Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn September 2015, Member States of the United Nations (UN) committed to work towards a transformative policy agenda consisting of 17 ambitious Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved by 2030. However, implementation progress has been slow and at the current rate the SDG agenda will fall far short on delivery of its 169 targets. In order to accelerate progress at global, national and local levels it is necessary to prioritize goals and targets. One standalone SDG that is also cross‐cutting and universal is Goal 5: Gender equality and empowerment of all women and girls. In this article we assemble evidence to make the case that decisively (and politically) placing the gender equality goal (SDG5 and its 9 targets) together with 54 gender indicators across all goals as the priority focus of the 2030 agenda is the most impactful way to ensure measurable achievements are made across the agenda to deliver on all 5 pillars of the global commitment: namely People, Planet, Peace, Prosperity and Partnerships.

In September 2015, Member States of the United Nations (UN) committed to work towards a transformative policy agenda consisting of 17 ambitious Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved by 2030. However, implementation progress has been slow and at the current rate the SDG agenda will fall far short on delivery of its 169 targets. In order to accelerate progress at global, national and local levels it is necessary to prioritize goals and targets. One standalone SDG that is also cross-cutting and universal is Goal 5: Gender equality and empowerment of all women and girls. In this article we assemble evidence to make the case that decisively (and politically) placing the gender equality goal (SDG5 and its 9 targets) together with 54 gender indicators across all goals as the priority focus of the 2030 agenda is the most impactful way to ensure measurable achievements are made across the agenda to deliver on all 5 pillars of the global commitment: namely People, Planet, Peace, Prosperity and Partnerships.

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 study was funded by the UK Department of Health Policy Research Programme (Policy Research Unit in Behaviour and Health [PR-UN-0409-10109]). The Department of Health had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation. The research was conducted independently of the funders, and the views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health in England. ; This is the final version of the article. It was first available from Oxford University Press at http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv077

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.

Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) affect vulnerable populations living mostly in tropical and subtropical settings, and disproportionately affect women and children. Historically, the priority given to NTDs in global health policies has been lower than that of HIV, malaria and TB, but in recent years it has increased. To understand the processes that helped raise the positioning of NTDs in global policies, this study used a framework by Shiffman and Smith that assembles determinants of political priority under four categories: actor power, ideas, political contexts, and issue characteristics. A total of 37 global policy documents, 15 WHA resolutions, 38 academic publications, and findings from 12 semi-structured interviews with individuals representing different sectors within the NTD community, were analyzed using a policy framework proposed by Shiffman and Smith. This study found that elements that helped increase the priority of NTDs in global policies included the presence of leaders, institutions and guiding documents to mobilize the community, the creation of the NTD label, and the way the burden and solutions were presented. To continue raising the profile of NTDs at the global level, the study presents suggestions that are in line with UHC and SDG targets.

Although non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, the global policy response has not been commensurate with their health, economic and social burden. This study examined factors facilitating and hampering the prioritization of NCDs on the United Nations (UN) health agenda. Shiffman and Smith's (Generation of political priority for global health initiatives: a framework and case study of maternal mortality. The Lancet 370: 1370-9.) political priority framework served as a structure for analysis of a review of NCD policy documents identified through the World Health Organization's (WHO) NCD Global Action Plan 2013-20, and complemented by 11 semi-structured interviews with key informants from different sectors. The results show that a cohesive policy community exists, and leaders are present, however, actor power does not extend beyond the health sector and the role of guiding institutions and civil society have only recently gained momentum. The framing of NCDs as four risk factors and four diseases does not necessarily resonate with experts from the larger policy community, but the economic argument seems to have enabled some traction to be gained. While many policy windows have occurred, their impact has been limited by the institutional constraints of the WHO. Credible indicators and effective interventions exist, but their applicability globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries, is questionable. To be effective, the NCD movement needs to expand beyond global health experts, foster civil society and develop a broader and more inclusive global governance structure. Applying the Shiffman and Smith framework for NCDs enabled different elements of how NCDs were able to get on the UN policy agenda to be disentangled. Much work has been done to frame the challenges and solutions, but implementation processes and their applicability remain challenging globally. NCD responses need to be adapted to local contexts, focus sufficiently on both prevention and management of disease, and have a stronger global governance structure.

Although non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, the global policy response has not been commensurate with their health, economic and social burden. This study examined factors facilitating and hampering the prioritization of NCDs on the United Nations (UN) health agenda. Shiffman and Smith's (Generation of political priority for global health initiatives: a framework and case study of maternal mortality. The Lancet 370: 1370-9.) political priority framework served as a structure for analysis of a review of NCD policy documents identified through the World Health Organization's (WHO) NCD Global Action Plan 2013-20, and complemented by 11 semi-structured interviews with key informants from different sectors. The results show that a cohesive policy community exists, and leaders are present, however, actor power does not extend beyond the health sector and the role of guiding institutions and civil society have only recently gained momentum. The framing of NCDs as four risk factors and four diseases does not necessarily resonate with experts from the larger policy community, but the economic argument seems to have enabled some traction to be gained. While many policy windows have occurred, their impact has been limited by the institutional constraints of the WHO. Credible indicators and effective interventions exist, but their applicability globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries, is questionable. To be effective, the NCD movement needs to expand beyond global health experts, foster civil society and develop a broader and more inclusive global governance structure. Applying the Shiffman and Smith framework for NCDs enabled different elements of how NCDs were able to get on the UN policy agenda to be disentangled. Much work has been done to frame the challenges and solutions, but implementation processes and their applicability remain challenging globally. NCD responses need to be adapted to local contexts, focus sufficiently on both prevention and management of disease, and have a stronger global governance structure.