Search

Aims: This paper describes the use of three governance tools for health in all policies utilised to facilitate implementation in the municipality of Kuopio, Finland: impact assessments, a city mandate (the Kuopio strategy), and shared budgets., Methods: An explanatory case study was used. Data sources included semistructured interviews with 10 government employees and scholarly literature. Realist scientific methods were used to reveal mechanisms underlying the use of tools in health in all policies., Results: Strong evidence was found supporting initial and new theory/hypotheses regarding the use of each tool in achieving positive implementation outcomes. Impact assessments facilitated health in all policies by enhancing understanding of health implications. The Kuopio strategy aided in implementation by giving credence to health in all policies work via formal authority. Shared budgets promoted intersectoral discussions and understanding, and a sense of ownership, in addition to allowing time to be spent on health in all policies work and not financial deliberation., Conclusions: Findings confirm the efficacious use of three governance tools in implementing health in all policies in Kuopio. Knowledge and evidence-based guidelines on local health in all policies implementation are needed as this policy approach continues to be recognised and adopted as a means to promote population health and health equity., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Much of the research about Health in All Policies (HiAP) implementation is descriptive, and there have been calls for more evaluative evidence to explain how and why successes and failures have occurred. In this cross-case study of six state- and national-level governments (California, Ecuador, Finland, Norway, Scotland and Thailand), we tested hypotheses about win-win strategies for engaging policy-makers in HiAP implementation drawing on components identified in our previous systems framework., Methods: We used two sources of data - key informant interviews and peer-reviewed and grey literature. Using a protocol, we created context-mechanism-outcome pattern configurations to articulate mechanisms that explain how win-win strategies work and fail in different contexts. We then applied our evidence for all cases to the systems framework. We assessed the quality of evidence within and across cases in terms of triangulation of sources and strength of evidence. We also strengthened hypothesis testing using replication logic., Results: We found robust evidence for two mechanisms about how and why win-win strategies build partnerships for HiAP implementation - the use of shared language and the value of multiple outcomes. Within our cases, the triangulation was strong, both hypotheses were supported by literal and contrast replications, and there was no support against them. For the third mechanism studied, using the public-health arguments win-win strategy, we only found evidence from Finland. Based on our systems framework, we expected that the most important system components to using win-win strategies are sectoral objectives, and we found empirical support for this prediction., Conclusions: We conclude that two mechanisms about how and why win-win strategies build partnerships for HiAP implementation - the use of shared language and the value of multiple outcomes - were found as relevant to the six settings. Both of these mechanisms trigger a process of developing synergies and releasing potentialities among different government sectors and these interactions between sectors often work through sectoral objectives. These mechanisms should be considered when designing future HiAP initiatives and their implementation to enhance the emergence of non-health sector policy-makers' engagement.

Since 2008, the government of South Australia has been using a Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach to achieve their strategic plan (South Australia Strategic Plan of 2004). In this commentary, we summarize some of the strengths and contributions of the innovative evaluation framework that was developed by an embedded team of academic researchers. To inform how the use of HiAP is evaluated more generally, we also describe several ideas for extending their approach, including: deeper integration of interdisciplinary theory (eg, public health sciences, policy and political sciences) to make use of existing knowledge and ideas about how and why HiAP works; including a focus on implementation outcomes and using developmental evaluation (DE) partnerships to strengthen the use of HiAP over time; use of systems theory to help understand the complexity of social systems and changing contexts involved in using HiAP; integrating economic considerations into HiAP evaluations to better understand the health, social and economic benefits and trade-offs of using HiAP., (© 2018 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Background: There has been a renewed interest in broadening the research agenda in health promotion to include action on the structural determinants of health, including a focus on the implementation of Health in All Policies (HiAP). Governments that use HiAP face the challenge of instituting governance structures and processes to facilitate policy coordination in an evidence-informed manner. Due to the complexity of government institutions and the policy process, systems theory has been proposed as a tool for evaluating the implementation of HiAP., Methods: Our multiple case study research programme (HiAP Analysis using Realist Methods On International Case Studies - HARMONICS) has relied on systems theory and realist methods to make sense of how and why the practices of policy-makers (including politicians and civil servants) from specific institutional environments (policy sectors) has either facilitated or hindered the implementation of HiAP. Herein, we present a systems framework for the implementation of HiAP based on our experience and empirical findings in studying this process., Results: We describe a system of 14 components within three subsystems of government. Subsystems include the executive (heads of state and their appointed political elites), intersectoral (the milieu of policy-makers and experts working with governance structures related to HiAP) and intrasectoral (policy-makers within policy sectors). Here, HiAP implementation is a process involving interactions between subsystems and their components that leads to the emergence of implementation outcomes, as well as effects on the system components themselves. We also describe the influence of extra-governmental systems, including (but not limited to) the academic sector, third sector, private sector and intergovernmental sector. Finally, we present a case study that applies this framework to understand the implementation of HiAP - the Health 2015 Strategy - in Finland, from 2001 onward., Conclusions: This framework is useful for helping to explain how, why and under what circumstances HiAP has been successfully and unsuccessfully implemented in a sustainable manner. It serves as a tool for researchers to study this process, and for policy-makers and other public health actors to manage this process.

Objectives: Health in All Policies (HiAP) is an approach to public policies across sectors that systematically takes into account the health implications of decisions, seeks synergies, and avoids harmful health impacts in order to improve population health and health equity. HiAP implementation can involve engagement from multiple levels of government; however, factors contributing or hindering HiAP implementation at the local level are largely unexplored. Local is defined as the city or municipal level, wherein government is uniquely positioned to provide leadership for health and where many social determinants of health operate. This paper presents the results of a scoping review on local HiAP implementation., Methods: Peer reviewed articles and grey literature were systematically searched using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Characteristics of articles were then categorized, tallied and described., Results: 23 scholarly articles and four government documents were identified, ranging in publication year from 2002 to 2016 and originating from 14 countries primarily from North America and Europe. A wide range of themes emerged relating to HiAP implementation locally including: funding, shared vision, national leadership, ownership and accountability, local leadership and dedicated staff, Health Impact Assessment, and indicators., Conclusion: Common themes were found in the literature regarding HiAP implementation locally. However, to better clarify these factors to contribute to theory development on HiAP implementation, further research is needed that specifically investigates the facilitators and barriers of HiAP locally within their political and policy context., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: As public opinion is an important part of the health equity policy agenda, it is important to assess public opinion around potential policy interventions to address health inequities. We report on public opinion in Ontario about health equity interventions that address the social determinants of health. We also examine Ontarians' support and predictors for targeted health equity interventions versus universal interventions., Methods: We surveyed 2,006 adult Ontarians through a telephone survey using random digit dialing. Descriptive statistics assessed Ontarians' support for various health equity solutions, and a multinomial logistic regression model was built to examine predictors of this support across specific targeted and broader health equity interventions focused on nutrition, welfare, and housing., Results: There appears to be mixed opinions among Ontarians regarding the importance of addressing health inequities and related solutions. Nevertheless, Ontarians were willing to support a wide range of interventions to address health inequities. The three most supported interventions were more subsidized nutritious food for children (89%), encouraging more volunteers in the community (89%), and more healthcare treatment programs (85%). Respondents who attributed health inequities to the plight of the poor were generally more likely to support both targeted and broader health equity interventions, than neither type. Political affiliation was a strong predictor of support with expected patterns, with left-leaning voters more likely to support both targeted and broader health equity interventions, and right-leaning voters less likely to support both types of interventions., Conclusions: Findings indicate that the Ontario public is more supportive of targeted health equity interventions, but that attributions of inequities and political affiliation are important predictors of support. The Ontario public may be accepting of messaging around health inequities and the social determinants of health depending on how the message is framed (e.g., plight of the poor vs. privilege of the rich). These findings may be instructive for advocates looking to raise awareness of health inequities.

Background: In spite of increasing research into intersections of public policy and health, little evidence shows how policy processes impact the implementation of Health in All Policies (HiAP) initiatives. Our research sought to understand how and why strategies for engaging partners from diverse policy sectors in the implementation of HiAP succeed or fail in order to uncover the underlying social mechanisms contributing to sustainable implementation of HiAP., Methods: In this explanatory multiple case study, we analyzed grey and peer-review literature and key informant interviews to identify mechanisms leading to implementation successes and failures in relation to different strategies for engagement across three case studies (Sweden, Quebec and South Australia), after accounting for the role of different contextual conditions., Findings: Our results yielded no support for the use of awareness-raising or directive strategies as standalone approaches for engaging partners to implement HiAP. However, we found strong evidence that mechanisms related to "win-win" strategies facilitated implementation by increasing perceived acceptability (or buy-in) and feasibility of HiAP implementation across sectors. Win-win strategies were facilitated by mechanisms related to several activities, including: the development of a shared language to facilitate communication between actors from different sectors; integrating health into other policy agendas (eg., sustainability) and use of dual outcomes to appeal to the interests of diverse policy sectors; use of scientific evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of HiAP; and using health impact assessment to make policy coordination for public health outcomes more feasible and to give credibility to policies being developed by diverse policy sectors., Conclusion: Our findings enrich theoretical understanding in an under-unexplored area of intersectoral action. They also provide policy makers with examples of HiAP across wealthy welfare regimes, and improve understanding of successful HiAP implementation practices, including the win-win approach.

To address macro-social and economic determinants of health and equity, there has been growing use of intersectoral action by governments around the world. Health in All Policies (HiAP) initiatives are a special case where governments use cross-sectoral structures and relationships to systematically address health in policymaking by targeting broad health determinants rather than health services alone. Although many examples of HiAP have emerged in recent decades, the reasons for their successful implementation--and for implementation failures--have not been systematically studied. Consequently, rigorous evidence based on systematic research of the social mechanisms that have regularly enabled or hindered implementation in different jurisdictions is sparse. We describe a novel methodology for explanatory case studies that use a scientific realist perspective to study the implementation of HiAP. Our methodology begins with the formulation of a conceptual framework to describe contexts, social mechanisms and outcomes of relevance to the sustainable implementation of HiAP. We then describe the process of systematically explaining phenomena of interest using evidence from literature and key informant interviews, and looking for patterns and themes. Finally, we present a comparative example of how Health Impact Assessment tools have been utilized in Sweden and Quebec to illustrate how this methodology uses evidence to first describe successful practices for implementation of HiAP and then refine the initial framework. The methodology that we describe helps researchers to identify and triangulate rich evidence describing social mechanisms and salient contextual factors that characterize successful practices in implementing HiAP in specific jurisdictions. This methodology can be applied to study the implementation of HiAP and other forms of intersectoral action to reduce health inequities involving multiple geographic levels of government in diverse settings., (Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine © The Author 2014; all rights reserved.)

Background: Health in All Policies (HiAP) is a form of intersectoral action that aims to include the promotion of health in government initiatives across sectors. To date, there has been little study of economic considerations within the implementation of HiAP., Methods: As part of an ongoing program of research on the implementation of HiAP around the world, we examined how economic considerations influence the implementation of HiAP. By economic considerations we mean the cost and financial gain (or loss) of implementing a HiAP process or structure within government, or the cost and financial gain (or loss) of the policies that emerge from such a HiAP process or structure. We examined three jurisdictions: Sweden, Quebec and South Australia. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 12 to 14 key informants in each jurisdiction. Two investigators separately coded transcripts to identify relevant statements., Results: Initial readings of transcripts led to the development of a coding framework for statements related to economic considerations. First, economic evaluations of HiAP are viewed as important for prompting HiAP and many forms of economic evaluation were considered. However, economic evaluations were often absent, informal, or incomplete. Second, funding for HiAP initiatives is important, but is less important than a high-level commitment to intersectoral collaboration. Furthermore, having multiple sources of funding of HiAP can be beneficial, if it increases participation across government, but can also be disadvantageous, if it exposes underlying tensions. Third, HiAP can also highlight the challenge of achieving both economic and social objectives., Conclusions: Our results are useful for elaborating propositions for use in realist multiple explanatory case studies. First, we propose that economic considerations are currently used primarily as a method by health sectors to promote and legitimize HiAP to non-health sectors with the goal of securing resources for HiAP. Second, allocating resources and making funding decisions regarding HiAP are inherently political acts that reflect tensions within government sectors. This study contributes important insights into how intersectoral action works, how economic evaluations of HiAP might be structured, and how economic considerations can be used to both promote HiAP and to present barriers to implementation.

Health in All Policies (HiAP) is becoming increasingly popular as a governmental strategy to improve population health by coordinating action across health and non-health sectors. A variety of intersectoral initiatives may be used in HiAP that frame health determinants as the bridge between policies and health outcomes. The purpose of this glossary is to present concepts and terms useful in understanding the implementation of HiAP as a cross-sectoral policy. The concepts presented here were applied and elaborated over the course of case studies of HiAP in multiple jurisdictions, which used key informant interviews and the systematic review of literature to study the implementation of specific HiAP initiatives.

Background: Health in All Policies (HiAP) encompasses collaboration across government and the consideration of health in various governmental sector's policies and decisions. Despite increasing advocacy, interest, and uptake in HiAP globally, empirical and evaluative studies are underrepresented in this growing literature, particularly literature on HiAP implementation at the local level. Finland has been a pioneer in and champion for HiAP. Methods: A realist explanatory case study design was used to test hypotheses about how HiAP is implemented in Kuopio, Finland. Semi-structured interviews with ten government employees from various sectors were conducted. Data from interviews and literature were analyzed with the aims of uncovering explanatory mechanisms in the form of context-strategy-mechanism-outcome (CSMO) configurations related to implementation strategies. Evidence was evaluated for quality based on triangulation of sources and strength of evidence. We hypothesized that having or creating a common goal between sectors and having committed staff and local leadership would facilitate implementation. Results: Strong evidence supports our hypothesis that having or creating a common goal can aid in positive implementation outcomes at the local level. Common goals can be created by the strategies of having a city mandate, engaging in cross-sectoral discussions, and/or by working together. Policy and political elite leadership led to HiAP implementation success because leaders supported HiAP work, thus providing justification for using time to work intersectorally. How and why the wellbeing committee facilitated implementation included by providing opportunities for discussion and learning, which led to understanding of how non-health decisions impact community wellbeing, and by acting as a conduit for the communication of wellbeing goals to government employees. Conclusion: At the municipal level, having or creating a common goal, leadership from policy and political elites, and the presence of committed staff can facilitate HiAP implementation. Inclusion of not only strategies for HiAP, but also the explanatory mechanisms, aids in elucidating how and why HiAP is successfully implemented in a local setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2008, Ecuador introduced Plan Nacional para el Buen Vivir (PNBV; National Plan for Good Living), which was widely recognized as a promising example of Health in All Policies (HiAP) due to the integration of policy sectors on health and health equity objectives. PBNV was implemented through three successive plans (2009–2013, 2013–2017, 2017–2021). In a time of widening global health inequities, there is growing interest in understanding how politics and governance shape HiAP implementation. The objective of this study was to test specific hypotheses about how, why, to what extent, and under what circumstances HiAP was implemented in Ecuador. Methods: An explanatory case study approach (HiAP Analysis using Realist Methods on International Case Studies—HARMONICS) was used to understand the processes that hindered or facilitated HiAP implementation. Realist methods and systems theory were employed to test hypotheses through analysis of empirical and grey literature, and 19 key informant interviews. This case study focused on processes related to buy-in for a HiAP approach by diverse policy sectors, particularly in relation to the strong mandate and transformative governance approach that were introduced by then-President Rafael Correa's administration to support PNBV. Results: The mandate and governance approach of the HiAP approach achieved buy-in for implementation across diverse sectors. Support for the hypotheses was found through direct evidence about buy-in for HiAP implementation by policy sectors; and indirect evidence about allocation of governmental resources for HiAP implementation. Key mechanisms identified included: influence of political elites; challenges in dealing with political opposition and 'siloed' ways of thinking; and the role of strategies and resources in motivating buy-in. Conclusion: In Ecuador, political elites were a catalyst for mechanisms that impacted buy-in and government funding for HiAP implementation. They raised awareness among policy sectors initially opposed to PNBV about the rationale for changing governance practices, and they provided financial resources to support efforts related to PNBV. Specific mechanisms help explain these phenomena further. Future studies should examine ways that PNBV may have been an impediment to health equity for some marginalized groups while strengthening HiAP implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Canada, there is longstanding evidence of health inequities for racialized groups. The purpose of this study is to understand the effect of current health care policies and practices on racial/ethnic groups and in particular racialized groups at the level of the individual in Toronto's health care system. Methods: This study used a semi-qualitative study design: concept mapping. A purposive sampling strategy was used to recruit participants. Health care users and health care providers from Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area participated in all four concept mapping activities. The sample sizes varied according to the activity. For the rating activity, 41 racialized health care users, 23 non-racialized health care users and 11 health care providers completed this activity. The data analysis was completed using the concept systems software. Results: Participants generated 35 unique statements of ways in which patients feel disrespect or mistreatment when receiving health care. These statements were grouped into five clusters: 'Racial/ethnic and class discrimination', 'Dehumanizing the patient', 'Negligent communication', 'Professional misconduct', and 'Unequal access to health and health services'. Two distinct conceptual regions were identified: 'Viewed as inferior' and 'Unequal medical access'. From the rating activity, racialized health care users reported 'race'/ethnic based discrimination or everyday racism as largely contributing to the challenges experienced when receiving health care; statements rated high for action/change include 'when the health care provider does not complete a proper assessment', 'when the patient's symptoms are ignored or not taken seriously', 'and 'when the health care provider belittles or talks down to the patient'. Conclusions: Our study identifies how racialized health care users experience everyday racism when receiving health care and this is important to consider in the development of future research and interventions aimed at addressing institutional racism in the health care setting. To support the elimination of institutional racism, anti-racist policies are needed to move beyond cultural competence polices and towards addressing the centrality of unequal power social relations and everyday racism in the health care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our study sought to examine the implementation of Health 2015 [a public health programme prepared following the principles of Health in All Policies (HiAP)] between 2001 and 2015 in the context of welfare state restructuring. We used data from the realist multiple explanatory case study by HARMONICS, which focused on political factors (processes) that lead to the (un)successful implementation of programmes following the principles of HiAP. We analyzed data—key informant interviews, grey and scholarly literature—from our Finnish case to examine how Health 2015 implementation has been affected by the changing role of the state. We find that the dismantling of formal funding allocation decreased the capacity of national authorities to exert control over municipalities' health promotion work, diluting the financial arrangements regarding municipal obligations. As a result, most municipalities failed to contribute to Health 2015, resulting in losses for health promotion activities. Our results also point to joining the EU. Whereas the procedures for preparing Finland's unanimous positions on EU matters were useful in harmonizing ideologies on various policy issues between different ministries, joining the EU also increased commercial interests and the strength of the lobby system, leading to the prioritization of economic objectives over public health objectives. Finally, our informants also highlighted the changing relationship between the state and the market, manifested in market deregulation and increasing influence of pro-growth arguments during the implementation of Health 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2012, Canada's federal government announced cuts to refugee health coverage. Evidence suggesting that the cuts represent a social policy failure has since been accumulating, including the 2014 Federal Court ruling ordering their reversal. This explanatory case study uncovers the problem definition process that led policy development by applying coding methods to governmental publications, transcripts of parliamentary proceedings and internal governmental correspondence obtained under the Access to Information Act. The systematic analysis identifies avoidable gaps that occurred and proposes an avenue for strengthening future federal social policy processes so as to avoid negative outcomes such as those that resulted here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]