Search

Abstract While vaccine-critical activism has been widely documented and discussed, comparatively little has been said about the concerted response of pro-vaccine activists defending the majority view. This paper explores two case studies of pro-vaccine activism in Australia and the United States (US). It shows how pro-vaccine views and behaviours can take varying forms due to different aims and methods of engagement – oppositional counteractivities in favour of vaccination in Australia, and issue-based advocacy as part of a political alliance in the US. The focus in Australia comes from a pro-science stance and includes 'skeptics' against pseudoscience directly opposing vaccine-critical groups. In the US, the focus takes the form of an issue-specific campaign that has arisen from existing pro-vaccine parent blogs and discussion groups pushing for policy change rather than public confrontation. These case studies exemplify how pro-vaccine activism can take varying forms of either reinforcing the mainstream view or countering digression from it. Drawing on qualitative research, this paper aims to examine the types of practices and strategies employed by activists to voice their support of vaccination, and discusses the means, messages, and motivations of pro-vaccine activism. It ends with an argument for why a study – of public support for in addition to studying public opposition to vaccination – can help to better understand vaccination views and behaviours. These findings have wider implications for the study of counter-activism and the polarisation of civil society groups. Highlights • Pro-vaccine views and behaviours are understudied. • Case studies on pro-vaccine activist groups in Australia and the United States. • Pro-vaccine activism reinforces the mainstream or counters digression from it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Many countries use financial incentive programs to attract physicians to work in rural areas. This paper examines the effectiveness of a policy reform in Australia that made some locations newly eligible for financial incentives and increased incentives for locations already eligible. The analysis uses panel data (2008–2014) on all Australian general practitioners (GPs) aggregated to small areas. We use a difference-in-differences approach to examine if the policy change affected GP entry or exit to the 755 newly eligible locations and the 787 always eligible locations relative to 2249 locations which were never eligible. The policy change increased the entry of newly-qualified GPs to newly eligible locations but had no effect on the entry and exit of other GPs. Our results suggest that location incentives should be targeted at newly qualified GPs. Highlights • Difference-in-differences design is used to study GP rural financial incentives. • Overall rural-urban distribution of GPs is unaffected by financial incentives. • New GPs are more likely to respond to financial incentives than existing GPs. • The findings suggest a targeted approach in incentive design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective obesity prevention requires a synergistic mix of population-level interventions including a strong role for government and the regulation of the marketing, labelling, content and pricing of energy-dense foods and beverages. In this paper we adopt the agenda of the Australian Federal Government (AFG) as a case study to understand the factors generating or hindering political priority for such ‘regulatory interventions’ between 1990 and 2011. Using a theoretically-guided process tracing method we undertook documentary analysis and conducted 27 interviews with a diversity of actors involved in obesity politics. The analysis was structured by a theoretical framework comprising four dimensions: the power of actors involved; the ideas the actors deploy to interpret and portray the issue; the institutional and political context; and issue characteristics. Despite two periods of sustained political attention, political priority for regulatory interventions did not emerge and was hindered by factors from all four dimensions. Within the public health community, limited cohesion among experts and advocacy groups hampered technical responses and collective action efforts. An initial focus on children (child obesity), framing the determinants of obesity as ‘obesogenic environments’, and the deployment of ‘protecting kids’, ‘industry demonization’ and ‘economic costs’ frames generated political attention. Institutional norms within government effectively selected out regulatory interventions from consideration. The ‘productive power’ and activities of the food and advertising industries presented formidable barriers, buttressed by a libertarian/neolibertarian rhetoric emphasizing individual responsibility, a negative view of freedom (as free from ‘nanny-state’ intervention) and the idea that regulation imposes an unacceptable cost on business. Issue complexity, the absence of a supportive evidence base and a strict ‘evidence-based’ policy-making approach were used as rationales to defer political priority. Overcoming these challenges may be important to future collective action efforts attempting to generate and sustain political priority for regulatory interventions targeting obesity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For over twenty years there have been calls for greater ‘consumer’ participation in health decision-making. While it is recognised by governments and other stakeholders that ‘consumer’ participation is desirable, barriers to meaningful involvement nonetheless remain. It has been suggested that the reifying of ‘evidence-based policy’ may be limiting opportunities for participation, through the way this discourse legitimates particular voices to the exclusion of others. Others have suggested that assumptions underpinning the very notion of the ‘affected community’ or ‘consumers’ as fixed and bounded ‘policy publics’ need to be problematised. In this paper, drawing on interviews (n = 41) with individuals closely involved in Australian drug policy discussions, we critically interrogate the productive techniques and constitutive effects of ‘evidence-based policy’ and ‘consumer participation’ discourses in the context of drug policy processes. To inform our analysis, we draw on and combine a number of critical perspectives including Foucault's concept of subjugated knowledges, the work of feminist theorists, as well as recent work regarding conceptualisations of emergent policy publics. First, we explore how the subject position of ‘consumer’ might be seen as enacted in the material-discursive practices of ‘evidence-based policy’ and ‘consumer participation’ in drug policy processes. Secondly, we consider the centralising power-effects of the dominant ‘evidence-based policy’ paradigm, and how resistance may be thought about in this context. We suggest that such interrogation has potential to recast the call for ‘consumer’ participation in health policy decision-making and drug policy processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aboriginal health policy in Australia represents a unique policy subsystem comprising a diverse network of Aboriginal-specific and “mainstream” organisations, often with competing interests. This paper describes the network structure of organisations attempting to influence national Aboriginal health policy and examines how the different subgroups within the network approached the policy discourse. Public submissions made as part of a policy development process for the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan were analysed using a novel combination of network analysis and qualitative framing analysis. Other organisational actors in the network in each submission were identified, and relationships between them determined; these were used to generate a network map depicting the ties between actors. A qualitative framing analysis was undertaken, using inductive coding of the policy discourses in the submissions. The frames were overlaid with the network map to identify the relationship between the structure of the network and the way in which organisations framed Aboriginal health problems. Aboriginal organisations were central to the network and strongly connected with each other. The network consisted of several densely connected subgroups, whose central nodes were closely connected to one another. Each subgroup deployed a particular policy frame, with a frame of “system dysfunction” also adopted by all but one subgroup. Analysis of submissions revealed that many of the stakeholders in Aboriginal health policy actors are connected to one another. These connections help to drive the policy discourse. The combination of network and framing analysis illuminates competing interests within a network, and can assist advocacy organisations to identify which network members are most influential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is now well documented that many of the key drivers of health reside in our everyday living conditions. In the last two decades, public health has urged political action on these critical social determinants of health (SDH). As noted by the World Health Organisation, encouraging action in this area is challenging. Recent research has argued that public health researchers need to gain a deeper understanding of the complex and changing rationalities of policymaking. This, it seems, is the crucial next step for social determinants of health research. In this paper, we turn our attention to the practitioners of ‘the art of government’, in order to gain insight into how to secure upstream change for the SDH. Through interviews with policy actors (including politicians, senior government advisors, senior public servants and experienced policy lobbyists) the research sought to understand the nature of government and policymaking, as it pertains to action on the SDH. Through exploring the policy process, we examine how SDH discourses, evidence and strategies align with existing policy processes in the Australian context. Participants indicated that approaches to securing change that are based on linear conceptualisations of the policy process (as often found in public health) may be seen as ‘out of touch’ with the messy reality of policymaking. Rather, a more dialogic approach that embraces philosophical and moral reasoning (alongside evidence) may be more effective. Based on our findings, we recommend that SDH advocates develop a deeper awareness of the political and policy structures and the discursive conventions they seek to influence within specific settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public health scholars have increasingly called for greater attention to the political and policy processes that enable or constrain successful prioritisation of health on government agendas. Much research investigating policy agenda-setting in public health has focused on the use of single frameworks, in particular Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework. More recently, scholars have argued that blending complementary policy frameworks can enable greater attention to a wider range of drivers that influence government agendas away from or towards progressive social and health policies. In this paper, we draw on multiple policy process frameworks in a study of agenda-setting for Australia's first national paid parental leave scheme. Introduced in 2011 after decades of advocacy, this scheme provides federal government-funded parental leave for eighteen weeks' pay at the minimum wage for primary caregivers, with evaluations showing improved health and equity outcomes. Drawing on empirical data collected from documentary sources and interviews with 25 key policy informants, we find that a combination of policy frameworks; in this case, Kingdon's Multiple Streams; Advocacy Coalition Framework; Punctuated Equilibrium; Narrative Policy Framework; and Policy Feedback helped explain how this landmark social policy came about. However, none of these frameworks were adequate without situating them within a critical feminist lens which enabled an explicit focus on the gendered nature of power. We argue that, alongside making use of policy process frameworks, social determinants of health policy research needs to engage with critical frameworks which share an explicit agenda for improving people's daily living conditions and the re-distribution of power, money, and resources in ways that promote health equity. • This study focuses on a retrospective study of Australia's paid parental leave scheme. • We combined policy process frameworks to examine agenda-setting for this policy. • None of the mainstream policy process frameworks were adequate on their own. • A critical feminist lens was essential for contextualising gendered power dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 1978 World Health Organisation Alma Ata Declaration on Primary Health Care (PHC) emphasised a comprehensive view which stressed the importance of cure, prevention, promotion and rehabilitation delivered in a way that involved local communities and considered a social, economic and political perspective on health. Despite this, selective approaches have dominated. This paper asks why this has been the case in Australia through a multi-method study of regional PHC organisations. Interviews with senior policy players, focus groups with non-government organisations and document analysis inform an institutional and power analysis of PHC. The findings indicate that there are different interests competing for attention in PHC but that medical perspectives prove the most powerful and are reinforced by the actors, ideas and institutions that shape PHC. Community perspectives which stress lived experience and social perspectives on health are marginal concerns in the implementation of PHC. The other important interest is that of a neo-liberal perspective on health policy which stresses cost-containment, close measurement of activity and fragmented contracting out of services. This perspective is not compatible with a social determinants of health perspective and can also conflict with a medical view. The result of the interplay between competing interests and the distribution of power is a selective PHC system that is not likely to change without radical shifts in power and perspectives. • Implementation of comprehensive primary health care has been elusive in Australia. • Ideas, actors and institutions act to reinforce a medical model of PHC. • Neo-liberal driven public policy reinforces a selective PHC. • The operation of direct, indirect and ideological power reinforces selective PHC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is to investigate whether the neo-liberal goal of global economic competitiveness when included alongside image-inspired social goals such as liveability and environmental goals such as sustainability can lead to policies that impact positively on health and health equity. The paper presents an analysis of the content and intent of strategic planning and transport plans from two Australian state governments. The analysis was undertaken using a thematic document analysis of each plan and interviews with agents (n = 21) directly involved in the preparation of each document. Key strategic documents formulated under a neo-liberal hegemony simultaneously provided and reduced opportunities to promote and advance health. The policies viewed goals like liveability and sustainability as means of enhancing their cities' image in global competition for exogenous capital flows. Although liveability has many definitions, one definition was able to be used in one jurisdiction as an avenue to include a broad array of social determinants of health into urban planning policy. However, a productivity or a narrowly focussed image narrative can undermine the social determinants of health credentials of liveability. Overemphasising immediate city problems like road congestion as mechanisms to enhance global competitiveness can undermine necessary long-term strategies for city planning that are known to improve liveability and human health. Even where liveability is at the fore, there is a high risk of exacerbating spatial inequities through liveability investments for competitive advantage because they tend to flow to parts of cities with the greatest connections to the global economy, not those with the greatest social need. A neo-liberal-inspired competitive city paradigm provides opportunities for the advancement of health in urban development. However, when driven by the goals of productivity and/or liveability as image enhancement it can potentially exacerbate health inequities. • Global competition has raised city image as an important policy consideration. • Liveability has become a normative planning goal due to its links with global image. • Liveability helps incorporate health objectives into urban planning policy. • Overriding emphasis on productivity can undermine health benefits of liveability. • Liveability as a goal has the potential to exacerbate health inequity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]