a Oregon Health & Science University , Portland State University School of Public Health , Portland , OR , USA.
J Health Commun. 2018;23(10-11):855-864. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2018.1511011. Epub 2018 Nov 20.
The 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) represented a major and controversial overhaul of national nutrition standards for foods served in the United States' nearly 100,000 public schools. To unpack how debate over this far-reaching policy was presented to the public, we examined 152 national print; network, network affiliate, and cable television; and public radio news stories about the policy, all appearing during the window surrounding its scheduled reauthorization (9/1/14-1/31/16). We found that HHFKA opponents were more likely to argue from a smaller set of frames that comprised a concise, clear narrative they frequently repeated, while proponents drew from a broader range of frames, each used less frequently, to present their position. In addition, key voices expected to be prominent in a debate over child health-children and parents-were relatively deemphasized. Overall, the primary frames on either side of this debate argued past one another, leaving largely unanswered critical charges about the role of government in assuring the public's health. This debate reflects deeper arguments at the root of many public health policy decisions, and as such, is an illustrative case example for those planning how to enter and help shape national debate over public health policy.
2010 年《健康,无饥饿儿童法案》(HHFKA)代表了对美国近 10 万所公立学校供应食品的国家营养标准的重大和有争议的改革。为了解剖这场影响深远的政策辩论是如何向公众提出的,我们研究了 152 篇全国性印刷品、网络、网络附属机构和有线电视以及公共广播电台的新闻报道,这些报道都出现在该政策预定重新授权的时间窗口内(2014 年 9 月 1 日至 2016 年 1 月 31 日)。我们发现,HHFKA 的反对者更有可能从一组较小的框架出发进行争论,这些框架构成了一个简洁、清晰的叙述,他们经常重复,而支持者则从更广泛的框架中汲取信息,每个框架的使用频率都较低,以提出自己的立场。此外,在这场关于儿童健康的辩论中,预计会有重要发言权的关键声音——儿童和家长——相对被淡化。总的来说,这场辩论的主要框架相互对立,基本上没有回答关于政府在确保公众健康方面的作用的关键指控。这场辩论反映了许多公共卫生政策决策背后更深层次的争论,因此,对于那些计划如何参与并帮助塑造全国公共卫生政策辩论的人来说,这是一个具有说明性的案例。