A Q methodology study of stakeholders' views about accountability for promoting healthy food environments in England through the responsibility deal food network

Kraak, V I, Swinburn, B, Lawrence, M and Harrison, P 2014, A Q methodology study of stakeholders' views about accountability for promoting healthy food environments in England through the responsibility deal food network, Food policy, vol. 49, no. P1, pp. 207-218, doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.07.006.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title A Q methodology study of stakeholders' views about accountability for promoting healthy food environments in England through the responsibility deal food network
Author(s) Kraak, V I
Swinburn, B
Lawrence, MORCID iD for Lawrence, M orcid.org/0000-0001-6899-3983
Harrison, PORCID iD for Harrison, P orcid.org/0000-0003-4242-6627
Journal name Food policy
Volume number 49
Issue number P1
Start page 207
End page 218
Total pages 12
Publisher Elsevier
Place of publication Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Publication date 2014-12-01
ISSN 0306-9192
Keyword(s) Accountability
Food Network
Healthy food environments
Public Health Responsibility Deal
Q methodology
Responsibility
Summary In March 2011, the United Kingdom's (UK's) Government launched five Public Health Responsibility Deal Networks to address public health priorities. The Networks used voluntary partnerships to influence peoples' choice architecture to move them toward healthier behaviors. The purpose of this research was to conduct an exploratory study of diverse stakeholders' perspectives about perceived responsibility and accountability expectations to improve food environments in England through the Food Network partnerships. A purposive sample of policy elites (n=31) from government, academia, food industry and non-government organizations sorted 48 statements related to improving food environments in England. Statements were grounded in three theoretical perspectives (i.e., legitimacy, nudge and public health law). PQMethod 2.33 statistical software program used factor analysis to identify viewpoints based on intra-individual differences for how participants sorted statements. The results revealed three distinct viewpoints, which explained 64% of the variance for 31 participants, and emphasized different expectations about responsibility. The food environment protectors (n=17) underscored government responsibility to address unhealthy food environments if voluntary partnerships are ineffective; the partnership pioneers (n=12) recognized government-industry partnerships as legitimate and necessary to address unhealthy food environments; and the commercial market defenders (n=1) emphasized individual responsibility for food choices and rejected government intervention to improve food environments. Consensus issues included: protecting children's right to health; food industry practices that can and should be changed; government working with industry on product reformulation; and building consumer support for economically viable healthy products. Contentious issues were: inadequacy of accountability structures and government inaction to regulate food marketing practices targeting children. We conclude that understanding different viewpoints is a step toward building mutual trust to strengthen accountability structures that may help stakeholders navigate ideologically contentious issues to promote healthy food environments in England.
Language eng
DOI 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.07.006
Field of Research 160510 Public Policy
Socio Economic Objective 920208 Health Policy Evaluation
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2014, Elsevier
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30067759

Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 11 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 12 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 519 Abstract Views, 5 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Tue, 09 Dec 2014, 09:13:30 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.