Mary Alison Durand1, Mark Petticrew2, Lucy Goulding2, Elizabeth Eastmure2, Cecile Knai2, Nicholas Mays2. 1. Policy Innovation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Electronic address: Mary-Alison.Durand@lshtm.ac.uk. 2. Policy Innovation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Coalition Government's Public Health Responsibility Deal (RD) was launched in England in 2011 as a public-private partnership designed to improve public health in the areas of food, alcohol, health at work and physical activity. As part of a larger evaluation, we explored informants' experiences and views about the RD's development, implementation and achievements. METHODS: We conducted 44 semi-structured interviews with 50 interviewees, purposively sampled from: RD partners (businesses, public sector and non-governmental organisations); individuals with formal roles in implementing the RD; and non-partners and former partners. Data were analysed thematically: NVivo (10) software was employed to manage the data. RESULTS: Key motivations underpinning participation were corporate social responsibility and reputational enhancement. Being a partner often involved making pledges related to work already underway or planned before joining the RD, suggesting limited 'added value' from the RD, although some pledge achievements (e.g., food reformulation) were described. Benefits included access to government, while drawbacks included resource implications and the risk of an 'uneven playing field' between partners and non-partners. CONCLUSIONS: To ensure that voluntary agreements like the RD produce gains to public health that would not otherwise have occurred, government needs to: increase participation and compliance through incentives and sanctions, including those affecting organisational reputation; create greater visibility of voluntary agreements; and increase scrutiny and monitoring of partners' pledge activities.
OBJECTIVES: The Coalition Government's Public Health Responsibility Deal (RD) was launched in England in 2011 as a public-private partnership designed to improve public health in the areas of food, alcohol, health at work and physical activity. As part of a larger evaluation, we explored informants' experiences and views about the RD's development, implementation and achievements. METHODS: We conducted 44 semi-structured interviews with 50 interviewees, purposively sampled from: RD partners (businesses, public sector and non-governmental organisations); individuals with formal roles in implementing the RD; and non-partners and former partners. Data were analysed thematically: NVivo (10) software was employed to manage the data. RESULTS: Key motivations underpinning participation were corporate social responsibility and reputational enhancement. Being a partner often involved making pledges related to work already underway or planned before joining the RD, suggesting limited 'added value' from the RD, although some pledge achievements (e.g., food reformulation) were described. Benefits included access to government, while drawbacks included resource implications and the risk of an 'uneven playing field' between partners and non-partners. CONCLUSIONS: To ensure that voluntary agreements like the RD produce gains to public health that would not otherwise have occurred, government needs to: increase participation and compliance through incentives and sanctions, including those affecting organisational reputation; create greater visibility of voluntary agreements; and increase scrutiny and monitoring of partners' pledge activities.
Authors: Adrian J Cameron; Erica Reeve; Josephine Marshall; Tailane Scapin; Oliver Huse; Devorah Riesenberg; Dheepa Jeyapalan; Sandro Demaio; Fiona Watson; Roland Kupka; Karla P Correa; Miranda Blake; Kathryn Backholer; Anna Peeters; Gary Sacks Journal: Curr Nutr Rep Date: 2021-12-11
Authors: María J Pumar-Méndez; Agurtzane Mujika; Elena Regaira; Ivaylo Vassilev; Mari Carmen Portillo; Christina Foss; Elka Todorova; Poli Roukova; Ingrid A Ruud Knutsen; Manuel Serrano; Christos Lionis; Michel Wensing; Anne Rogers Journal: Health Expect Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Anthony A Laverty; Chris Kypridemos; Paraskevi Seferidi; Eszter P Vamos; Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard; Brendan Collins; Simon Capewell; Modi Mwatsama; Paul Cairney; Kate Fleming; Martin O'Flaherty; Christopher Millett Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Sirinya Phulkerd; Cut Novianti Rachmi; Mohd Jamil Sameeha; Elaine Q Borazon; Anne-Marie Thow; Helen Trevena; Adila Fahmida Saptari; Yong Kang Cheah; Che Aniza Che Wel; Vanessa T Marquez; Teeranong Sakulsri; Natjera Thongcharoenchupong; Bee Koon Poh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Soledad Cuevas; Nishali Patel; Claire Thompson; Mark Petticrew; Steven Cummins; Richard Smith; Laura Cornelsen Journal: SSM Popul Health Date: 2021-10-29
Authors: Anne C Grunseit; Erika Bohn-Goldbaum; Margaret Thomas; Rochelle Seabury; Chris Rissel; Melanie Crane Journal: Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being Date: 2021-12
Authors: Marleen P M Bekker; Nicholas Mays; Jan Kees Helderman; Mark Petticrew; Maria W J Jansen; Cecile Knai; Dirk Ruwaard Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 3.367