagery associating an illness with a certain racial group influences public perceptions. This study evaluated the influence of the media's presentation of the causes of type 2 diabetes and its implicit racial associations on attitudes toward people with diabetes and preferences toward research spending. Survey participants who viewed an article on genetic causation or social determinants of diabetes were more likely to support increased government spending on research than those viewing an article with no causal language, while participants viewing an article on behavioral choices were more likely to attribute negative stereotypes to people with diabetes. Participants who viewed a photo of a black woman accompanying the article were less likely to endorse negative stereotypes than those viewing a photo of a white woman, but those who viewed a photo of a glucose-testing device expressed the lowest negative stereotypes. The effect of social determinants language was significantly different for blacks and whites, lowering stereotypes only among blacks. Emphasizing the behavioral causes of diabetes, as is common in media coverage, may perpetuate negative stereotypes. While drawing attention to the social determinants that shape these behaviors could mitigate stereotypes, this strategy is unlikely to influence the public uniformly.

Framing health problems in terms of the social determinants of health aims to shift policy attention to nonmedical strategies to improve population health, yet little is known about how the public responds to these messages. We conducted an experiment to test the effect of a news article describing the social determinants of type 2 diabetes on the public's support for diabetes prevention strategies. We found that exposure to the social determinants message led to a divergence between Republicans' and Democrats' opinions, relative to their opinions after viewing an article with no message about the causes of diabetes. These results signify that increasing public awareness of the social determinants of health may not uniformly increase public support for policy action.

Political actors recognize the power of framing problems using personalized examples and causal stories to shape public opinion. Yet little is known about how these frames interact. This research presents the results of three studies designed to investigate the effect of "individualizing" the problem of childhood obesity, in combination with information about causes of obesity, on public support for obesity prevention policies (Studies 1 and 2) and to examine how frequently the news media rely on individual depictions of obese children to portray the problem in actual news coverage (Study 3). Results from two experiments consistently demonstrated that, regardless of how the cause of childhood obesity was framed, when a news report identified an individual obese child, participants were less likely to support prevention policies than when the report described the problem in more general terms. A content analysis indicated that news articles relatively infrequently frame the problem using individualized depictions of a specific child. When specific overweight or obese children were mentioned, news coverage emphasized internal (behavioral and genetic) causes rather than factors external to the child such as neighborhood, economic, or food‐industry factors. Findings underscore the importance of considering attitudes toward a policy's target population when assessing how individual depictions of a policy problem influence public sentiment.

Policy PointsThe American public—both men and women and those with and without children in the household—holds parents highly responsible and largely to blame for childhood obesity.High attributions of responsibility to parents for reducing childhood obesity did not universally undermine support for broader policy action. School-based obesity prevention policies were strongly supported, even among those viewing parents as mostly to blame for childhood obesity.Americans who viewed sectors outside the family (such as the food and beverage industry, schools, and the government) as helping address childhood obesity were more willing to support a wider range of population-based obesity prevention policies.

Does college change students' political preferences? While existing research has documented associations between college education and political views, it remains unclear whether these associations reflect a causal relationship. We address this gap in previous research by analyzing a quasi-experiment in which university students are assigned to live together as roommates. While we find little evidence that college students as a whole become more liberal over time, we do find strong evidence of peer effects, in which students' political views become more in line with the views of their roommates over time. This effect is strongest for conservative students. These findings shed light on the role of higher education in an era of political polarization.