Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, England, UK.
Int J Equity Health. 2023 Mar 30;22(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s12939-023-01869-8.
Health inequalities are persistent and widening with transformative policy change needed. Radically shifting policy to tackle upstream causes of inequalities is likely to require public participation to provide a mandate, evidence and to address questions of co-design, implementation and acceptability. The aim of this paper is to explore perceptions among policy actors on why and how the public should be involved in policymaking for health inequalities.
In 2019-2020, we conducted exploratory, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 21 Scottish policy actors from a range of public sector bodies and agencies and third sector organisations that work in, or across, health and non-health sectors. Data were analysed thematically and used to examine implications for the development of participatory policymaking.
Policy actors viewed public participation in policymaking as intrinsically valuable for democratic reasons, but the main, and more challenging, concern was with how it could affect positive policy change. Participation was seen as instrumental in two overlapping ways: as evidence to improve policies to tackle health inequalities and to achieve public acceptance for implementing more transformative policies. However, our analysis suggests a paradox: whilst policy actors place importance on the instrumental value of public participation, they simultaneously believe the public hold views about health inequalities that would prevent transformative change. Finally, despite broad agreement on the need to improve public participation in policy development, policy actors were uncertain about how to make the necessary changes due to conceptual, methodological and practical challenges.
Policy actors believe in the importance of public participation in policy to address health inequalities for intrinsic and instrumental reasons. Yet, there is an evident tension between seeing public participation as a route to upstream policies and a belief that public views might be misinformed, individualistic, short-term or self-interested and doubts about how to make public participation meaningful. We lack good insight into what the public think about policy solutions to health inequalities. We propose that research needs to shift from describing the problem to focusing more on potential solutions and outline a potential way forward to undertake effective public participation to tackle health inequalities.
健康不平等现象持续存在且不断扩大,需要进行变革性政策改革。彻底转变政策以解决不平等现象的根本原因,可能需要公众参与,为政策提供授权、证据,并解决共同设计、实施和可接受性方面的问题。本文旨在探讨政策制定者对公众参与健康不平等问题制定政策的原因和方式的看法。
在 2019-2020 年,我们对 21 名来自苏格兰各公共部门机构和机构以及第三部门组织的政策制定者进行了探索性、深入的半结构化访谈,这些组织在卫生和非卫生部门工作或跨越这些部门。对数据进行了主题分析,并用于检验对参与式政策制定发展的影响。
政策制定者认为公众参与政策制定从民主的角度来看具有内在价值,但主要的、更具挑战性的问题是,它如何影响积极的政策变革。参与被视为具有两种重叠的作用:一种是作为改进解决健康不平等问题的政策的证据,另一种是为实施更具变革性的政策获得公众的认可。然而,我们的分析表明存在一个悖论:尽管政策制定者重视公众参与的工具价值,但他们同时认为公众对健康不平等问题持有观点,这些观点将阻碍变革性的改变。最后,尽管广泛认为需要改善公众在政策制定中的参与,但政策制定者对如何做出必要的改变感到不确定,这是由于概念、方法和实际方面的挑战。
政策制定者认为,出于内在和工具性的原因,公众参与政策制定对于解决健康不平等问题非常重要。然而,将公众参与视为制定上游政策的途径与认为公众观点可能是错误的、个人主义的、短期的或自私自利的观点之间存在明显的紧张关系,并且对如何使公众参与具有意义存在疑虑。我们对公众对解决健康不平等问题的政策解决方案的看法缺乏深入了解。我们提出,研究需要从描述问题转向更关注潜在解决方案,并概述一个潜在的前进方向,以进行有效的公众参与,解决健康不平等问题。