The adoption and implementation of local government planning policy to manage hot food takeaways near schools in England: A qualitative process evaluation

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Social Science & Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-20 DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117431
{"title":"The adoption and implementation of local government planning policy to manage hot food takeaways near schools in England: A qualitative process evaluation","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Access to hot food takeaways, particularly near schools, is of growing concern for policymakers seeking to reduce childhood obesity globally. In England, United Kingdom (UK), local government jurisdictions are implementing planning policies to reduce access by restricting or denying planning permission for new takeaway outlets near schools. We used a qualitative approach to explore local government officers’ perspectives on the barriers to and facilitators of the adoption, implementation, and perceived effectiveness of these policies.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In 2021–2022, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 29 local planning (‘planners’) and public health government officers from 15 different local authorities across England who adopted a policy to restrict new takeaways. Data were analysed thematically.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Participants explained that they mostly thought the policies facilitated the refusal of applications for new takeaways near schools. However, participants speculated that businesses identified alternative opportunities to operate including functioning as ‘restaurants’ or within other locations. Effective working relationships between planners and public health officers were important for adoption and implementation, although planning and public health agendas did not always align and there were tensions between economic development and health improvement goals. The policy was adapted to suit local needs and priorities; in some cases, the policy was not used in areas where economic growth was prioritised. Clarity in policy wording and establishing a formal process for implementing policies including a designated individual responsible for checking and reviewing takeaway applications helped ensure consistency and confidence in policy implementation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Although sometimes challenging, the policies were commonly described as feasible to implement. However, they may not completely prevent new takeaways opening, particularly where takeaways are relied upon to enhance local economies or where takeaway businesses find alternative ways to operate. Nevertheless, the policies can serve to shift the balance of power that currently favours commercial interests over public health priorities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624008852","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Access to hot food takeaways, particularly near schools, is of growing concern for policymakers seeking to reduce childhood obesity globally. In England, United Kingdom (UK), local government jurisdictions are implementing planning policies to reduce access by restricting or denying planning permission for new takeaway outlets near schools. We used a qualitative approach to explore local government officers’ perspectives on the barriers to and facilitators of the adoption, implementation, and perceived effectiveness of these policies.

Methods

In 2021–2022, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 29 local planning (‘planners’) and public health government officers from 15 different local authorities across England who adopted a policy to restrict new takeaways. Data were analysed thematically.

Results

Participants explained that they mostly thought the policies facilitated the refusal of applications for new takeaways near schools. However, participants speculated that businesses identified alternative opportunities to operate including functioning as ‘restaurants’ or within other locations. Effective working relationships between planners and public health officers were important for adoption and implementation, although planning and public health agendas did not always align and there were tensions between economic development and health improvement goals. The policy was adapted to suit local needs and priorities; in some cases, the policy was not used in areas where economic growth was prioritised. Clarity in policy wording and establishing a formal process for implementing policies including a designated individual responsible for checking and reviewing takeaway applications helped ensure consistency and confidence in policy implementation.

Conclusion

Although sometimes challenging, the policies were commonly described as feasible to implement. However, they may not completely prevent new takeaways opening, particularly where takeaways are relied upon to enhance local economies or where takeaway businesses find alternative ways to operate. Nevertheless, the policies can serve to shift the balance of power that currently favours commercial interests over public health priorities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英格兰地方政府管理学校附近热食外卖店的规划政策的通过和实施:定性过程评估。
导言:热食外卖店,尤其是学校附近的热食外卖店,越来越受到全球寻求减少儿童肥胖症的政策制定者的关注。在英国英格兰,地方政府正在实施规划政策,通过限制或拒绝学校附近新外卖店的规划许可来减少外卖店的进入。我们采用定性方法探讨了地方政府官员对采用、实施这些政策的障碍和促进因素的看法,以及对这些政策有效性的认识:2021-2022 年,我们对来自英格兰 15 个不同地方当局的 29 名地方规划("规划者")和公共卫生政府官员进行了半结构化访谈,这些地方当局都采取了限制新外卖店的政策。我们对数据进行了专题分析:结果:参与者解释说,他们大多认为这些政策有利于拒绝学校附近新外卖店的申请。不过,参与者推测,企业找到了其他经营机会,包括作为 "餐馆 "或在其他地点经营。规划人员和公共卫生官员之间有效的工作关系对于政策的通过和实施非常重要,尽管规划和公共卫生议程并不总是一致,经济发展和健康改善目标之间也存在矛盾。根据当地需求和优先事项对政策进行了调整;在某些情况下,经济增长被列为优先事项的地区并没有使用该政策。明确政策措辞,建立正式的政策执行程序,包括指定专人负责检查和审查外卖申请,有助于确保政策执行的一致性和信心:尽管有时具有挑战性,但人们普遍认为这些政策的实施是可行的。然而,这些政策可能无法完全阻止新的外卖店开张,特别是在依靠外卖店促进当地经济发展或外卖店找到其他经营方式的地方。不过,这些政策可以改变目前偏向商业利益而非公共卫生优先事项的权力平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Repairing with a warm heart: How medical practitioners cultivate affective relationships with clients Later-life social network profiles of male war survivors in Vietnam: Implications for health behaviors Context dependent preferences in prestige bias learning about vaccination in rural Namibian pastoralists Hierarchy, class, race and PPE in an American hospital in the early days of COVID-19: What the pandemic stress test can teach us about building equitable health systems
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1