{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02690780767534186, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00529333921482135, 'mean_word_length': 4.8005115089514065, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Optimising message framing to advance cancer prevention pricing interventions in the UK and US


 
 
 One-third of the burden of cancer is associated with four health harming behaviours - tobacco use, alcohol consumption, poor diet and physical inactivity. The growing evidence base supporting price-related policies to curb over consumption is of interest to governments globally. However, implementation requires public and policy-maker support. The aim of this study is to enhance our understanding of the features of message framing that influence public support for price-related policies in relation to tobacco, alcohol, and sugar.
 
 
 
 We conducted 18 semi-structured interviews (9 UK and 9 USA) exploring knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of 4 price policies in relation to tobacco, alcohol and sugar. Interviewees included cancer policy advocates, cancer survivors and members of the public. We used NVivo 12 to organise the data for inductive and deductive thematic analysis.
 
 
 
 Common supportive features included: (i) highlighting the health benefit (eg reduced cancer risk), arising from impact on purchasing behaviour; (ii) indirectly making the health harm associated with consumption clear. Common unsupportive features included: (i) policy effectiveness will depend on size of the financial penalty and consumer response; (ii) such policies are unfair on sensible consumers and potentially regressive. Interviewees were more supportive of price-related policies for products containing tobacco where they perceived a stronger association with cancer risk.
 
 
 
 This study reveals important differences in levels of persuasiveness arising from the framing of messages to promote price-related policies. The results informed the identification of 4 frames to be tested in a multi-factorial quantitative study, currently under way. These frames can be characterised as: F1 - To reduce the financial strain on healthcare systems; F2 - For the protection of children; F3 - To reduce cancer risk; and F4 - To reduce the risk of other non-communicable diseases.
 
 
 
 Tailoring the framing of price-related policies in relation to the product they are applied to may increase public acceptability. This may in turn facilitate their implementation.
