Sanne E Verra, Maartje P Poelman, John de Wit, Carlijn B M Kamphuis
{"title":"不平等的卫生政策环境?研究旨在减少社会经济健康不平等的政策在可接受性和偏好方面的社会经济差异。","authors":"Sanne E Verra, Maartje P Poelman, John de Wit, Carlijn B M Kamphuis","doi":"10.1136/jech-2024-222449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study explores socioeconomic differences in acceptability and preferences for policies that aim to reduce socioeconomic health inequalities. The investigated policies range from structural policies, requiring no individual agency, to agentic policies, which depend on the individual agency for behaviour change.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online, cross-sectional survey was conducted among 1182 participants, stratified by education and representative of Dutch adults (aged 25-65) for age and gender. Across 31 policies, including structural socioeconomic policies, structural housing and neighbourhood policies, structural and agento-structural behavioural policies (facilitating behaviour) and agentic policies (focusing on information provision for behaviour change), acceptability was measured on a 7-point scale, preferences were measured using participants' top-5 policy choices. Regression analyses examined socioeconomic differences in acceptability and preferences based on education and income, controlling for age, gender, receiving welfare, and employment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>People in lower socioeconomic positions were more likely to accept and favour structural socioeconomic policies, whereas those in higher socioeconomic positions were more likely to accept and favour structural housing and neighbourhood, structural and agento-structural behavioural, and agentic policies. Socioeconomic differences were the largest for agentic policies. Overall, 83.3% preferred at least one structural socioeconomic policy, while only 32% preferred an agentic policy. Most preferred was eliminating taxes on fruits and vegetables, (preferred by 41.4%), and least preferred was a campaign promoting healthy nutrition (preferred by 3.9%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These socioeconomic differences in policy support underscore the need for inclusive policymaking processes. Including the perspectives of people in lower socioeconomic positions helps to ensure that their needs are met.</p>","PeriodicalId":54839,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health","volume":" ","pages":"721-728"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11503127/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An unequal health policy landscape? Examining socioeconomic differences in acceptability and preferences for policies that aim to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in health.\",\"authors\":\"Sanne E Verra, Maartje P Poelman, John de Wit, Carlijn B M Kamphuis\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/jech-2024-222449\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study explores socioeconomic differences in acceptability and preferences for policies that aim to reduce socioeconomic health inequalities. The investigated policies range from structural policies, requiring no individual agency, to agentic policies, which depend on the individual agency for behaviour change.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online, cross-sectional survey was conducted among 1182 participants, stratified by education and representative of Dutch adults (aged 25-65) for age and gender. Across 31 policies, including structural socioeconomic policies, structural housing and neighbourhood policies, structural and agento-structural behavioural policies (facilitating behaviour) and agentic policies (focusing on information provision for behaviour change), acceptability was measured on a 7-point scale, preferences were measured using participants' top-5 policy choices. Regression analyses examined socioeconomic differences in acceptability and preferences based on education and income, controlling for age, gender, receiving welfare, and employment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>People in lower socioeconomic positions were more likely to accept and favour structural socioeconomic policies, whereas those in higher socioeconomic positions were more likely to accept and favour structural housing and neighbourhood, structural and agento-structural behavioural, and agentic policies. Socioeconomic differences were the largest for agentic policies. Overall, 83.3% preferred at least one structural socioeconomic policy, while only 32% preferred an agentic policy. Most preferred was eliminating taxes on fruits and vegetables, (preferred by 41.4%), and least preferred was a campaign promoting healthy nutrition (preferred by 3.9%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These socioeconomic differences in policy support underscore the need for inclusive policymaking processes. Including the perspectives of people in lower socioeconomic positions helps to ensure that their needs are met.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"721-728\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11503127/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2024-222449\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2024-222449","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
An unequal health policy landscape? Examining socioeconomic differences in acceptability and preferences for policies that aim to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in health.
Background: This study explores socioeconomic differences in acceptability and preferences for policies that aim to reduce socioeconomic health inequalities. The investigated policies range from structural policies, requiring no individual agency, to agentic policies, which depend on the individual agency for behaviour change.
Methods: An online, cross-sectional survey was conducted among 1182 participants, stratified by education and representative of Dutch adults (aged 25-65) for age and gender. Across 31 policies, including structural socioeconomic policies, structural housing and neighbourhood policies, structural and agento-structural behavioural policies (facilitating behaviour) and agentic policies (focusing on information provision for behaviour change), acceptability was measured on a 7-point scale, preferences were measured using participants' top-5 policy choices. Regression analyses examined socioeconomic differences in acceptability and preferences based on education and income, controlling for age, gender, receiving welfare, and employment.
Results: People in lower socioeconomic positions were more likely to accept and favour structural socioeconomic policies, whereas those in higher socioeconomic positions were more likely to accept and favour structural housing and neighbourhood, structural and agento-structural behavioural, and agentic policies. Socioeconomic differences were the largest for agentic policies. Overall, 83.3% preferred at least one structural socioeconomic policy, while only 32% preferred an agentic policy. Most preferred was eliminating taxes on fruits and vegetables, (preferred by 41.4%), and least preferred was a campaign promoting healthy nutrition (preferred by 3.9%).
Conclusions: These socioeconomic differences in policy support underscore the need for inclusive policymaking processes. Including the perspectives of people in lower socioeconomic positions helps to ensure that their needs are met.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health is a leading international journal devoted to publication of original research and reviews covering applied, methodological and theoretical issues with emphasis on studies using multidisciplinary or integrative approaches. The journal aims to improve epidemiological knowledge and ultimately health worldwide.