RF19 Ideology, stakeholders and public health policy: a comparison of media discourses on alcohol and sugar pricing policy in the UK. (3rd September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hilton, S; Henrichsen, T; Fergie, G; Buckton, CH; Leifeld, P
• Is Part Of: Journal of epidemiology and community health. Volume 73(2019)Supplement 1
• Page Start: A63
• Page End: A63
• Publication Date: 2019-09-03
• Subjects: Upstream food policy -- discourse network analysis -- stakeholder ideology; Public health -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; 614.4
• DOI: 10.1136/jech-2019-SSMabstracts.134
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0143-005X

Abstract

Abstract : Background: The media are a key influence on public and policymakers' perceptions of the need for, and acceptability of, new policies to improve population health. In the case of Minimum Unit Pricing (MUP) for alcohol and the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), previous analysis suggests that an actor's position in the network is linked to their ideology, for example using social vs market justice arguments. In this study we use ideological scaling to examine stakeholders' policy positioning further. Methods: Data sets were generated from public debates on MUP and SDIL in UK newspapers using content analysis and discourse network analysis. Actor statements were analysed using ideological scaling of ideal points in Item Response Theory models. This approach is based on the assumption that actors communicate their ideological position through verbal statements in public documents. These statements then provide the basis to estimate underlying ideological positions of actors in specific policy areas. Ideological positions were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo in the Bayesian Ideal Point model of Martin and Quinn. Results: In both debates, health charity and advocacy groups, individual NHS organisations and professional associations, as well as government advisory bodies, had a clear policy supporting ideology. Contrary to this, manufacturers/associated industries and associations, as well as think tanks and research analysts, had an opposing ideology. For the policy opponents, the most discriminating policy concepts were mainly economic or political in nature (e.g., 'Policy is illegal', 'Policy will damage industry and associated industries', 'Government action on commodity consumption is nanny statist' or 'Policy will damage the wider economy'). For the policy proponents, the most discriminatory policy concepts related to public health issues ('Policy will reduce consumption of commodity', 'Policy needed to address commodity 'problem'', 'Policy will improve population health'). Conclusion: The media are a key influence on public and policymakers' perceptions of the need for, and acceptability of, new policies to improve population health. In contested public policy debates, stakeholders on both sides of the argument put forward competing rhetoric via the media to support their position in line with their vested interests whether driven by social and market justice principles.