英国COVID-19免费学校供餐政策的证据使用:主题内容分析。

IF 3.1 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Jennie C Parnham, Sarah McKevitt, Eszter P Vamos, Anthony A Laverty
{"title":"英国COVID-19免费学校供餐政策的证据使用:主题内容分析。","authors":"Jennie C Parnham,&nbsp;Sarah McKevitt,&nbsp;Eszter P Vamos,&nbsp;Anthony A Laverty","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2022.2112640","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Free School Meals (FSM) are a well-recognised intervention for tackling food insecurity among school children. National school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic meant that there was a need to rapidly adapt the delivery of FSM. A range of food-assistance policies were implemented, but it is not clear if they were evidence-based. This study aimed to determine the transparency of evidence use and identify other competing influences in the UK's FSM policy decisions. Thematic content analysis was used to review 50 publicly available policy documents and debate transcripts on FSM policy published between March 2020-2021. This period covered the first national school closures (March 2020-July 2020), school holidays and the second national school closures (January 2021- March 2021). The Evidence Transparency Framework was used to assess the transparency of evidence use in policy documents. We found that overall transparency of evidence use was poor but was better for the Holiday Activities and Food (HAF) programme. The Government showed preference for replacing FSM with food parcels, rather than more agentic modes of food assistance such as cash-vouchers. This preference appeared to be closely aligned with ideological views on the welfare state. With an absence of evidence, value-based reasoning took precedent and was polarised by social media. This paper highlights the need for a formal review into FSM, one which includes a comparison of low and high agentic food assistance policies. Such a review would address the evidence gap, improve food assistance policy, and aid policymakers in future periods of uncertainty.</p>","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7614982/pdf/EMS152405.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence use in the UK's COVID-19 Free School Meals Policy: a thematic content analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jennie C Parnham,&nbsp;Sarah McKevitt,&nbsp;Eszter P Vamos,&nbsp;Anthony A Laverty\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/25741292.2022.2112640\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Free School Meals (FSM) are a well-recognised intervention for tackling food insecurity among school children. National school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic meant that there was a need to rapidly adapt the delivery of FSM. A range of food-assistance policies were implemented, but it is not clear if they were evidence-based. This study aimed to determine the transparency of evidence use and identify other competing influences in the UK's FSM policy decisions. Thematic content analysis was used to review 50 publicly available policy documents and debate transcripts on FSM policy published between March 2020-2021. This period covered the first national school closures (March 2020-July 2020), school holidays and the second national school closures (January 2021- March 2021). The Evidence Transparency Framework was used to assess the transparency of evidence use in policy documents. We found that overall transparency of evidence use was poor but was better for the Holiday Activities and Food (HAF) programme. The Government showed preference for replacing FSM with food parcels, rather than more agentic modes of food assistance such as cash-vouchers. This preference appeared to be closely aligned with ideological views on the welfare state. With an absence of evidence, value-based reasoning took precedent and was polarised by social media. This paper highlights the need for a formal review into FSM, one which includes a comparison of low and high agentic food assistance policies. Such a review would address the evidence gap, improve food assistance policy, and aid policymakers in future periods of uncertainty.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy Design and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7614982/pdf/EMS152405.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy Design and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2022.2112640\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Design and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2022.2112640","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

免费校餐是解决在校儿童粮食不安全问题的一项公认的干预措施。在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,全国学校关闭,这意味着需要迅速调整FSM的提供方式。实施了一系列粮食援助政策,但尚不清楚这些政策是否基于证据。本研究旨在确定证据使用的透明度,并确定英国FSM政策决定中的其他竞争影响。专题内容分析用于审查2020年3月至2021年3月期间发布的50份公开政策文件和FSM政策辩论记录。这一时期包括第一次全国学校关闭(2020年3月至2020年7月)、学校假期和第二次全国学校关闭(2021年1月至2021年3月)。证据透明度框架用于评估政策文件中证据使用的透明度。我们发现证据使用的总体透明度较差,但假日活动和食品(HAF)计划的透明度较好。政府表示倾向于用粮食包裹代替FSM,而不是更实际的粮食援助方式,如现金券。这种偏好似乎与福利国家的意识形态观点密切相关。由于缺乏证据,基于价值的推理成为先例,并被社交媒体两极分化。本文强调了对FSM进行正式审查的必要性,其中包括对低水平和高水平机构粮食援助政策的比较。这样的评估将解决证据差距问题,改善粮食援助政策,并在未来不确定时期为决策者提供帮助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evidence use in the UK's COVID-19 Free School Meals Policy: a thematic content analysis.

Free School Meals (FSM) are a well-recognised intervention for tackling food insecurity among school children. National school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic meant that there was a need to rapidly adapt the delivery of FSM. A range of food-assistance policies were implemented, but it is not clear if they were evidence-based. This study aimed to determine the transparency of evidence use and identify other competing influences in the UK's FSM policy decisions. Thematic content analysis was used to review 50 publicly available policy documents and debate transcripts on FSM policy published between March 2020-2021. This period covered the first national school closures (March 2020-July 2020), school holidays and the second national school closures (January 2021- March 2021). The Evidence Transparency Framework was used to assess the transparency of evidence use in policy documents. We found that overall transparency of evidence use was poor but was better for the Holiday Activities and Food (HAF) programme. The Government showed preference for replacing FSM with food parcels, rather than more agentic modes of food assistance such as cash-vouchers. This preference appeared to be closely aligned with ideological views on the welfare state. With an absence of evidence, value-based reasoning took precedent and was polarised by social media. This paper highlights the need for a formal review into FSM, one which includes a comparison of low and high agentic food assistance policies. Such a review would address the evidence gap, improve food assistance policy, and aid policymakers in future periods of uncertainty.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Policy Design and Practice
Policy Design and Practice PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信