Anna Baillie, Gillian Fergie, Mhairi Mackenzie, Kathryn Skivington
{"title":"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。","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 Review investigates how, when and where participatory-deliberative processes (PDPs) were applied in policymaking connected to income, in the UK, from Jan 2007-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, NGO websites for articles related to PDPs in income-related policymaking 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 policymaking 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 policymaking, 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 policymaking, the locus of decision-making power and how inclusion is realised in participation spaces.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-25"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"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":"{\"title\":\"Participatory-deliberative processes in UK policymaking 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 Review investigates how, when and where participatory-deliberative processes (PDPs) were applied in policymaking connected to income, in the UK, from Jan 2007-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, NGO websites for articles related to PDPs in income-related policymaking 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 policymaking 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 policymaking, 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 policymaking, the locus of decision-making power and how inclusion is realised in participation spaces.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-25\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"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}","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}
Participatory-deliberative processes in UK policymaking related to income insecurity as a determinant of health: a scoping review.
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 Review investigates how, when and where participatory-deliberative processes (PDPs) were applied in policymaking connected to income, in the UK, from Jan 2007-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, NGO websites for articles related to PDPs in income-related policymaking 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 policymaking 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 policymaking, 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 policymaking, the locus of decision-making power and how inclusion is realised in participation spaces.