Cancer beliefs and prevention policies: comparing Canadian decision-maker and general population views

Nykiforuk, Candace I. J.; Wild, T. Cameron; Raine, Kim D.

doi:10.1007/s10552-014-0474-3

Cited by 11 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Chronic Disease Prevention Survey was first implemented in 2009 9,19 and subsequently in 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2016. 20 The aim of this survey is to understand the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs around healthy public policy among policy influencers and the public, focusing on population-level chronic disease prevention of 4 modifiable risk factors: physical inactivity, unhealthy eating, tobacco use, and excessive alcohol consumption.…”

Section: The Chronic Disease Prevention Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another strength of this survey is the range of policy options included in the survey, both within the physical activity domain and across other chronic disease prevention risk factors (eg, unhealthy eating, tobacco misuse, and alcohol consumption). Although not assessed within this current study, the Chronic Disease Prevention Survey provides the ability to examine support for physical activity items relative to other chronic disease prevention policy options (reported elsewhere 9,19 ).…”

Section: Strengths Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Healthy Public Policy Options to Promote Physical Activity for Chronic Disease Prevention: Understanding Canadian Policy Influencer and General Public Preferences

McGetrick¹,

Kongats²,

Raine³

et al. 2019

Journal of Physical Activity and Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Attitudes and beliefs of policy influencers and the general public toward physical activity policy may support or impede population-level action, requiring improved understanding of aggregate preferences toward policies that promote physical activity. Methods: In 2016, the Chronic Disease Prevention Survey was administered to a census sample of policy influencers (n = 302) and a stratified random sample of the public (n = 2400) in Alberta and Québec. Using net favorable percentages and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics' intervention ladder framework to guide analysis, the authors examined support for evidence-based healthy public policies to increase physical activity levels. Results: Less intrusive policy options (ie, policies that are not always the most impactful) tended to have higher levels of support than policies that eliminated choice. However, there was support for certain types of policies affecting influential determinants of physical activity such as the built environment (ie, provided they enabled rather than restricted choice) and school settings (ie, focusing on children and youth). Overall, the general public indicated stronger levels of support for more physical activity policy options than policy influencers. Conclusions: The authors' findings may be useful for health advocates in identifying support for evidence-based healthy public policies affecting more influential determinants of physical activity.

show abstract

Section: The Chronic Disease Prevention Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Strengths Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Healthy Public Policy Options to Promote Physical Activity for Chronic Disease Prevention: Understanding Canadian Policy Influencer and General Public Preferences

McGetrick¹,

Kongats²,

Raine³

et al. 2019

Journal of Physical Activity and Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Policy change is a powerful vehicle for reducing the burden of cancer [1–8], with a wide array of effective policy approaches available [9–13]. These strategies span the cancer control continuum [14] from primary prevention to improved quality of life and extended survival.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Framing research for state policymakers who place a priority on cancer

Brownson

Dodson

Kerner

et al. 2016

Cancer Causes Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Despite the potential for reducing the cancer burden via state policy change, few data exist on how best to disseminate research information to influence state legislators' policy choices. We explored: 1) the relative importance of core framing issues (source, presentation, timeliness) among policymakers who prioritize cancer and those who do not prioritize cancer and 2) the predictors of use of research in policymaking. Methods Cross-sectional data were collected from US state policymakers (i.e., legislators elected to state Houses or Senates) from January through October 2012 (n=862). One-way analysis of variance was performed to investigate the association of the priority of cancer variable with outcome variables. Multivariate logistic regression models examined predictors of the influence of research information. Results Legislators who prioritized cancer tended to rate characteristics that make research information useful higher than those who did not prioritize cancer. Among differences that were statistically significant were three items in the “source” domain (relevance, delivered by someone respected, supports one's own position), one item in the “presentation” domain (telling a story related to constituents), and two items in the “timeliness” domain (high current state priority, feasible when information is received). Participants who prioritized cancer risk factors were 80% more likely to rate research information as one of their top reasons for choosing an issue on which to work. Conclusions Our results suggest the importance of narrative forms of communication and that research information needs to be relevant to the policymakers' constituents in a brief, concise format.

show abstract

“…The knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of policy influencers (e.g. elected, hired or otherwise appointed professionals with legal standing, authority or input on vari ous policy processes in governments, schools boards, workplaces and the media) 7 and the general public play an important role in changing political agen das. 7 While policy influencers are consid ered the ultimate gatekeepers of policy action, those in elected positions are, in part, influenced by the opinions of their voters and can be particularly attuned to issues the public considers controversial.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…elected, hired or otherwise appointed professionals with legal standing, authority or input on vari ous policy processes in governments, schools boards, workplaces and the media) 7 and the general public play an important role in changing political agen das. 7 While policy influencers are consid ered the ultimate gatekeepers of policy action, those in elected positions are, in part, influenced by the opinions of their voters and can be particularly attuned to issues the public considers controversial. 8 While greater levels of public support for tobacco control have contributed to the success of legislative efforts, 9,10 Chen et al 11 noted that lower levels of support have left policy makers vulnerable to tobacco industry interests.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the intervention ladder to examine policy influencer and general public support for potential tobacco control policies in Alberta and Quebec

Kongats

McGetrick

Raine

et al. 2020

Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess general public and policy influencer support for populationlevel tobacco control policies in two Canadian provinces. Methods:We implemented the Chronic Disease Prevention Survey in 2016 to a census sample of policy influencers (n = 302) and a random sample of members of the public (n = 2400) in Alberta and Quebec, Canada. Survey respondents ranked their support for tobacco control policy options using a Likertstyle scale, with aggregate responses presented as net favourable percentages. Levels of support were further analyzed by coding each policy option using the Nuffield Council on Bioethics intervention ladder framework, to assess its level of intrusiveness on personal autonomy.Results: Policy influencers and the public considered the vast majority of tobacco con trol policy options as "extremely" or "very" favourable, although policy influencers in Alberta and Quebec differed on over half the policies, with stronger support in Quebec. Policy influencers and the public strongly supported more intrusive tobacco control policy options, despite anticipated effects on personal autonomy (i.e. for policies target ing children/youth and emerging tobacco products like electronic cigarettes). They indi cated less support for fiscally based tobacco control policies (i.e. taxation), despite these policies being highly effective. Conclusion:Overall, policy influencers and the general public strongly supported more restrictive tobacco control policies. This study further highlights policies where support among both population groups was unanimous (potential "quick wins" for health advocates). It also highlights areas where additional advocacy work is required to communicate the populationhealth benefit of tobacco control policies.

show abstract

Cancer beliefs and prevention policies: comparing Canadian decision-maker and general population views

Abstract: These results suggest that Canadian policy influencers may be less open that the general public to adopt healthy public policies for cancer prevention, with potential detriment to cancer rates.

Cited by 11 publications

References 66 publications

Healthy Public Policy Options to Promote Physical Activity for Chronic Disease Prevention: Understanding Canadian Policy Influencer and General Public Preferences

Healthy Public Policy Options to Promote Physical Activity for Chronic Disease Prevention: Understanding Canadian Policy Influencer and General Public Preferences

Framing research for state policymakers who place a priority on cancer

Using the intervention ladder to examine policy influencer and general public support for potential tobacco control policies in Alberta and Quebec

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About