Advertisement

Feasibility and Framing of Interventions Based on Public Support: Leveraging Text Analytics for Policymakers

  • Philippe J. GiabbanelliEmail author
  • Jean Adams
  • Venkata Sai Pillutla
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9742)

Abstract

Public opinions play an important role in planning policies. A beneficial population intervention may not be publicly acceptable, or policymakers may be over-cautious and believe their constituents do not sufficiently support it. Understanding the feasibility and framing of interventions based on public support is thus an important endeavor for public health. While surveys or qualitative analyses are a typical approach, they can require significant time or manpower. In contrast, algorithms for text analytics are now available that could be readily used by policymakers. As a case study, this paper used the debate that surrounded taxes on sugar sweetened beverages (SSB) in California. Our main contribution lies in detailing the process of automatizing the analysis of public health opinions, particularly using off-the-shelf software that policymakers can use, and exemplify the types of policy questions that can be investigated.

Keywords

Text Analytic News Article Sugar Sweetened Beverage Sugary Drink Candidate Newspaper 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Flegal, K., Carroll, M., Ogden, C., Curtin, L.: Prevalence and trends in obesity among us adults, 1999–2008. JAMA 303, 235–241 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang, Y., Beydoun, M., Liang, L., Caballero, B., Kumanyika, S.: Will all americans become overweight or obese? estimating the progression and cost of the us obesity epidemic. Obesity 16, 2323–2330 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang, D., Giabbanelli, P.J., et al.: Impact of different policies on unhealthy dietary behaviors in an urban adult population: An agent-based simulation model. Am. J. Public Health 104(7), 1217–1222 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giabbanelli, P.J., Jackson, P.J., Finegood, D.T.: Modelling the joint effect of social determinants and peers on obesity among canadian adults. In: Theories and Simulations of Complex Social Systems, pp. 145–160 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Verigin, T., Giabbanelli, P.J., Davidsen, P.: Supporting a systems approach to healthy weight interventions in british columbia by modeling weight and well-being. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Simulation Symposium (ANSS) (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mytton, O., Clarke, D., Rayner, M.: Taxing unhealthy food and drinks to improve health. BMJ 344, e2931 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Powell, L., Chaloupka, F.: Food prices and obesity: evidence and policy implications for taxes and subsidies. Milbank Q 87(1), 229–257 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brownell, K., Farley, T., et al.: The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. NEJM 361, 1599–1605 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    An, R.: Effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food purchases and consumption: a review of field experiments. Public Health Nutr. 16(7), 1215–1228 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eyles, H., Mhurchu, C.N., Nghiem, N., Blakely, T.: Food pricing strategies, population diets, and non-communicable disease: A systematic review of simulation studies. PLoS Med 9(12), e1001353 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Briggs, A., Mytton, O., Kehlbacher, A., Tiffin, R., Rayner, M., Scarborough, P.: Overall and income specific effect on prevalence of overweight and obesity of 20% sugar sweetened drink tax in uk: econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study. BMJ 347, f6189 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pope, T.M.: Limiting liberty to prevent obesity: Justifiability of strong hard paternalism in public health regulation. Conn. Law Rev. 46, 1859–1876 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rivard, C., Smith, D., McCann, S.E., Hyland, A.: Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages: a survey of knowledge, attitudes and behaviours. Publ. Health Nutr. 15(8), 1355–1361 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nixon, L., Mejia, P., Cheyne, A., Dorfman, L.: Big soda’s long shadow: news coverage of local proposals to tax sugar-sweetened beverages in richmond, el monte and telluride. Crit. Publ. Health 25(3), 333–347 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mahoney, L., Tang, T., et al.: The digital distribution of public health news surrounding the human papillomavirus vaccination: a longitudinal infodemiology study. JMIR Publ. Health Surveill. 1(1), e2 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamad, R., Pomeranz, J., Siddiqi, A., Basu, S.: Large-scale automated analysis of news media: a novel computational method for obesity policy research. Obesity 23, 296–300 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eysenbach, G.: Infodemiology and infoveillance: framework for an emerging set of public health informatics methods to analyze search, communication and publication behavior on the internet. J. Med. Internet Res. 11(1), e11 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salathe, M., Khandelwal, S.: Assessing vaccination sentiments with online social media: implications for infectious disease dynamics and control. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7(10), e1002199 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bodnar, T., Salathe, M.: Validating models for disease detection using twitter. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web Companion, pp. 699–702 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ji, X., Chun, S.A., Geller, J.: Monitoring public health concerns using twitter sentiment classifications. In: IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI) 2013, pp. 335–344 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dredze, M., Cheng, R., Paul, M., Broniatowski, D.: Healthtweets.org: A platform for public health surveillance using twitter. In: AAAI Workshop on the World Wide Web and Public Health Intelligence (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    The Media Insight Project: The personal news cycle (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sasseen, J., Olmstead, K., Mitchell, A.: Digital: as mobile grows rapidly, the pressures of news intensify. Pew Center Project for Excellence in Journalism (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dolsak, N., Houston, K.: Newspaper coverage and climate change legislative activity across us states. Global Policy 5(3), 286–297 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Niederdeppe, J., Gollust, S., Jarlenski, M., Nathanson, A., Barry, C.: News coverage of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes: pro- and antitax arguments in public discourse. Am. J. Publ. Health 103, e92–e98 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stoddard, P., van Erp, B., Induni, M., Reedy, A., Broderick, B.: Sugar-sweetened beverage tax acceptability in the u.s. versus foreign-born population: Results from a large northern california county. In: 142nd Annual Meeting & Expo of the American Public Health Association (APHA), p. 303809 (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    The People of the City of Berkeley: Imposing a general tax on the distribution of sugar-sweetened beverage products. Ordinance (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dinkelspiel, F.: A record $3.6 million spent in berkeley campaigns, November 2014Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Speer, R., Havasi, C., Treadway, N., Lieberman, H.: Visualizing common sense connections with luminoso. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Intelligent Visual Interfaces for Text Analysis, pp. 9–12 (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gretarsson, B., O’Donovan, J., et al.: Topicnets: Visual analysis of large text corpora with topic modeling. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 3(2), 23 (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Giabbanelli, P.J., Jackson, P.J.: Using visual analytics to support the integration of expert knowledge in the design of medical models and simulations. In: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Biomedical and Bioinformatics Challenges for Computer Science (2015)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wong, P., Hetzler, B., et al.: In-spire infovis 2004 contest entry. In: IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Otterbacher, J., Gunes, E., et al.: Biased lexrank: passage retrieval using random walks with question-based priors. Inf. Process. Manage. 1, 42–54 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gorg, C., Liu, Z., Stasko, J.: Reflections of the evolution of the jigsaw visual analytics system. Inf. Vis. 13(4), 336–345 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe J. Giabbanelli
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jean Adams
    • 2
  • Venkata Sai Pillutla
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNorthern Illinois UniversityDekalbUSA
  2. 2.UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), MRC Epidemiology UnitUniversity of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Institute of Metabolic ScienceCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations