A Framing Analysis of Consultation Submissions on the WHO Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol: Values and Interests

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

2 Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Abstract

Background 
In response to the magnitude of harms caused by alcohol, the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol (GAS) was endorsed in 2010. We analysed submissions to the 2019 WHO consultation on the implementation of the GAS to identify how different stakeholders frame alcohol use and control; and to assess how stakeholders engage with the consultation process, with possibly harmful consequences for public health policy.
 
Methods 
All submissions from WHO Member States, international organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), academic institutions and private sector entities were identified and used as data for an inductive framing analysis. This involved close reading and data familiarisation, thematic coding and identifying emergent framings. Through the analysis of texts, framing analysis can give insights into the values and interests of stakeholders. Because framing influences how issues are conceptualised and addressed, framing analysis is a useful tool to study policy-making processes.

Results 
We identified 161 unique submissions and seven attachments. Emerging frames were grouped according to their function: defining the problem, assigning causation, proposing solutions, or justifying and persuading. Submissions varied in terms of the framing they deployed and how this was presented, eg, how the problem was defined. Proposed policy solutions also varied. Targeted solutions emphasising individual responsibility tended to be supported by industry and some Member States. Calls for universal regulation and global mobilisation often came from NGOs and academia. Stakeholders drew on evidence and specific value systems to support the adoption of certain problem and solution ideas and to oppose competing framing.
 
Conclusion 
Alcohol control is a contested policy field in which different stakeholders use framing to set the agenda and influence what policy solutions are considered legitimate. WHO should consider which interests are served by these different framings and how to weigh different stakeholders in the consultation process.

Keywords

References

  1. World Health Organization (WHO). Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health 2018. WHO; 2018.
  2. Laslett AM, Rankin G, Waleewong O, et al. A multi-country study of harms to children because of others' drinking. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2017;78(2):195-202. doi:10.15288/jsad.2017.78.195
  3. Callinan S, Rankin G, Room R, et al. Harms from a partner's drinking: an international study on adverse effects and reduced quality of life for women. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2019;45(2):170-178. doi:10.1080/00952990.2018.1540632
  4. Taylor B, Rehm J. The relationship between alcohol consumption and fatal motor vehicle injury: high risk at low alcohol levels. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2012;36(10):1827-1834. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2012.01785.x
  5. Kraus L, Seitz NN, Shield KD, Gmel G, Rehm J. Quantifying harms to others due to alcohol consumption in Germany: a register-based study. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):59. doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1290-0
  6. Zhang L, Wieczorek WF, Welte JW. The nexus between alcohol and violent crime. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1997;21(7):1264-1271.
  7. Bellis MA, Hughes K, Nicholls J, Sheron N, Gilmore I, Jones L. The alcohol harm paradox: using a national survey to explore how alcohol may disproportionately impact health in deprived individuals. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:111. doi:10.1186/s12889-016-2766-x
  8. Katikireddi SV, Whitley E, Lewsey J, Gray L, Leyland AH. Socioeconomic status as an effect modifier of alcohol consumption and harm: analysis of linked cohort data. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(6):e267-e276. doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(17)30078-6
  9. World Health Organization (WHO). Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol. WHO; 2010.
  10. World Health Organization (WHO). Discussion Paper: Implementation of the WHO Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol During the First Decade Since its Endorsement, and the Way Forward. WHO; 2019.
  11. World Health Organization (WHO). Web-based consultation on the implementation of the WHO global strategy to reduce the harmful use of alcohol since its endorsement, and the way forward. 2019. https://www.who.int/health-topics/alcohol/online-consultation. Accessed March 18, 2020.
  12. Greer SL, Wismar M, Figueras J, McKee C. Governance: a framework. In: Greer SL, Wismar M, Figueras J, eds. Strengthening Health System Governance: Better Policies, Stronger Performance. Berkshire: Open University Press; 2015:27-56.
  13. Stuckler D, Reeves A, Loopstra R, McKee M. Textual analysis of sugar industry influence on the World Health Organization's 2015 sugars intake guideline. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94(8):566-573. doi:10.2471/blt.15.165852
  14. Hawkins B, Holden C. Framing the alcohol policy debate: industry actors and the regulation of the UK beverage alcohol market. Crit Policy Stud. 2013;7(1):53-71. doi:10.1080/19460171.2013.766023
  15. Ralston R, Hil SE, da Silva Gomes F, Collin J. Towards preventing and managing conflict of interest in nutrition policy? an analysis of submissions to a consultation on a draft WHO tool. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021;10(5):255-265. doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2020.52
  16. Evans-Reeves KA, Hatchard JL, Gilmore AB. 'It will harm business and increase illicit trade': an evaluation of the relevance, quality and transparency of evidence submitted by transnational tobacco companies to the UK consultation on standardised packaging 2012. Tob Control. 2015;24(e2):e168-177. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051930
  17. Ulucanlar S, Fooks GJ, Hatchard JL, Gilmore AB. Representation and misrepresentation of scientific evidence in contemporary tobacco regulation: a review of tobacco industry submissions to the UK Government consultation on standardised packaging. PLoS Med. 2014;11(3):e1001629. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001629
  18. Savell E, Gilmore AB, Fooks G. How does the tobacco industry attempt to influence marketing regulations? a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e87389. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087389
  19. McCambridge J, Hawkins B, Holden C. Industry use of evidence to influence alcohol policy: a case study of submissions to the 2008 Scottish government consultation. PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001431. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001431
  20. Entman RM. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun. 1993;43(4):51-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
  21. van Hulst M, Yanow D. From policy “frames” to “framing”: theorizing a more dynamic, political approach. Am Rev Public Adm. 2016;46(1):92-112. doi:10.1177/0275074014533142
  22. Goffman E. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press; 1974.
  23. Koon AD, Hawkins B, Mayhew SH. Framing and the health policy process: a scoping review. Health Policy Plan. 2016;31(6):801-816. doi:10.1093/heapol/czv128
  24. Lukes S. Power: A Radical View. 1st ed. New York: Macmillan; 1974.
  25. Lim AWY, van Schalkwyk MCI, Maani Hessari N, Petticrew MP. Pregnancy, fertility, breastfeeding, and alcohol consumption: an analysis of framing and completeness of information disseminated by alcohol industry-funded organizations. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2019;80(5):524-533. doi:10.15288/jsad.2019.80.524
  26. Zatoński M, Hawkins B, McKee M. Framing the policy debate over spirits excise tax in Poland. Health Promot Int. 2018;33(3):515-524. doi:10.1093/heapro/daw093
  27. Douglas N, Knai C, Petticrew M, Eastmure E, Durand MA, Mays N. How the food, beverage and alcohol industries presented the Public Health Responsibility Deal in UK print and online media reports. Crit Public Health. 2018;28(4):377-387. doi:10.1080/09581596.2018.1467001
  28. Jenkin GL, Signal L, Thomson G. Framing obesity: the framing contest between industry and public health at the New Zealand inquiry into obesity. Obes Rev. 2011;12(12):1022-1030. doi:10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00918.x
  29. Lauber K, Ralston R, Mialon M, Carriedo A, Gilmore AB. Non-communicable disease governance in the era of the sustainable development goals: a qualitative analysis of food industry framing in WHO consultations. Global Health. 2020;16(1):76. doi:10.1186/s12992-020-00611-1
  30. Remling E. Logics, assumptions and genre chains: a framework for poststructuralist policy analysis. Crit Discourse Stud. 2018;15(1):1-18. doi:10.1080/17405904.2017.1382382
  31. Smith KE. Understanding the influence of evidence in public health policy: what can we learn from the ‘tobacco wars’? Soc Policy Adm. 2013;47(4):382-398. doi:10.1111/spol.12025
  32. Chisholm D, Moro D, Bertram M, et al. Are the "best buys" for alcohol control still valid? an update on the comparative cost-effectiveness of alcohol control strategies at the global level. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2018;79(4):514-522.
  33. Kickbusch I, Allen L, Franz C. The commercial determinants of health. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4(12):e895-e896. doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(16)30217-0
  34. Anderson P, Chisholm D, Fuhr DC. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies and programmes to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. Lancet. 2009;373(9682):2234-2246. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60744-3
  35. Xuan Z, Babor TF, Naimi TS, Blanchette JG, Chaloupka FJ. Comment on "binge drinking and alcohol prices.” Health Econ Rev. 2016;6(1):4. doi:10.1186/s13561-016-0082-x
  36. Lencucha R, Thow AM. How neoliberalism is shaping the supply of unhealthy commodities and what this means for NCD prevention. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;8(9):514-520. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2019.56
  37. Razavi A, Adams J, White M. What arguments and from whom are most influential in shaping public health policy: thematic content analysis of responses to a public consultation on the regulation of television food advertising to children in the UK. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e028221. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028221
  38. Savell E, Fooks G, Gilmore AB. How does the alcohol industry attempt to influence marketing regulations? a systematic review. Addiction. 2016;111(1):18-32. doi:10.1111/add.13048
  39. McCambridge J, Mialon M. Alcohol industry involvement in science: a systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2018;37(5):565-579. doi:10.1111/dar.12826
  40. McCambridge J, Mialon M, Hawkins B. Alcohol industry involvement in policymaking: a systematic review. Addiction. 2018;113(9):1571-1584. doi:10.1111/add.14216
  41. Madureira Lima J, Galea S. Corporate practices and health: a framework and mechanisms. Global Health. 2018;14(1):21. doi:10.1186/s12992-018-0336-y
  42. Bero LA. Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Rep. 2005;120(2):200-208. doi:10.1177/003335490512000215
  43. Petticrew M, Maani Hessari N, Knai C, Weiderpass E. The strategies of alcohol industry SAPROs: inaccurate information, misleading language and the use of confounders to downplay and misrepresent the risk of cancer. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2018;37(3):313-315. doi:10.1111/dar.12677
  44. Karriker-Jaffe KJ, Zemore SE, Mulia N, Jones-Webb R, Bond J, Greenfield TK. Neighborhood disadvantage and adult alcohol outcomes: differential risk by race and gender. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2012;73(6):865-873. doi:10.15288/jsad.2012.73.865
  45. Romley JA, Cohen D, Ringel J, Sturm R. Alcohol and environmental justice: the density of liquor stores and bars in urban neighborhoods in the United States. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2007;68(1):48-55. doi:10.15288/jsad.2007.68.48
  46. Young B, Lewis S, Katikireddi SV, et al. Effectiveness of mass media campaigns to reduce alcohol consumption and harm: a systematic review. Alcohol Alcohol. 2018;53(3):302-316. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agx094
  47. Noel JK, Babor TF, Robaina K. Industry self-regulation of alcohol marketing: a systematic review of content and exposure research. Addiction. 2017;112 Suppl 1:28-50. doi:10.1111/add.13410
  48. Mialon M, McCambridge J. Alcohol industry corporate social responsibility initiatives and harmful drinking: a systematic review. Eur J Public Health. 2018;28(4):664-673. doi:10.1093/eurpub/cky065
  49. Yoon S, Lam TH. The illusion of righteousness: corporate social responsibility practices of the alcohol industry. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:630. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-630
  50. McKee M, Stuckler D. Revisiting the corporate and commercial determinants of health. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(9):1167-1170. doi:10.2105/ajph.2018.304510
  51. Palmedo PC, Dorfman L, Garza S, Murphy E, Freudenberg N. Countermarketing alcohol and unhealthy food: an effective strategy for preventing noncommunicable diseases? lessons from tobacco. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38:119-144. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044303
  52. Olajire AA. The brewing industry and environmental challenges. J Clean Prod. 2020;256:102817. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.003
  53. van Beemen O. Heineken in Africa: A Multinational Unleashed. London: Hurst; 2019.
  54. Townsend B, Schram A, Baum F, Labonté R, Friel S. How does policy framing enable or constrain inclusion of social determinants of health and health equity on trade policy agendas? Crit Public Health. 2020;30(1):115-126. doi:10.1080/09581596.2018.1509059
  55. Baker P, Kay A, Walls H. Trade and investment liberalization and Asia's noncommunicable disease epidemic: a synthesis of data and existing literature. Global Health. 2014;10:66. doi:10.1186/s12992-014-0066-8
  56. Lencucha R, Drope J, Labonte R, Zulu R, Goma F. Investment incentives and the implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: evidence from Zambia. Tob Control. 2016;25(4):483-487. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052250
  57. Labonté R, Lencucha R, Goma F, Zulu R, Drope J. Consequences of policy incoherence: how Zambia’s post-FCTC investment policy stimulated tobacco production. J Public Health Policy. 2019;40(3):286-291. doi:10.1057/s41271-019-00171-8
  58. World Health Organization (WHO). Global Progress Report on Implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: WHO; 2016.
  59. Chung-Hall J, Craig L, Gravely S, Sansone N, Fong GT. Impact of the WHO FCTC over the first decade: a global evidence review prepared for the Impact Assessment Expert Group. Tob Control. 2019;28(Suppl 2):s119-s128. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054389
  60. Weishaar H, Collin J, Smith K, Grüning T, Mandal S, Gilmore A. Global health governance and the commercial sector: a documentary analysis of tobacco company strategies to influence the WHO framework convention on tobacco control. PLoS Med. 2012;9(6):e1001249. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001249
  61. World Health Organization (WHO). Development of an Action Plan (2022-2030) to Effectively Implement the WHO Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol: Received Submissions from a Web-Based Consultation on the Working Document. Volume I. WHO; 2020.
  62. Andersen J, Søe SO. Communicative actions we live by: the problem with fact-checking, tagging or flagging fake news–the case of Facebook. Eur J Commun. 2020;35(2):126-139. doi:10.1177/0267323119894489
  63. Marks JH. The Perils of Partnership: Industry Influence, Institutional Integrity, and Public Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019.
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 11, Issue 8
August 2022
Pages 1550-1561

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 12 November 2020
  • Revise Date: 17 May 2021
  • Accept Date: 09 June 2021
  • First Publish Date: 26 June 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics