Public opinion about evidence-informed health policy development in U.S. Congress

Tobacco-control policy support among people from low socioeconomic positions in Massachusetts

People from low socioeconomic positions (SEP) are at a higher risk of smoking, face greater barriers to smoking cessation, and have lower access to health information. To improve tobacco-related health outcomes, policies requiring altering labeling on cigarette packs could be implemented. However, public support is needed to influence the policymaking process. We assessed factors associated with supporting tobacco-control communication policies. We analyzed data from Project CLEAR, a study conducted in Massachusetts. The analytic sample included participants who answered questions on their support for three policies: 1) graphic health warnings (GHWs), 2) Quitline number, and 3) smoking cessation information on cigarette packs (n = 357). Binomial logistic regression modeling was conducted by policy. Independent variables included demographic characteristics and smoking status. We found that younger vs. older individuals (aOR = 0.41, 95 %CI:0.23-0.72), males vs. females (aOR = 0.58, 95 %CI:0.35-0.96), and people who smoke vs. those who don't smoke (aOR = 0.41, 95 %CI:0.24-0.70) were less likely to support a law requiring GHWs. Participants with a low vs. higher level of education (aOR = 0.55, 95 %CI:0.32-0.95) were less likely to support a law requiring a Quitline number. Younger (18-39) vs. older individuals (aOR = 0.53, 95 %CI:0.29-0.94), males vs. females (aOR = 0.57, 95 %CI:0.34-0.96), and participants with a low vs. higher level of education (aOR = 0.56, 95 %CI:0.32-0.98) were less likely to support a law requiring cessation information on cigarette packs. Findings suggest that targeted theory-based public health and communication strategies should be developed to increase awareness and support towards policies that would help reduce cigarette smoking among people from low SEP to eliminate tobacco-related health inequities in the US.

What public health interventions do people in Canada prefer to fund? A discrete choice experiment

Objective

To assess public support of tailored and targeted public health interventions for marginalized communities.

Methods

We conducted a discrete choice experiment using a web-based survey advertised to Facebook and Instagram users living in Canada, aged > 16. Participants were asked to choose between funding two hypothetical public health programs. Each program was described by its purpose; expected increase in life expectancy; and target audience. Demographically weighted generalized linear mixed-effects models were constructed to identify program factors associated with program selection.

Results

Participants completed up to 8 discrete choice comparison exercises each resulting in 23,889 exercises were completed by 3054 participants. Selected programs were less likely to focus on prevention (vs. treatment). For each 1-year increase in the marginal years of life gained, there was a 15% increase in the odds of a program being selected. Interventions tailored to marginalized communities or targeting stigmatized health conditions were less likely to be selected compared to interventions targeted to the general population or targeting chronic health conditions. Noteworthy exceptions included an increased preference for interventions aligning with the perceived needs or cultural expectations for marginalized communities.

Conclusions

Stigmatizing perceptions of health conditions and key populations likely influence public health programming preferences of Canadians.

Public health implications

Informational campaigns highlighting disparities experienced by marginalized populations may improve support for targeted and tailored interventions.