Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, UK.
Soc Sci Med. 2022 Mar;296:114726. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114726. Epub 2022 Jan 17.
Effective interventions for reducing the consumption of products that harm population and planetary health often lack public support, impeding implementation. Communicating evidence of policies' effectiveness can increase public support but there is uncertainty about the most effective ways of communicating this evidence. Some policies have multiple benefits such as both improving health and the environment. This study assesses whether communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits of a policy increases its support.
Participants (n = 4616) nationally representative of the British population were randomised to one of 24 groups in an online experiment with a 4 × 3 × 2 between-subjects factorial design. The messages that participants viewed differed according to the evidence they communicated (no message, effectiveness for changing behaviour, effectiveness for changing behaviour + one policy benefit, effectiveness for changing behaviour + three policy benefits), type of policy (taxation, availability) and the target behaviour (consumption of energy-dense food, alcohol, or meat). The primary outcome was policy support.
In a full factorial ANOVA, there was a significant main effect of communicating evidence of effectiveness on policy support, which was similar across policies and behaviours. Communicating three benefits increased support relative to communicating one benefit (d = 0.15; p = 0.01). Communicating one benefit increased support compared to providing evidence for changing behaviour alone (d = 0.13; p = 0.004) or no message (d = 0.11 p = 0.022).
Communicating evidence of a policy's benefits increases support for policy action across different behaviours and policies. Presenting multiple benefits of policies enhances public support.
有效干预措施可减少危害人群和地球健康的产品消费,但往往缺乏公众支持,从而阻碍了干预措施的实施。传播政策有效性的证据可以提高公众支持度,但在传播这种证据的最有效方法方面存在不确定性。一些政策具有多种益处,例如既能改善健康又能改善环境。本研究评估了传达政策的单一益处与多重益处的证据是否会增加其支持度。
参与者(n=4616)是具有全国代表性的英国人群,他们在一项在线实验中随机分为 24 个组,采用 4×3×2 的 3 因子被试间设计。参与者所看到的信息因所传达的证据而异(无信息、改变行为的有效性、改变行为的有效性+一项政策益处、改变行为的有效性+三项政策益处)、政策类型(征税、供应)和目标行为(能量密集型食品、酒精或肉类的消费)。主要结果是政策支持。
在完全因子方差分析中,传达有效性证据对政策支持有显著的主效应,而且在不同政策和行为之间相似。传达三项益处比传达一项益处更能增加支持(d=0.15;p=0.01)。与仅提供改变行为的证据(d=0.13;p=0.004)或没有信息(d=0.11;p=0.022)相比,传达一项益处也增加了支持。
传达政策的益处的证据增加了对不同行为和政策的政策行动的支持。提出政策的多重益处可以增强公众支持。