平衡权力不平衡,还是一连串的失信?一项关于在澳大利亚食品政策制定中参与边缘化的不同生活经历的人的定性研究。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BMC Public Health Pub Date : 2025-02-14 DOI:10.1186/s12889-025-21733-4
Carolina Venegas Hargous, Kevin Kapeke, Kathryn Backholer, Dheepa Jeyapalan, Veronica Nunez, Jennifer Browne, Anna Peeters, Alexandra Chung, Steven Allender, Victoria Stead, Yin Paradies, Christina Zorbas
{"title":"平衡权力不平衡,还是一连串的失信?一项关于在澳大利亚食品政策制定中参与边缘化的不同生活经历的人的定性研究。","authors":"Carolina Venegas Hargous, Kevin Kapeke, Kathryn Backholer, Dheepa Jeyapalan, Veronica Nunez, Jennifer Browne, Anna Peeters, Alexandra Chung, Steven Allender, Victoria Stead, Yin Paradies, Christina Zorbas","doi":"10.1186/s12889-025-21733-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Achieving nutrition and health equity warrants understanding lived experiences of marginalisation. Yet, people with diverse lived experiences are often inadequately included in food policy advocacy, agenda setting, and development. We aimed to explore cross-sectoral perceptions of engaging people with lived experiences of marginalisation in food policymaking in Australia, specifically in terms of challenges, enablers, required actions, and potential outcomes of doing so.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 people with expertise in food policy and/or community engagement from academic, government, advocacy, and community sectors. Interviews were inductively and deductively coded using the Knowledge-to-Action framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants identified few food policymaking examples where people with lived experience have been meaningfully engaged. Reported barriers included the lack of time, resources, and prioritisation across sectors and the lack of political commitment to inclusive policymaking. Having access to successful examples, existing networks of actors and flexible funding were among the few enablers identified. Several actions were deemed necessary to effectively engage people with lived experience in food policymaking and improve current practice: (1) having a dedicated budget; (2) enabling true collaboration where people with lived experience are valued, effectively engaged, sufficiently represented, have the opportunity to work alongside decision-makers, and where power is equalised; (3) striving to do no harm to the people engaged; and (4) ensuring results from engaging people with lived experience are effectively disseminated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We provide a list of practical recommendations to guide more inclusive, equitable and fit-for-purpose food policymaking into the future. These recommendations seek to challenge dominant systems of discrimination by demonstrating how we can tangibly shift to ways of working that value and elevate the power of people who are often excluded from many decision-making systems, specifically when it comes to food and nutrition.</p>","PeriodicalId":9039,"journal":{"name":"BMC Public Health","volume":"25 1","pages":"613"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11827468/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Equalising power imbalances or a trail of broken promises? A qualitative study on engaging people with diverse lived experience of marginalisation in food policymaking in Australia.\",\"authors\":\"Carolina Venegas Hargous, Kevin Kapeke, Kathryn Backholer, Dheepa Jeyapalan, Veronica Nunez, Jennifer Browne, Anna Peeters, Alexandra Chung, Steven Allender, Victoria Stead, Yin Paradies, Christina Zorbas\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12889-025-21733-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Achieving nutrition and health equity warrants understanding lived experiences of marginalisation. Yet, people with diverse lived experiences are often inadequately included in food policy advocacy, agenda setting, and development. We aimed to explore cross-sectoral perceptions of engaging people with lived experiences of marginalisation in food policymaking in Australia, specifically in terms of challenges, enablers, required actions, and potential outcomes of doing so.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 people with expertise in food policy and/or community engagement from academic, government, advocacy, and community sectors. Interviews were inductively and deductively coded using the Knowledge-to-Action framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants identified few food policymaking examples where people with lived experience have been meaningfully engaged. Reported barriers included the lack of time, resources, and prioritisation across sectors and the lack of political commitment to inclusive policymaking. Having access to successful examples, existing networks of actors and flexible funding were among the few enablers identified. Several actions were deemed necessary to effectively engage people with lived experience in food policymaking and improve current practice: (1) having a dedicated budget; (2) enabling true collaboration where people with lived experience are valued, effectively engaged, sufficiently represented, have the opportunity to work alongside decision-makers, and where power is equalised; (3) striving to do no harm to the people engaged; and (4) ensuring results from engaging people with lived experience are effectively disseminated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We provide a list of practical recommendations to guide more inclusive, equitable and fit-for-purpose food policymaking into the future. These recommendations seek to challenge dominant systems of discrimination by demonstrating how we can tangibly shift to ways of working that value and elevate the power of people who are often excluded from many decision-making systems, specifically when it comes to food and nutrition.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9039,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Public Health\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"613\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11827468/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21733-4\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21733-4","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

摘要

背景:实现营养和健康公平需要了解边缘化的生活经历。然而,具有不同生活经历的人往往没有充分参与粮食政策倡导、议程设置和发展。我们的目的是探索让有边缘化生活经历的人参与澳大利亚食品政策制定的跨部门看法,特别是在挑战、推动因素、所需行动和这样做的潜在结果方面。方法:对来自学术、政府、倡导和社区部门的24名在食品政策和/或社区参与方面具有专业知识的人士进行了深入的半结构化访谈。访谈采用知识-行动框架进行归纳和演绎编码。结果:参与者发现很少有食品政策制定的例子,其中有生活经验的人已经有意义地参与。报告的障碍包括缺乏时间、资源和跨部门优先事项,以及缺乏对包容性政策制定的政治承诺。由于能够获得成功的范例,现有的行为体网络和灵活的资金是确定的少数推动因素。一些行动被认为是必要的,以有效地让有生活经验的人参与粮食政策制定和改进目前的做法:(1)有专门的预算;(2)实现真正的合作,使有实际经验的人得到重视,有效参与,充分代表,有机会与决策者一起工作,并使权力平等;(三)努力不损害当事人的利益;(4)确保有生活经验的人参与的结果得到有效传播。结论:我们提供了一系列实用建议,以指导未来更加包容、公平和符合目的的粮食政策制定。这些建议旨在挑战占主导地位的歧视制度,展示我们如何切实转变这种价值观的工作方式,提升经常被排除在许多决策系统之外的人的权力,特别是在粮食和营养方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Equalising power imbalances or a trail of broken promises? A qualitative study on engaging people with diverse lived experience of marginalisation in food policymaking in Australia.

Background: Achieving nutrition and health equity warrants understanding lived experiences of marginalisation. Yet, people with diverse lived experiences are often inadequately included in food policy advocacy, agenda setting, and development. We aimed to explore cross-sectoral perceptions of engaging people with lived experiences of marginalisation in food policymaking in Australia, specifically in terms of challenges, enablers, required actions, and potential outcomes of doing so.

Methods: In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 people with expertise in food policy and/or community engagement from academic, government, advocacy, and community sectors. Interviews were inductively and deductively coded using the Knowledge-to-Action framework.

Results: Participants identified few food policymaking examples where people with lived experience have been meaningfully engaged. Reported barriers included the lack of time, resources, and prioritisation across sectors and the lack of political commitment to inclusive policymaking. Having access to successful examples, existing networks of actors and flexible funding were among the few enablers identified. Several actions were deemed necessary to effectively engage people with lived experience in food policymaking and improve current practice: (1) having a dedicated budget; (2) enabling true collaboration where people with lived experience are valued, effectively engaged, sufficiently represented, have the opportunity to work alongside decision-makers, and where power is equalised; (3) striving to do no harm to the people engaged; and (4) ensuring results from engaging people with lived experience are effectively disseminated.

Conclusions: We provide a list of practical recommendations to guide more inclusive, equitable and fit-for-purpose food policymaking into the future. These recommendations seek to challenge dominant systems of discrimination by demonstrating how we can tangibly shift to ways of working that value and elevate the power of people who are often excluded from many decision-making systems, specifically when it comes to food and nutrition.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Public Health
BMC Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
4.40%
发文量
2108
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BMC Public Health is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on the epidemiology of disease and the understanding of all aspects of public health. The journal has a special focus on the social determinants of health, the environmental, behavioral, and occupational correlates of health and disease, and the impact of health policies, practices and interventions on the community.
期刊最新文献
A study on the effect of catastrophic health expenditures on socially vulnerable groups. Implementation evaluation of a whole systems approach (WSA) to childhood overweight and obesity in local communities: findings from the Children and Families Pilot in Wales, UK. Rising trend among young adults: analysis of suicide-related deaths in Türkiye 2007-2022. Missing men - why health promotion leaves them behind and how to bring them on board: results of a rapid qualitative evidence synthesis. Subnational analysis of pediatric sepsis incidence and mortality from official records in Chile and Mexico: a longitudinal study from 2014 to 2024.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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