School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, 266 Herston Rd, Herston, QLD, 4006, Australia.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2022 Aug 9;20(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00891-6.
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.
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.
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.
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.
实施循证公共卫生政策可能具有挑战性。导致这一挑战的一个因素是公众对特定政策缺乏支持，这可能源于对政策论点缺乏兴趣或信念。当有关政策的信息传递策略与目标群体没有产生共鸣，或者政策叙事在公共话语中相互竞争时，就会出现这种情况。为了了解政策信息传递如何更好地与目标受众产生共鸣，我们研究了澳大利亚公众在讨论营养政策时使用的框架和叙事。
我们在澳大利亚昆士兰州的城市和地区进行了 76 次街头拦截访谈。使用平均同意分数和 t 检验对定量数据进行分析，使用经过改编的定性叙事政策框架（QNPF）对定性数据进行分析。QNPF 用于说明不同叙事在定义不同元素的方式上如何存在差异。这些元素通常包括背景、角色、情节、政策解决方案和信仰体系。
所有营养政策的支持程度普遍为中等至高度，尽管被认为对个人自由最具侵犯性的营养政策在公众中最不受欢迎。当参与者讨论他们对政策的支持或反对时，公平的价值始终被提及。使用 QNPF，在叙事中出现了两个不同的背景：对社区的关注或对自我的关注。恶棍被确定为“其他人，特别是父母”或“大食品”。受害者被确定为“儿童”或“食品行业，特别是农民”。经常使用的情节侧重于个人做出不良选择的原因是他们没有受过教育，而不是大食品控制人和政府。
本研究考察了澳大利亚公众在讨论营养政策时使用的框架和叙事。通过研究这些框架和叙事，我们深入了解了可能增加澳大利亚公众对某些营养政策支持的多种策略。
