1,438
Views
21
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Paper

Nanny or canny? Community perceptions of government intervention for preventive health

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, , &
Pages 274-289 | Received 05 Dec 2017, Accepted 09 Apr 2018, Published online: 02 May 2018
 

Abstract

Critics of government intervention for the prevention of lifestyle-related chronic disease often conceptualise such efforts as ‘nanny state’, reflecting a neoliberal perspective and derailing wider debate. However, it is unknown how the community perceives such interventions. Given the importance of public opinion to government willingness to implement population-level system change, we aimed to better understand Australian community attitudes towards government-led prevention, in particular whether nanny state conceptualisations reflect community attitudes. We used an iterative mixed methods approach to data collection and analysis based on focus groups (n = 49) and a national survey (n = 2052). Despite strong endorsement (91%) of personal responsibility for health, 46% of survey respondents thought government plays a large role in prevention. The nanny state conceptualisation was not dominant in either the survey or focus group data. Qualitative data analysis highlighted alternative conceptualisations, namely government as a: canny investor; leader on positive health behaviour; partner or facilitator for health. Respondents’ level of support for specific interventions overlaid these general conceptualisations with considerations of the target population and risk factor, intervention mechanism and government motives. Community perceptions regarding prevention therefore reflect more thoughtful and complex interpretations of preventive actions and policies than suggested by nanny state conceptualisations. We argue that advocates and legislators should not allow debate around preventive measures to be restricted to the nanny state–libertarian continuum, but engage the community in more collectivist considerations of future health costs, beneficiaries, equity and likely outcomes of both action and inaction in order to garner community support and identify information gaps.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the help and support of The Social Research Centre in collecting the data and Ms Erika Goldbaum in formatting the final manuscript.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access
  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart
* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.