Effect of 'lifestyle stigma' on public support for NHS-provisioned pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and preventative interventions for HPV and type 2 diabetes: a nationwide UK survey.

OBJECTIVES: This study examines how the perceived role of poor lifestyle and irresponsible behaviour in contracting HIV, human papilloma virus (HPV) and diabetes affects public support for government-provisioned prevention efforts in Britain. It assesses whether public attitudes on healthcare spending are broadly sensitive to 'lifestyle stigmas'. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 738 respondents in Britain and embedded three separate survey experiments to measure support for government-provisioned interventions for HIV, HPV and type 2 diabetes. In each experiment, we manipulated language used to describe the extent to which the diseases are caused by lifestyle choices. Most respondents participated in all three experiments, but assignment was randomised within each condition. Analysis compared support among respondents exposed to 'lifestyle' treatment (information emphasising the disease's lifestyle causes) versus control treatment. We estimated three separate t-tests in which support for government provision of interventions is the dependent variable. RESULTS: Support for government-provisioned prevention was high for all three diseases. There was no statistical difference between treatment and control conditions for HIV (treatment mean=3.73, control mean=3.86, p=0.38). But in both HPV (treatment mean=3.96, control mean=4.43, p<0.01) and type 2 diabetes (treatment mean=3.53, control mean=4.03, p<0.01) experiments, support for government-provisioned interventions was significantly lower under lifestyle treatment conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Public opinion on healthcare expenditures in Britain is unexpected and uneven. Consistent participant support for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) shows public attitudes are not always sensitive to lifestyle stigmas-but for other diseases, perceived relationships between individual behaviour and poor health can still shape public opinion about health expenditures. Policymakers and practitioners should remain attentive to how health problems are framed and discussed to ensure broad public support, and take advantage of policy windows like with PrEP as they may close.

The One-Child Policy, Elder Care, and LGB Chinese: A Social Policy Explanation for Family Pressure.

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people in China consistently report family pressure as the greatest challenge they face in their daily lives. This problem has been explained primarily by highlighting sociocultural factors. While such explanations are important to understanding family pressure, they do not easily lead to actionable policy interventions to relieve it. This article suggests a new way of looking at family pressure by positing a social policy explanation. In particular, it reveals how both the one-child policy and elder care reforms have strong heteronormative biases that negatively and disproportionately affect LGB people, and it explores social policy interventions that may help address them. Beyond the China case, the article seeks to open up new avenues for research into how sexuality could be better accounted for in analyses of social policies and considered in broader discussions on defamilization and welfare state reform.