Participatory-deliberative processes in UK policy making related to income insecurity as a determinant of health: a scoping review.

IF 2.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Anna Baillie, Gillian Fergie, Mhairi Mackenzie, Kathryn Skivington
{"title":"Participatory-deliberative processes in UK policy making related to income insecurity as a determinant of health: a scoping review.","authors":"Anna Baillie, Gillian Fergie, Mhairi Mackenzie, Kathryn Skivington","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Deepening democratic engagement in socio-economic policy domains is of increasing interest to the health inequalities research community. However, there is a recognised gap between theory and the practical application of public participation. Viewing income security as a fundamental determinant of health, this article investigates how, when and where participatory-deliberative processes (PDPs) were applied in policy making connected to income, in the UK, from January 2007 to June 2022.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review applied the PRIMSA-ScR checklist. Searches were conducted in: EconLit, SOC Index, Sociological Abstracts, MedLine; and grey literature sources: BASE database, government, non-governmental organisation websites for articles related to PDPs in income-related policy making in the UK, published after 1 January 2007. Articles were synthesised through a conceptual framework combining Whitehead's typology of actions to tackle health inequalities and Smith's categorisation of democratic goods.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The review found 20 articles relating to 13 PDPs. A majority of PDPs took place in Scottish Government/ Parliament or at Local Authority/NHS Trust level in England and Wales. A variety of types of PDPs were used by policy-making institutions across a range of socio-economic domains, with varying degrees of information provided about participants and policy outcomes.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>Findings demonstrate a multitude of disconnects between participatory rhetoric and reality. There is no evidence of PDPs influencing macro socio-economic policy making, with participatory decision-making instead dispersed across less empowered, downstream spaces. Democratising socio-economic policy domains requires critical reflection on the fractured nature of participatory policy making, the locus of decision-making power and how inclusion is realised in participation spaces.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"429-453"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7617669/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000053","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Deepening democratic engagement in socio-economic policy domains is of increasing interest to the health inequalities research community. However, there is a recognised gap between theory and the practical application of public participation. Viewing income security as a fundamental determinant of health, this article investigates how, when and where participatory-deliberative processes (PDPs) were applied in policy making connected to income, in the UK, from January 2007 to June 2022.

Methods: The review applied the PRIMSA-ScR checklist. Searches were conducted in: EconLit, SOC Index, Sociological Abstracts, MedLine; and grey literature sources: BASE database, government, non-governmental organisation websites for articles related to PDPs in income-related policy making in the UK, published after 1 January 2007. Articles were synthesised through a conceptual framework combining Whitehead's typology of actions to tackle health inequalities and Smith's categorisation of democratic goods.

Findings: The review found 20 articles relating to 13 PDPs. A majority of PDPs took place in Scottish Government/ Parliament or at Local Authority/NHS Trust level in England and Wales. A variety of types of PDPs were used by policy-making institutions across a range of socio-economic domains, with varying degrees of information provided about participants and policy outcomes.

Discussion and conclusions: Findings demonstrate a multitude of disconnects between participatory rhetoric and reality. There is no evidence of PDPs influencing macro socio-economic policy making, with participatory decision-making instead dispersed across less empowered, downstream spaces. Democratising socio-economic policy domains requires critical reflection on the fractured nature of participatory policy making, the locus of decision-making power and how inclusion is realised in participation spaces.

与作为健康决定因素的收入不安全有关的联合王国决策中的参与性审议进程:范围审查。
背景:加深社会经济政策领域的民主参与日益引起卫生不平等研究界的兴趣。然而,公众参与的理论与实际应用之间存在着公认的差距。将收入保障视为健康的基本决定因素,本综述调查了2007年1月至2022年6月期间英国在与收入相关的政策制定中如何、何时、何地应用参与式审议程序(pdp)。方法:采用prissa - scr检查表。检索方法:EconLit, SOC Index, Sociological Abstracts, MedLine;灰色文献来源:2007年1月1日以后出版的英国收入相关政策制定中与pdp相关的文章的BASE数据库、政府、非政府组织网站。文章通过一个概念框架进行综合,结合怀特黑德解决健康不平等问题的行动类型学和史密斯对民主商品的分类。结果:综述发现20篇与13例pdp相关的文章。大多数pdp发生在苏格兰政府/议会或英格兰和威尔士的地方当局/NHS信托级别。政策制定机构在一系列社会经济领域使用了各种类型的pdp,提供了不同程度的关于参与者和政策结果的信息。讨论和结论:研究结果表明,参与性修辞与现实之间存在大量脱节。没有证据表明pdp影响宏观社会经济决策,参与性决策分散在权力较弱的下游空间。社会经济政策领域的民主化需要对参与性政策制定的断裂性质、决策权的所在地以及如何在参与空间中实现包容性进行批判性反思。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信