TY - JOUR
T1 - Competing public narratives in nutrition policy
T2 - insights into the ideational barriers of public support for regulatory nutrition measures
AU - Cullerton, Katherine
AU - Patay, Dori
AU - Waller, Michael
AU - Adsett, Eloise
AU - Lee, Amanda
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/12
Y1 - 2022/12
N2 - Background: Enacting evidence-based public health policy can be challenging. One factor contributing to this challenge is a lack of public support for specific policies, which may stem from limited interest or conviction by policy arguments. This can happen when messaging strategies regarding policy do not resonate with the target group and/or policy narratives compete in public discourse. To understand how policy messaging can better resonate with a target audience, we examined the frames and narratives used by the Australian public when discussing nutrition policies. Methods: We conducted 76 street intercept interviews in urban and regional settings in Queensland, Australia. Quantitative data were analysed using mean agreement scores and t-tests, and the qualitative data were analysed using an adapted qualitative narrative policy framework (QNPF). The QNPF is used to illustrate how competing narratives vary in the way they define different elements. These elements often include setting, characters, plot, policy solution and belief systems. Results: Level of support for all nutrition policies was generally moderate to high, although nutrition policies perceived to be most intrusive to personal freedoms were the least popular among the public. The value of fairness was consistently invoked when participants discussed their support for or opposition to policy. Using the QNPF, two distinct settings were evident in the narratives: concern for the community or concern for self. Villains were identified as either “other individuals, in particular parents” or “Big Food”. Victims were identified as “children” or “the food industry, in particular farmers”. Frequently used plots focused on individuals making poor choices because they were uneducated, versus Big Food being powerful and controlling people and the government. Conclusions: The study examined the frames and narratives used by the Australian public when discussing nutrition policies. By examining these frames and narratives, we gained insight into multiple strategies which may increase public support for certain nutrition policies in Australia.
AB - Background: Enacting evidence-based public health policy can be challenging. One factor contributing to this challenge is a lack of public support for specific policies, which may stem from limited interest or conviction by policy arguments. This can happen when messaging strategies regarding policy do not resonate with the target group and/or policy narratives compete in public discourse. To understand how policy messaging can better resonate with a target audience, we examined the frames and narratives used by the Australian public when discussing nutrition policies. Methods: We conducted 76 street intercept interviews in urban and regional settings in Queensland, Australia. Quantitative data were analysed using mean agreement scores and t-tests, and the qualitative data were analysed using an adapted qualitative narrative policy framework (QNPF). The QNPF is used to illustrate how competing narratives vary in the way they define different elements. These elements often include setting, characters, plot, policy solution and belief systems. Results: Level of support for all nutrition policies was generally moderate to high, although nutrition policies perceived to be most intrusive to personal freedoms were the least popular among the public. The value of fairness was consistently invoked when participants discussed their support for or opposition to policy. Using the QNPF, two distinct settings were evident in the narratives: concern for the community or concern for self. Villains were identified as either “other individuals, in particular parents” or “Big Food”. Victims were identified as “children” or “the food industry, in particular farmers”. Frequently used plots focused on individuals making poor choices because they were uneducated, versus Big Food being powerful and controlling people and the government. Conclusions: The study examined the frames and narratives used by the Australian public when discussing nutrition policies. By examining these frames and narratives, we gained insight into multiple strategies which may increase public support for certain nutrition policies in Australia.
KW - Commercial determinants of health
KW - Framing
KW - Narrative policy framework
KW - Narratives
KW - Neoliberalism
KW - Nutrition policy
KW - Public attitude
KW - Street intercept
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85135720920&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s12961-022-00891-6
DO - 10.1186/s12961-022-00891-6
M3 - Article
SN - 1478-4505
VL - 20
JO - Health Research Policy and Systems
JF - Health Research Policy and Systems
IS - 1
M1 - 86
ER -