Obesity prevention advocacy in Australia: an analysis of policy impact on autonomy

Abstract

Objective: To explore obesity policy options recommended by stakeholders and identify their impact on individual autotomy. Methods:Qualitative and quantitative methods were used. A content analysis of submissions to the Australian Government's Inquiry into Obesity was conducted. Each recommendation was categorised by its impact on autonomy, according to existing frameworks. Chi-square test for independence was used to explore the association between autonomy and stakeholder support defined as frequency of recommendation. Results:The extent of support for a policy option was significantly associated with impact on autonomy (p<0.001). Options that reduce autonomy were least frequently recommended in every setting; but more likely in schools (27%) than other settings (<1%). Recommendations to provide incentives (9%) were more common than disincentives (2%) or restrictions (3%), and those that enhance autonomy were most widely recommended (46%). Conclusions:Stakeholders advocated policy options that enhance individual autonomy to a greater extent than those that diminish autonomy. Implications for public health:Targeting obesity policy options that enhance rather than diminish autonomy may be more politically acceptable across most settings, with the exception of schools where more restrictive policy options are appropriate. Re-framing options accordingly may improve leadership by government in obesity policy.

Qualitative insights into Australian consumers’ views for and against government action on sugary drinks

“…There was widespread appreciation that obesity is a public health problem and acceptance that government has a legitimate role in intervening, consistent with other research. 13,18,19 As previously observed 13,22 , there was pervasive use of personal/parental responsibility, choice and freedom framing in participants' commentary. This underpinned initial reactions against different regulatory measures, most notably taxation.…”

Is Obesity Policy in England Fit for Purpose? Analysis of Government Strategies and Policies, 1992–2020

“…There is a growing body of research on obesity policy and related public health strategies. 6 , 10 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 Studies have examined whether policies are proposed in a way that “readily leads to implementation;” 6 , 20 the typology and framing of policies; 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 issues related to regulation; 24 , 28 , 29 , 30 and the use of evaluation and evidence. 18 , 19 , 21 To our knowledge, though, no comprehensive or systematic analysis of obesity policies proposed by government for England has been published.…”

Framing the nanny (state): an analysis of public submissions to a parliamentary inquiry on personal choice and community safety

“…32 For example, there is majority public support in Australia for government health regulation of industry practices for overweight and obesity prevention, 33 and in restraints on individual behaviour when harms to others are apparent, such as smoking in outdoor venues. 34 Haynes and colleagues 35 have argued that regulatory options be considered through an autonomy lens to predict stakeholder resistance to government-led regulation.…”