Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Scientific evidence is just one of many sources of information for policymakers. Neglecting this evidence is, however, an important feature of unsuccessful policy-making. Recent UK governments' ambitions to improve the nation's health and tackle climate change are—to varying degrees—off course. These include halving childhood obesity by 2030 and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Evidence on the interventions most likely to achieve these is well summarised but largely neglected in the policies supporting these ambitions. Two sets of factors contribute to this neglect: first, incentive structures for politicians that favour setting ambitious policy goals while disfavouring the effective policies needed to achieve them; second, political ideologies and interests that conflict with effective policies. Two changes could mitigate these factors: first, engaging citizens more in policy-making so that their interests dominate; second, increasing the accountability of politicians through legally binding systems for all stages of policy-making.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports the use of pricing interventions in achieving healthier behaviour at population level. The public acceptability of this strategy continues to be debated throughout Europe, Australasia and USA. We examined public attitudes towards, and beliefs about the acceptability of pricing policies to change health-related behaviours in the UK. The study explores what underlies ideas of acceptability, and in particular those values and beliefs that potentially compete with the evidence presented by policy-makers. METHODS: Twelve focus group discussions were held in the London area using a common protocol with visual and textual stimuli. Over 300,000 words of verbatim transcript were inductively coded and analyzed, and themes extracted using a constant comparative method. RESULTS: Attitudes towards pricing policies to change three behaviours (smoking, and excessive consumption of alcohol and food) to improve health outcomes, were unfavourable and acceptability was low. Three sets of beliefs appeared to underpin these attitudes: (i) pricing makes no difference to behaviour; (ii) government raises prices to generate income, not to achieve healthier behaviour and (iii) government is not trustworthy. These beliefs were evident in discussions of all types of health-related behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: The low acceptability of pricing interventions to achieve healthier behaviours in populations was linked among these responders to a set of beliefs indicating low trust in government. Acceptability might be increased if evidence regarding effectiveness came from trusted sources seen as independent of government and was supported by public involvement and hypothecated taxation.

The aim of this study was to determine the impact on risk perceptions of disclosing genetic test results used to estimate the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Adult children (n= 149) of people with AD were randomized to one of two groups—Intervention group: lifetime risk estimates of AD based on age, gender, family history, and Apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype; Control group: lifetime risk estimates of AD based on the same risk factors excluding APOE genotype. Perceptions of personal risk (PPR) for AD were assessed six weeks after risk assessments. PPR were correlated with actual lifetime risk estimates (r= 0.501; p < 0.0001). After controlling for lifetime risks communicated to participants, age, and number of affected relatives, PPR scores among those with an ɛ4‐positive test result (the test result associated with increased AD susceptibility) (adjusted mean: 3.4 (SD: 0.7)) were not different from the PPR scores in the Control group (adjusted mean: 3.4 (SD: 0.7) (F(1,91)= 1.98; p= 0.162). Again, controlling for lifetime risk estimates, age, and number of affected relatives, the PPR score of those receiving an ɛ4‐negative test result was significantly lower (adjusted mean: 3.1 (SD: 0.8)) than those in the Control group (adjusted mean: 3.4 (SD: 0.7) (F(1,95)= 6.23; p= 0.014). Perceptions of risk of developing AD are influenced by genetic test disclosure in those receiving ɛ4‐negative, but not those receiving ɛ4‐positive test results. Despite the reduced perceptions of risk in the former group, there was no evidence of false reassurance (i.e., perceiving risks as equal to or lower than population risks of AD), although this possibility should be assessed in other testing contexts.

Abstract Background Governments can intervene to change health-related behaviours using various measures but are sensitive to public attitudes towards such interventions. This review describes public attitudes towards a range of policy interventions aimed at changing tobacco and alcohol use, diet, and physical activity, and the extent to which these attitudes vary with characteristics of (a) the targeted behaviour (b) the intervention and (c) the respondents. Methods We searched electronic databases and conducted a narrative synthesis of empirical studies that reported public attitudes in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand towards interventions relating to tobacco, alcohol, diet and physical activity. Two hundred studies met the inclusion criteria. Results Over half the studies (105/200, 53%) were conducted in North America, with the most common interventions relating to tobacco control (110/200, 55%), followed by alcohol (42/200, 21%), diet-related interventions (18/200, 9%), interventions targeting both diet and physical activity (18/200, 9%), and physical activity alone (3/200, 2%). Most studies used survey-based methods (160/200, 80%), and only ten used experimental designs. Acceptability varied as a function of: (a) the targeted behaviour, with more support observed for smoking-related interventions; (b) the type of intervention, with less intrusive interventions, those already implemented, and those targeting children and young people attracting most support; and (c) the characteristics of respondents, with support being highest in those not engaging in the targeted behaviour, and with women and older respondents being more likely to endorse more restrictive measures. Conclusions Public acceptability of government interventions to change behaviour is greatest for the least intrusive interventions, which are often the least effective, and for interventions targeting the behaviour of others, rather than the respondent him or herself. Experimental studies are needed to assess how the presentation of the problem and the benefits of intervention might increase acceptability for those interventions which are more effective but currently less acceptable.

Background Very few countries regulate maximum cigarette pack size. Larger, non-standard sizes are increasingly being introduced by the tobacco industry. Larger portion sizes increase food consumption; larger cigarette packs may similarly increase tobacco consumption. Here we consider the evidence for legislation to cap cigarette pack size to reduce tobacco-related harm. Aims and analysis We first describe the regulations regarding minimum and maximum pack sizes in the 12 countries that have adopted plain packaging legislation and describe the range of sizes available. We then discuss evidence for two key assumptions that would support capping pack size. First, regarding the causal nature of the relationship between pack size and tobacco consumption, observational evidence suggests that people smoke fewer cigarettes when using smaller packs. Secondly, regarding the causal nature of the relationship between reducing consumption and successful cessation, reductions in number of cigarettes smoked per day are associated with increased cessation attempts and subsequent abstinence. However, more experimental evidence is needed to infer the causal nature of these associations among general populations of smokers. Conclusion Cigarette pack size is positively associated with consumption and consumption is negatively associated with cessation. Based on limited evidence of the causal nature of these associations, we hypothesize that government regulations to cap cigarette pack sizes would positively contribute to reducing smoking prevalence.

There is evidence that the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) and smoking contribute independently to risk of circulatory disease. There is mixed evidence that the combined risk may be greater than the sum of these factors operating in isolation. Little is known about how the general population views the risks from OCP use, singly and in combination with smoking. Previous attempts at assessing whether the public views risks as operating synergistically have generally found evidence for subadditive models, where the combined risk is less than the sum of factors operating in isolation. However, concerns have been expressed over the validity of the measures of risk perception used. Therefore, this study used three distinct methods of measurement to assess the extent to which 241 undergraduate students perceive the risks of smoking and the OCP, separately and combined, for circulatory disease. For all three methods, respondents read each of four vignettes describing information about a woman's risk factors (with high and low levels of both OCP and smoking), and then estimated risk of circulatory disease using one of the three risk measures. The three measures produced similar ratings. Consistent with the epidemiological evidence, information about smoking had more impact on estimates of overall risk than did information about the OCP. For all three measures, responses were consistent with an additive model of risk from smoking and the OCP. This convergence of results from different methods suggests that all three methods of measurement employed, which all had a large number of response options, may be valid.

Abstract
Communicating evidence that a policy is effective can increase public support although the effects are small. In the context of policies to increase healthier eating in out-of-home restaurants, we investigate two ways of presenting evidence for a policy's effectiveness: (i) visualising and (ii) re-expressing evidence into a more interpretable form. We conducted an online experiment in which participants were randomly allocated to one of five groups. We used a 2 (text only vs visualisation) × 2 (no re-expression vs re-expression) design with one control group. Participants (n = 4500) representative of the English population were recruited. The primary outcome was perceived effectiveness and the secondary outcome was public support. Evidence of effectiveness increased perceptions of effectiveness (d = 0.14, p < 0.001). There was no evidence that visualising, or re-expressing, changed perceptions of effectiveness (respectively, d = 0.02, p = 0.605; d = −0.02, p = 0.507). Policy support increased with evidence but this was not statistically significant after Bonferroni adjustment (d = 0.08, p = 0.034, α = 0.006). In conclusion, communicating evidence of policy effectiveness increased perceptions that the policy was effective. Neither visualising nor re-expressing evidence increased perceived effectiveness of policies more than merely stating in text that the policy was effective.

BACKGROUND: Very few countries regulate maximum cigarette pack size. Larger, non‐standard sizes are increasingly being introduced by the tobacco industry. Larger portion sizes increase food consumption; larger cigarette packs may similarly increase tobacco consumption. Here we consider the evidence for legislation to cap cigarette pack size to reduce tobacco‐related harm. AIMS AND ANALYSIS: We first describe the regulations regarding minimum and maximum pack sizes in the 12 countries that have adopted plain packaging legislation and describe the range of sizes available. We then discuss evidence for two key assumptions that would support capping pack size. First, regarding the causal nature of the relationship between pack size and tobacco consumption, observational evidence suggests that people smoke fewer cigarettes when using smaller packs. Secondly, regarding the causal nature of the relationship between reducing consumption and successful cessation, reductions in number of cigarettes smoked per day are associated with increased cessation attempts and subsequent abstinence. However, more experimental evidence is needed to infer the causal nature of these associations among general populations of smokers. CONCLUSION: Cigarette pack size is positively associated with consumption and consumption is negatively associated with cessation. Based on limited evidence of the causal nature of these associations, we hypothesize that government regulations to cap cigarette pack sizes would positively contribute to reducing smoking prevalence.

Abstract: Background: Covid-status certification – certificates for those who test negative for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, test positive for antibodies, or who have been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 – has been proposed to enable safer access to a range of activities. Realising these benefits will depend in part upon the behavioural and social impacts of certification. The aim of this rapid review was to describe public attitudes towards certification, and its possible impact on uptake of testing and vaccination, protective behaviours, and crime. Method: A search was undertaken in peer-reviewed databases, pre-print databases, and the grey literature, from 2000 to December 2020. Studies were included if they measured attitudes towards or behavioural consequences of health certificates based on one of three indices of Covid-19 status: test-negative result for current infectiousness, test-positive for antibodies conferring natural immunity, or vaccination(s) conferring immunity. Results: Thirty-three papers met the inclusion criteria, only three of which were rated as low risk of bias. Public attitudes were generally favourable towards the use of immunity certificates for international travel, but unfavourable towards their use for access to work and other activities. A significant minority was strongly opposed to the use of certificates of immunity for any purpose. The limited evidence suggested that intention to get vaccinated varied with the activity enabled by certification or vaccination (e.g., international travel). Where vaccination is seen as compulsory this could lead to unwillingness to accept a subsequent vaccination. There was some evidence that restricting access to settings and activities to those with antibody test certificates may lead to deliberate exposure to infection in a minority. Behaviours that reduce transmission may decrease upon health certificates based on any of the three indices of Covid-19 status, including physical distancing and handwashing. Conclusions: The limited evidence suggests that health certification in relation to COVID-19 – outside of the context of international travel – has the potential for harm as well as benefit. Realising the benefits while minimising the harms will require real-time evaluations allowing modifications to maximise the potential contribution of certification to enable safer access to a range of activities.

<i>Objective:</i> To describe and compare the information obstetricians and geneticists in five European countries report they would give following the prenatal diagnosis of Klinefelter syndrome. <i>Methods:</i> 388 obstetricians and 269 geneticists from Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the UK completed a brief questionnaire assessing two variables: the information they reported providing to parents following the prenatal diagnosis of Klinefelter syndrome (categorized as positive or negative); and their perceptions of the quality of life with the condition. <i>Results:</i> Geneticists were more likely than obstetricians to report providing more positive than negative information about Klinefelter syndrome than equal amounts of positive and negative information or more negative than positive information about the condition (excess positive information). Regardless of specialty, the information that health professionals reported providing was predicted by their perceptions of the quality of life with the condition, and the country from which they came. Those perceiving quality of life as greater were more likely to provide an excess positive information, as were health professionals from Germany and the UK. <i>Conclusions:</i> These results suggest that the information parents across Europe receive after the prenatal diagnosis of Klinefelter syndrome varies according to the specialty and country of the health professionals consulted, and their perceptions of quality of life with the condition. This variation seems to reflect personal, cultural and professional differences between health professionals.

The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy.

The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy. ; ESRC