Communicating quantitative evidence of policy effectiveness and support for the policy: Three experimental studies

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 218, Issue , 2018, Pages 1-12

  Reynolds, J P ^a   Pilling, M ^a   Marteau, T M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Belief change; Communication; Policy; Public health; Updating beliefs

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; CHILD HEALTH; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HEALTH BELIEF; MODEL TEST; OBESITY; PLANNING METHOD; POLICY ANALYSIS; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH BELIEF; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; OBESITY; PERCEPTION; POPULATION; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; UNCERTAINTY; CANDY; CHILDHOOD OBESITY; ECONOMICS; MANAGEMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; TAX; UNITED KINGDOM;

CANDY; COMMUNICATION; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; PEDIATRIC OBESITY; POLICY MAKING; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TAXES; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 85054563246     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: 18735347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.09.037     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Bachhuber, M.A., McGinty, E.E., Kennedy-Hendricks, A., Niederdeppe, J., Barry, C.L., Messaging to increase public support for naloxone distribution policies in the United States: results from a randomized survey experiment. PloS One, 10(7), 2015, e0130050 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130050.
2. Barry, C.L., Brescoll, V.L., Brownell, K.D., Schlesinger, M., Obesity metaphors: how beliefs about the causes of obesity affect support for public policy. Milbank Q. 87:1 (2009), 7–47, 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00546.x.
3. Barry, C.L., Niederdeppe, J., Gollust, S.E., Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages: results from a 2011 national public opinion survey. Am. J. Prev. Med. 44:2 (2013), 158–163 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.09.065.
4. Beeken, R.J., Wardle, J., Public beliefs about the causes of obesity and attitudes towards policy initiatives in Great Britain. Publ. Health Nutr. 16:12 (2013), 2132–2137 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980013001821.
5. Bigman, C.A., Cappella, J.N., Hornik, R.C., Effective or ineffective: attribute framing and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. Patient Educ. Counsel. 81 (2010), S70–S76.
6. Bos, C., Lans, I.V.D., Van Rijnsoever, F., Van Trijp, H., Consumer acceptance of population-level intervention strategies for healthy food choices: the role of perceived effectiveness and perceived fairness. Nutrients 7:9 (2015), 7842–7862.
7. Brick, C., Freeman, A.L., Wooding, S., Skylark, W.J., Marteau, T.M., Spiegelhalter, D.J., Winners and losers: communicating the potential impacts of policies. Palgrave Comm. 4:1 (2018), 1–13 https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0121-9.
8. Briggs, A.D., Mytton, O.T., Kehlbacher, A., Tiffin, R., Elhussein, A., Rayner, M., et al. Health impact assessment of the UK soft drinks industry levy: a comparative risk assessment modelling study. The Lancet Public Health, 2, 2017, e15–e22 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(16)30037-8.
9. Cairney, P., The role of ideas in policy transfer: the case of UK smoking bans since devolution. J. Eur. Publ. Pol. 16:3 (2009), 471–488 https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760802684718.
10. Canty, A., Ripley, B., Boot: Bootstrap R (S-plus) Functions. 2017 R package version 1.3-20.
11. Cohen, J., A power primer. Psychol. Bull., 112(1), 1992, 155.
12. Cornwell, J.F., Krantz, D.H., Public policy for thee, but not for me: varying the grammatical person of public policy justifications influences their support. Judgment and Decision Making, 9, 2014, 433–444.
13. Cullerton, K., Donnet, T., Lee, A., Gallegos, D., Playing the policy game: a review of the barriers to and enablers of nutrition policy change. Publ. Health Nutr. 19:14 (2016), 2643–2653 https://doi:10.1017/S1368980016000677.
14. Cullerton, K., Donnet, T., Lee, A., Gallegos, D., Effective advocacy strategies for influencing government nutrition policy: a conceptual model. International Journal of Behavioural and Physical Activity, 15, 2018, 1–11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-018-0716-y.
15. Diepeveen, S., Ling, T., Suhrcke, M., Roland, M., Marteau, T.M., Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Publ. Health 13:1 (2013), 756–767 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-756.
16. Elliott-Green, A., Hyseni, L., Lloyd-Williams, F., Bromley, H., Capewell, S., Sugar-sweetened beverages coverage in the British media: an analysis of public health advocacy versus pro-industry messaging. BMJ Open, 6(7), 2016, e011295 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011295.
17. Evans, G., Heath, A., Lalljee, M., Measuring left-right and libertarian-authoritarian values in the British electorate. Br. J. Sociol., 1996, 93–112, 10.2307/591118.
18. Freudenberg, N., Lethal but Legal: Corporations, Consumption, and Protecting Public Health. 2014, Oxford University Press.
19. Gollust, S.E., Barry, C.L., Niederdeppe, J., Partisan responses to public health messages: motivated reasoning and sugary drink taxes. J. Health Polit. Pol. Law 42:6 (2017), 1005–1037 https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-4193606.
20. Hayes, A.F., Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Commun. Monogr. 76:4 (2009), 408–420 https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360.
21. Hayes, A.F., Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: a Regression-based Approach. 2017, Guilford Publications.
22. HM Government, Childhood obesity: a plan for action, chapter 2. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/718903/childhood-obesity-a-plan-for-action-chapter-2.pdf, 2018.
23. Howarth DR, Marteau TM, Coutts AP, Huppert JL, Pinto PR. What do the British public think of inequality in health, wealth, and power? Soc. Sci. Med. (under review).
24. Ipsos MORI, Ipsos MORI issues index: 2017 in review. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/ipsos-mori-issues-index-2017-review, 2017.
25. Johnson, W., Li, L., Kuh, D., Hardy, R., How has the age-related process of overweight or obesity development changed over time? Co-ordinated analyses of individual participant data from five United Kingdom birth cohorts. PLoS Med., 12(5), 2015, e1001828 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001828.
26. Kreuzmair, C., Siegrist, M., Keller, C., High numerates count icons and low numerates process large areas in pictographs: results of an eye‐tracking study. Risk Anal. 36:8 (2016), 1599–1614 https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12531.
27. Lam, S.P., Predicting support of climate policies by using a protection motivation model. Clim. Pol. 15:3 (2015), 321–338 https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.916599.
28. Li, J., Lovatt, M., Eadie, D., Dobbie, F., Meier, P., Holmes, J., et al. Public attitudes towards alcohol control policies in Scotland and England: results from a mixed-methods study. Soc. Sci. Med. 177 (2017), 177–189 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.037.
29. Logan, R.A., Science mass communication: its conceptual history. Sci. Commun. 23:2 (2001), 135–163 https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547001023002004.
30. Lord, C.G., Ross, L., Lepper, M.R., Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37:11 (1979), 2098–2109 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098.
31. Lumley, T., Survey: Analysis of Complex Survey Samples. 2017 R package version 3.32.
32. Mazzocchi, M., Cagnone, S., Bech-Larsen, T., Niedźwiedzka, B., Saba, A., Shankar, B., et al. What is the public appetite for healthy eating policies? Evidence from a cross-European survey. Health Econ. Pol. Law 10:3 (2015), 267–292 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133114000346.
33. McGlynn, J., McGlone, M.S., Desire or disease? Framing obesity to influence attributions of responsibility and policy support. Health Commun., 2018, 1–13.
34. Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K.F., Montori, V., Gøtzsche, P.C., Devereaux, P.J., et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340, 2010, c869 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869.
35. NHS Digital, Health survey for England, 2016. Retrieved from: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health-survey-for-england/health-survey-for-england-2016, 2017.
36. Nickerson, R.S., Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol., 2(2), 1998, 175.
37. Niederdeppe, J., Heley, K., Barry, C.L., Inoculation and narrative strategies in competitive framing of three health policy issues. J. Commun. 65:5 (2015), 838–862, 10.1111/jcom.12162.
38. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Polit. Behav. 32:2 (2010), 303–330 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2.
39. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Ubel, P.A., The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Med. Care 51:2 (2013), 127–132, 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318279486b.
40. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., Freed, G.L., Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 133:4 (2014), e835–e842.
41. Oberski, D., lavaan.survey: an R package for complex survey analysis of structural equation models. J. Stat. Software 57:1 (2014), 1–27 http://www.jstatsoft.org/v57/i01/.
42. Office for National Statistics, The national statistics socio-economic classification user manual. Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/classificationsandstandards/otherclassifications/thenationalstatisticssocioeconomicclassificationnssecrebasedonsoc2010, 2005.
43. Ophir, Y., Brennan, E., Maloney, E.K., Cappella, J.N., The effects of graphic warning labels' vividness on message engagement and intentions to quit smoking. Commun. Res., 2017, 0093650217700226, 10.1177/0093650217700226.
44. Ortiz, S.E., Zimmerman, F.J., Adler, G.J., Increasing public support for food-industry related, obesity prevention policies: the role of a taste-engineering frame and contextualized values. Soc. Sci. Med. 156 (2016), 142–153 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.02.042.
45. Pechey, R., Burge, P., Mentzakis, E., Suhrcke, M., Marteau, T.M., Public acceptability of population-level interventions to reduce alcohol consumption: a discrete choice experiment. Soc. Sci. Med. 113 (2014), 104–109 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.010.
46. Petrescu, D.C., Hollands, G.J., Couturier, D.L., Ng, Y.L., Marteau, T.M., Public acceptability in the UK and USA of nudging to reduce obesity: the example of reducing sugar-sweetened beverages consumption. PloS One, 11(6), 2016, e0155995 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155995.
47. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Communication and Persuasion, 1986, Springer, New York, 1–24.
48. Pornpitakpan, C., The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical review of five decades' evidence. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34:2 (2004), 243–281 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x.
49. Promberger, M., Dolan, P., Marteau, T.M., “Pay them if it works”: discrete choice experiments on the acceptability of financial incentives to change health related behaviour. Soc. Sci. Med. 75:12 (2012), 2509–2514 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.033.
50. Rosseel, Y., Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Software 48:2 (2012), 1–36 http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/.
51. Schwartz, S., Value orientations: measurement, antecedents and consequences across nations. Jowell, R., Roberts, C., Fitzgerald, R., Eva, G., (eds.) Measuring Attitudes Cross-nationally. Lessons from the European Social Survey, 2007, Sage Publications, London, 169–203.
52. Sekhon, M., Cartwright, M., Francis, J.J., Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv. Res. 17:1 (2017), 88–101, 10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8.
53. Smith, S.M., Shaffer, D.R., Vividness can undermine or enhance message processing: the moderating role of vividness congruency. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26:7 (2000), 769–779 https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200269003.
54. Smith, R.D., Cornelsen, L., Quirmbach, D., Jebb, S.A., Marteau, T.M., Are sweet snacks more sensitive to price increases than sugar-sweetened beverages: analysis of British food purchase data. BMJ Open, 8(4), 2018, e019788 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019788corr1.
55. Somerville, C., Marteau, T.M., Kinmonth, A.L., Cohn, S., Public attitudes towards pricing policies to change health-related behaviours: a UK focus group study. Eur. J. Publ. Health 25:6 (2015), 1058–1064 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv077.
56. Spiegelhalter, D., Risk and uncertainty communication. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 4, 2017, 31–60 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-010814-020148.
57. Storvoll, E.E., Moan, I.S., Rise, J., Predicting attitudes toward a restrictive alcohol policy: using a model of distal and proximal predictors. Psychol. Addict. Behav., 29(2), 2015, 492 https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000036.
58. Sunstein, C.R., Bobadilla-Suarez, S., Lazzaro, S.C., Sharot, T., How people update beliefs about climate change: good news and bad news. Cornell Law Rev. 102 (2016), 1431–1445.
59. van der Linden, S.L., Leiserowitz, A.A., Feinberg, G.D., Maibach, E.W., The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence. PloS One, 10(2), 2015, e0118489 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489.
60. Wright, A.J., Whitwell, S.C., Takeichi, C., Hankins, M., Marteau, T.M., The impact of numeracy on reactions to different graphic risk presentation formats: an experimental analogue study. Br. J. Health Psychol. 14:1 (2009), 107–125, 10.1348/135910708X304432.
61. Zipkin, D.A., Umscheid, C.A., Keating, N.L., Allen, E., Aung, K., Beyth, R., et al. Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review. Ann. Intern. Med. 161:4 (2014), 270–280.