An Unequal Health Policy Landscape? Examining Socioeconomic Differences in Acceptability and Preferences for Policies That Aim to Reduce Socioeconomic Inequalities in Health

Overview

Journal J Epidemiol Community Health

Specialty Health Services

Date 2024 Jul 24

PMID 39048293

Authors

Sanne E Verra

Maartje P Poelman

John de Wit

Carlijn B M Kamphuis

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

References

Pampel F . THE VARIED INFLUENCE OF SES ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN. Soc Sci Q. 2014; 95(1):57-75. PMC: 3963291. DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12045. View

Lorenc T, Petticrew M, Welch V, Tugwell P . What types of interventions generate inequalities? Evidence from systematic reviews. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012; 67(2):190-3. DOI: 10.1136/jech-2012-201257. View

Reynolds J, Archer S, Pilling M, Kenny M, Hollands G, Marteau T . Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: A population-based survey experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2019; 236:112395. PMC: 6695289. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112395. View

Kwon J, Cameron A, Hammond D, White C, Vanderlee L, Bhawra J . A multi-country survey of public support for food policies to promote healthy diets: Findings from the International Food Policy Study. BMC Public Health. 2019; 19(1):1205. PMC: 6721115. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-7483-9. View

Wink G, Fransen G, Huisman M, Boersma S, van Disseldorp L, van der Velden K . 'Improving Health through Reducing Stress': Parents' Priorities in the Participatory Development of a Multilevel Family Health Programme in a Low-Income Neighbourhood in The Netherlands. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(15). PMC: 8346062. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18158145. View

Smith K, Macintyre A, Weakley S, Hill S, Escobar O, Fergie G . Public understandings of potential policy responses to health inequalities: Evidence from a UK national survey and citizens' juries in three UK cities. Soc Sci Med. 2021; 291:114458. PMC: 8711040. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114458. View

McGill R, Anwar E, Orton L, Bromley H, Lloyd-Williams F, Oflaherty M . Are interventions to promote healthy eating equally effective for all? Systematic review of socioeconomic inequalities in impact. BMC Public Health. 2015; 15:457. PMC: 4423493. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-1781-7. View

Eykelenboom M, van Stralen M, Olthof M, Renders C, Steenhuis I . Public acceptability of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax and its associated factors in the Netherlands. Public Health Nutr. 2020; 24(8):2354-2364. PMC: 8145443. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980020001500. View

Turrell G, Patterson C, Oldenburg B, Gould T, Roy M . The socio-economic patterning of survey participation and non-response error in a multilevel study of food purchasing behaviour: area- and individual-level characteristics. Public Health Nutr. 2003; 6(2):181-9. DOI: 10.1079/PHN2002415. View

10.

McHugh N, Baker R, Bambra C . Policy actors' perceptions of public participation to tackle health inequalities in Scotland: a paradox?. Int J Equity Health. 2023; 22(1):57. PMC: 10062251. DOI: 10.1186/s12939-023-01869-8. View

11.

Stronks K, Hoeymans N, Haverkamp B, den Hertog F, Van Bon-Martens M, Galenkamp H . Do conceptualisations of health differ across social strata? A concept mapping study among lay people. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(4):e020210. PMC: 5914775. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020210. View

12.

Storm I, Aarts M, Harting J, Schuit A . Opportunities to reduce health inequalities by 'Health in All Policies' in the Netherlands: an explorative study on the national level. Health Policy. 2011; 103(2-3):130-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.09.009. View

13.

Pechey R, Burge P, Mentzakis E, Suhrcke M, Marteau T . Public acceptability of population-level interventions to reduce alcohol consumption: a discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2014; 113:104-9. PMC: 4065329. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.010. View

14.

Kamphuis C, Groeniger J, van Lenthe F . Does cultural capital contribute to educational inequalities in food consumption in the Netherlands? A cross-sectional analysis of the GLOBE-2011 survey. Int J Equity Health. 2018; 17(1):168. PMC: 6238371. DOI: 10.1186/s12939-018-0884-z. View

15.

Djojosoeparto S, Kamphuis C, Vandevijvere S, Poelman M . How can National Government Policies Improve Food Environments in the Netherlands?. Int J Public Health. 2022; 67:1604115. PMC: 8935556. DOI: 10.3389/ijph.2022.1604115. View

16.

McHugh N . Eliciting public values on health inequalities: missing evidence for ?. Evid Policy. 2023; 18(4):733-745. PMC: 7614257. DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16286783870175. View

17.

Bridger E . Subjective socioeconomic status and agreement that health is determined by distal and proximal factors. Int J Psychol. 2023; 58(6):536-544. DOI: 10.1002/ijop.12928. View

18.

Smith K, Anderson R . Understanding lay perspectives on socioeconomic health inequalities in Britain: a meta-ethnography. Sociol Health Illn. 2017; 40(1):146-170. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9566.12629. View

19.

Nykiforuk C, Thomson M, Curtin K, Colman I, Wild T, Hyshka E . Assessing support for mental health policies among policy influencers and the general public in Alberta and Manitoba, Canada. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2024; 18(1):8. PMC: 10868068. DOI: 10.1186/s13033-024-00624-y. View

20.

Williams O, Fullagar S . Lifestyle drift and the phenomenon of 'citizen shift' in contemporary UK health policy. Sociol Health Illn. 2018; 41(1):20-35. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9566.12783. View