Parliamentary reaction to the announcement and implementation of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy: applied thematic analysis of 2016-2020 parliamentary debates

Objective: The UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) (announced in March 2016; implemented in April 2018) aims to incentivise reformulation of soft drinks to reduce added sugar levels. The SDIL has been applauded as a policy success, and it has survived calls from parliamentarians for it to be repealed. We aimed to explore parliamentary reaction to the SDIL following its announcement until two years post-implementation in order to understand how health policy can become established and resilient to opposition. Design: Searches of Hansard for parliamentary debate transcripts that discussed the SDIL retrieved 186 transcripts, with 160 included after screening. Five stages of Applied Thematic Analysis were conducted: familiarisation and creation of initial codebooks; independent second coding; codebook finalisation through team consensus; final coding of the dataset to the complete codebook; and theme finalisation through team consensus. Setting: The United Kingdom Parliament. Participants: N/A Results: Between the announcement (16/03/2016) – royal assent (26/04/2017), two themes were identified 1: SDIL welcomed cross-party 2: SDIL a good start but not enough. Between royal assent – implementation (5/04/2018), one theme was identified 3: The SDIL worked – what next? The final theme identified from implementation until 16/03/2020 was 4: Moving on from the SDIL. Conclusions: After the announcement, the SDIL had cross-party support and was recognised to have encouraged reformulation prior to implementation. Lessons for governments indicate that the combination of cross-party support and a policy’s documented success in achieving its aim can help cement the resilience of it to opposition and threats of repeal

Industry views of the UK soft drinks industry levy: a thematic analysis of elite interviews with food and drink industry professionals, 2018-2020

The UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), implemented in 2018, has been successful in reducing the sugar content and purchasing of soft drinks, with limited financial impact on industry. Understanding the views of food and drink industry professionals involved in reacting to the SDIL is important for policymaking. However, their perceptions of the challenges of implementation and strategic responses are unknown. The aim of this study, therefore, was to explore how senior food and drink industry professionals viewed the SDIL. We undertook a qualitative descriptive study using elite interviews. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis, taking an inductive exploratory and descriptive approach not informed by prior theory or frameworks. Interviews were conducted via telephone with 14 senior professionals working in the food and drink industry. Five main themes were identified: ; industry accepted the SDIL as an attempt to create a level playing field but due to the exclusion of milk-based drinks, this was viewed as inadequate, ; the SDIL was complex, expensive and time consuming to implement, with industry responses dependent on leadership buy-in, ; soft drinks are an unfair target when other categories also contain high sugar, ; consumers were a key focus of the industry response to this policy and ; there appeared to be a wider ripple effect, which primed industry to prepare for future regulation in support of health and environmental sustainability. Insights from senior food and drink industry professionals illustrate how sugar-sweetened beverage taxes might be successfully implemented and improve understanding of industry responses to taxes and other food and drink policies

Parliamentary reaction to the announcement and implementation of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy: Applied thematic analysis of 2016-2020 parliamentary debates

Objective: The UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) (announced March 2016; implemented April 2018) aims to incentivise reformulation of soft drinks to reduce added sugar levels. The SDIL has been applauded as a policy success, and it has survived calls from parliamentarians for it to be repealed. We aimed to explore parliamentary reaction to the SDIL following its announcement until two years post-implementation in order understand how health policy can become established and resilient to opposition. Design: Searches of Hansard for parliamentary debate transcripts that discussed the SDIL retrieved 186 transcripts, with 160 included after screening. Five stages of Applied Thematic Analysis were conducted: familiarisation and creation of initial codebooks; independent second coding; codebook finalisation through team consensus; final coding of the dataset to the complete codebook; and theme finalisation through team consensus. Setting: The United Kingdom Parliament Participants: N/A Results: Between the announcement (16/03/2016) - royal assent (26/04/2017) two themes were identified 1: SDIL welcomed cross-party 2: SDIL a good start but not enough. Between royal assent - implementation (5/04/2018) one theme was identified 3: The SDIL worked - what next? The final theme identified from implementation until 16/03/2020 was 4: Moving on from the SDIL. Conclusions: After the announcement, the SDIL had cross-party support and was recognised to have encouraged reformulation prior to implementation. Lessons for governments indicate that the combination of cross-party support and a policy’s documented success in achieving its aim can help cement the resilience of it to opposition and threats of repeal

Development and application of the DePtH framework for categorising the agentic demands of population health interventions [Pre-print]

The ‘agentic demand’ of population health interventions may influence intervention effectiveness and equity, yet the absence of an adequate framework to classify agentic demands limits the fields’ advancement. We systematically developed the DEmands for PopulaTion Health Interventions (DePtH) framework identifying three constructs influencing agentic demand - exposure (initial contact with intervention), mechanism of action (how the intervention enables or discourages behaviour), and engagement (recipient response), combined into twenty classifications. We conducted expert qualitative feedback and reliability testing, revised the framework and applied it in a proof-of-concept review, combining it with data on overall effectiveness and equity of dietary and physical activity interventions. Intervention components were concentrated in a small number of classifications; DePtH classification appeared to be related to intervention equity but not effectiveness. This framework holds potential for future research, policy and practice, facilitating the design, selection, evaluation and synthesis of evidence

Development and application of the Demands for Population Health Interventions (Depth) framework for categorising the agentic demands of population health interventions

Background: The ‘agentic demand’ of population health interventions (PHIs) refers to the capacity, resources and freedom to act that interventions demand of their recipients to benefit, which have a socio-economical pattern. Highly agentic interventions, e.g. information campaigns, rely on recipients noticing and responding to the intervention and thus might affect intervention effectiveness and equity. The absence of an adequate framework to classify agentic demands limits the fields’ ability to systematically explore these associations. Methods: We systematically developed the Demands for Population Health Interventions (Depth) framework using an iterative approach: (1) Developing the Depth framework by systematically identifying examples of PHIs aiming to promote healthier diets and physical activity, coding of intervention actors and actions and synthesising the data to develop the framework; (2) Testing the Depth framework in online workshops with academic and policy experts and a quantitative reliability assessment. We applied the final framework in a proof-of-concept review, extracting studies from three existing equity focused systematic reviews on framework category, overall effectiveness and differential socioeconomic effects and visualised the findings in Harvest Plots. Results: The Depth framework identifies three constructs influencing agentic demand: exposure - initial contact with intervention (2 levels), mechanism of action - how the intervention enables or discourages behaviour (5 levels), and engagement - recipient response (2 levels). When combined, these constructs form a matrix of twenty possible classifications. In the proof-of-concept review, we classified all components of 31 interventions according to the Depth framework. Intervention components were concentrated in a small number of Depth classifications; Depth classification appeared to be related to intervention equity but not effectiveness. Conclusions: This framework holds potential for future research, policy and practice, facilitating the design, selection and evaluation of interventions and evidence synthesis

Industry views of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy: a thematic analysis of elite interviews with food and drink industry professionals, 2018-2020.

OBJECTIVES: The UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), implemented in 2018, has been successful in reducing the sugar content and purchasing of soft drinks, with limited financial impact on industry. Understanding the views of food and drink industry professionals involved in reacting to the SDIL is important for policymaking. However, their perceptions of the challenges of implementation and strategic responses are unknown. The aim of this study, therefore, was to explore how senior food and drink industry professionals viewed the SDIL. DESIGN: We undertook a qualitative descriptive study using elite interviews. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis, taking an inductive exploratory and descriptive approach not informed by prior theory or frameworks. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were conducted via telephone with 14 senior professionals working in the food and drink industry. RESULTS: Five main themes were identified: (1) a level playing field…for some; industry accepted the SDIL as an attempt to create a level playing field but due to the exclusion of milk-based drinks, this was viewed as inadequate, (2) complex to implement, but no lasting negative effects; the SDIL was complex, expensive and time consuming to implement, with industry responses dependent on leadership buy-in, (3) why us?-the SDIL unfairly targets the drinks industry; soft drinks are an unfair target when other categories also contain high sugar, (4) the consumer is king; consumers were a key focus of the industry response to this policy and (5) the future of the SDIL; there appeared to be a wider ripple effect, which primed industry to prepare for future regulation in support of health and environmental sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Insights from senior food and drink industry professionals illustrate how sugar-sweetened beverage taxes might be successfully implemented and improve understanding of industry responses to taxes and other food and drink policies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18042742.This project was funded by the NIHR Public Health Research programme (Grant Nos. 16/49/01 and 16/130/01). At the time this study was conducted CPJ, MW, ELR, HF, TLP, DT, JA, OA, SA, were also supported in part by: Programme grants to the MRC Epidemiology Unit from the Medical Research Council (grant No. MC_UU_12015/6 and MC_UU_00006/7); and the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence – funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration is gratefully acknowledged. HF received funding for her PhD studentship from the Economic and Social Research Council and Public Health England, and she has received further discretionary funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and Murray Edwards College, Cambridge. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the any of the above-named funders. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Industry views of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy: a thematic analysis of elite interviews with food and drink industry professionals, 2018-2020.

Peer reviewed: TrueAcknowledgements: For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising.OBJECTIVES: The UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), implemented in 2018, has been successful in reducing the sugar content and purchasing of soft drinks, with limited financial impact on industry. Understanding the views of food and drink industry professionals involved in reacting to the SDIL is important for policymaking. However, their perceptions of the challenges of implementation and strategic responses are unknown. The aim of this study, therefore, was to explore how senior food and drink industry professionals viewed the SDIL. DESIGN: We undertook a qualitative descriptive study using elite interviews. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis, taking an inductive exploratory and descriptive approach not informed by prior theory or frameworks. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were conducted via telephone with 14 senior professionals working in the food and drink industry. RESULTS: Five main themes were identified: (1) a level playing field…for some; industry accepted the SDIL as an attempt to create a level playing field but due to the exclusion of milk-based drinks, this was viewed as inadequate, (2) complex to implement, but no lasting negative effects; the SDIL was complex, expensive and time consuming to implement, with industry responses dependent on leadership buy-in, (3) why us?-the SDIL unfairly targets the drinks industry; soft drinks are an unfair target when other categories also contain high sugar, (4) the consumer is king; consumers were a key focus of the industry response to this policy and (5) the future of the SDIL; there appeared to be a wider ripple effect, which primed industry to prepare for future regulation in support of health and environmental sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Insights from senior food and drink industry professionals illustrate how sugar-sweetened beverage taxes might be successfully implemented and improve understanding of industry responses to taxes and other food and drink policies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18042742.This project was funded by the NIHR Public Health Research programme (Grant Nos. 16/49/01 and 16/130/01). At the time this study was conducted CPJ, MW, ELR, HF, TLP, DT, JA, OA, SA, were also supported in part by: Programme grants to the MRC Epidemiology Unit from the Medical Research Council (grant No. MC_UU_12015/6 and MC_UU_00006/7); and the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence – funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration is gratefully acknowledged. HF received funding for her PhD studentship from the Economic and Social Research Council and Public Health England, and she has received further discretionary funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and Murray Edwards College, Cambridge. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the any of the above-named funders. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Explaining differential socioeconomic effects in population health interventions: development and application of a new tool to classify intervention agentic demand

Background: The agentic demand of population health interventions (PHIs) might influence how interventions work. Highly agentic interventions (eg, information campaigns) rely on recipients noticing and responding to the intervention. Resources required for individuals to benefit from highly agentic interventions have a socioeconomical pattern, thus agentic demand might affect intervention effectiveness and equity. Systematic evidence exploring these associations is missing due to the absence of adequate tools to classify agentic demands. We aimed to develop such a tool and test its application. Methods: Our iterative development process involved: (1) systematic identification of diet and physical activity PHIs; (2) coding of intervention actors and actions; (3) data synthesis; (4) expert qualitative feedback; and (5) reliability assessment. We searched nine databases for articles published between Jan 1, 2010, and Aug 17, 2020. For all included articles, we coded the actors (people required to act within an intervention) and their actions (what they were required to do for the intervention to have its intended effects). We combined these codes for similar intervention types to develop overarching schematic flow chart diagrams used to identify concepts, and we organised these into a draft tool. After expert feedback, and we assessed inter-rater reliability of the final version. We applied the final tool in a proof-of-concept review, extracting studies from three existing equity-focused systematic reviews on tool category, overall intervention effect, and differential socioeconomic effects and visualised findings. Findings: We identified three concepts affecting agentic demands of intervention components: exposure, two levels (how recipients encounter the intervention); mechanism of action, five levels; and engagement, two levels (how recipients respond to the intervention). We then combined these concepts to form 20 categories that grouped together interventions with similar agentic demands. In the review, we applied the tool to 26 PHIs that included 163 components. Intervention components were concentrated in a small number of categories, and their categorisation was related to intervention equity but not to effectiveness. Interpretation: We present a novel tool to classify the agentic demand of PHIs and demonstrate its feasibility within a systematic review. Linking intervention types to their effect on inequalities enables these factors to be considered when designing or selecting interventions. Users of the tool can avoid implementing intervention types that are likely to widen inequalities or implement them alongside counter-strategies to minimise any adverse equity effects. Applying this tool within future research, policy, and practice to design, select, evaluate, and synthesise evidence from PHIs has the potential to advance our understanding of how interventions work and their effect on socioeconomic inequalities

Development and application of the Demands for Population Health Interventions (Depth) framework for categorising the agentic demands of population health interventions

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank all participants who contributed to depth framework testing.Abstract Background The ‘agentic demand’ of population health interventions (PHIs) refers to the capacity, resources and freedom to act that interventions demand of their recipients to benefit, which have a socio-economical pattern. Highly agentic interventions, e.g. information campaigns, rely on recipients noticing and responding to the intervention and thus might affect intervention effectiveness and equity. The absence of an adequate framework to classify agentic demands limits the fields’ ability to systematically explore these associations. Methods We systematically developed the Demands for Population Health Interventions (Depth) framework using an iterative approach: (1) developing the Depth framework by systematically identifying examples of PHIs aiming to promote healthier diets and physical activity, coding of intervention actors and actions and synthesising the data to develop the framework; (2) testing the Depth framework in online workshops with academic and policy experts and a quantitative reliability assessment. We applied the final framework in a proof-of-concept review, extracting studies from three existing equity-focused systematic reviews on framework category, overall effectiveness and differential socioeconomic effects and visualised the findings in harvest plots. Results The Depth framework identifies three constructs influencing agentic demand: exposure — initial contact with intervention (two levels), mechanism of action — how the intervention enables or discourages behaviour (five levels) and engagement — recipient response (two levels). When combined, these constructs form a matrix of 20 possible classifications. In the proof-of-concept review, we classified all components of 31 interventions according to the Depth framework. Intervention components were concentrated in a small number of Depth classifications; Depth classification appeared to be related to intervention equity but not effectiveness. Conclusions This framework holds potential for future research, policy and practice, facilitating the design, selection and evaluation of interventions and evidence synthesis. </jats:sec