Search

Background. This study examines the diabetes-related health policy programs (HPPs) implemented in Poland between 2012 and 2022. Material and methods. The material of the study was a collection of all HPPs submitted by local government units (LGUs) in Poland between 2012 and 2022, among which diabetes-related programs were identified. The full texts of the diabetes-related programs were subject to retrospective analysis, taking into account the characteristics of the measures envisaged in them, as well as information about the submitting LGU. Results. Out of 1974 programs submitted by LGUs, only 2.3% were diabetes-related, and merely 1.3% were implemented. All programs focused solely on type 2 diabetes. 43.8% of provinces, 4.2% of counties and 1% of communes had implemented at least one diabetes-related program. Secondary prevention and health promotion were emphasized, with little attention to primary prevention. Common interventions included health education, BMI/WHR measurements, and FPG/OGTT tests. Conclusions. HPPs are rarely used in diabetes prevention by LGUs. There are barriers, including limited legal authority for certain interventions, inadequate expertise in program design, and disparities in resources and capacities among LGUs. In the article, recommendations are made for improving diabetes-related HPPs, including the improved defining of target populations, incorporating primary prevention strategies, and providing support and training to local administration workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Poland, there are numerous diversity in the field of population health. They are often linked not only to socio-economic status but also to location. The disparities occur between regions as well as within regions. The disparities occur between regions as well as within regions. Eliminating these disproportions is also the responsibility of public authorities in the field of, for example, spatial policy in order to improve the living conditions of the community, including improving the health of the population. The aim of this study is to attempt to determine whether there are differences in health in spatial terms, especially differences between cities with county rights, in connection with health programs implemented by these cities. For the purposes of this study, we analyzed health policy programs that received a positive or conditionally positive opinion from the President of the Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Tariffication and were implemented in the year 2020. The findings have demonstrated significant variations in the number of health programs both between regions and within individual regions, underscoring the need for a nuanced and tailored approach to public health strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Polityka Spoleczna is the property of Institute of Labour & Social / Instytut Pracy i Spraw Socjalnych and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Health inequities are defined as systematic differences in health that can be avoided by appropriate policy intervention, and for this reason are considered unfair and unjust. Health inequities are not solely related to access to health care services; they are caused by the unequal distribution of these determinants of health, including power, income, goods and services, poor and unequal living conditions, and the differences in healthdamaging behaviours that these wider determinants produce. They are defined as systematic differences in health that can be avoided by appropriate policy intervention and that are therefore deemed to be unfair and unjust. To be able to devise effective action, we first need to understand the causes of these inequities in health. Health inequities are not solely related to access to health care services; there are many determinants related to living and working conditions, as well as the overall macro-policies prevailing in a country or region. The differences in social and economic development are reflected in health inequities that can be seen both between and within countries. Furthermore, evidence shows that even in the more affluent countries health inequities are seen in all parts of Europe. In the WHO European Region the gap in life expectancy between countries is 17 years for men and 12 years for women. Inequities in health are caused by the unequal distribution of these determinants of health, including power, income, goods and services, poor and unequal living conditions, and the differences in health-damaging behaviours that these wider determinants produce. The experiences of various countries indicates that in order to narrow the health inequities countries have to improve living conditions including the provision of comprehensive welfare systems, and high-quality education and health services. The Strategy Health 2020 developed and approved by the WHO European Region countries is focusing on reducing inequities in health, which are key strategic objectives of endorsed by the 53 Member States. It emphasizes the need to strengthen population-based prevention on the social determinants of health. Also, in 2009 the European Commission developed European Union (EU) Health Strategy Programme titled "Solidarity in health: reducing health inequalities in the European Union". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper concerns the events that occurred in the span of thirty years - from the 1986 Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion to the 2016 Vienna Declaration supporting it. The purpose, however, is not to discuss the substance of these events, but what should be defined as their context, in particular the political one. The text is divided into two parts relating to both of the documents mentioned, where the content of the message about health promotion formulated at that time is presented, together with the context in which it was created and received, and - briefly - its consequences. With reference to the context of the Vienna document, the issue of post-truth era will be discussed in more detail. The analyses devoted to the two parts will include addressing two problems that affect the issues under consideration: the concept of Health in All Policies and the issue of the susceptibility of various social classes to the arguments presented in health promotion programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of "Health in All Policies" (HiAP) was presented for the first time, under this name, in 2006 in a book devoted to the issue. Even if traditionally it relied on ideas of "intersectoral cooperation" or "healthy public policy" which had been disseminated and popularized by World Health Organization it was unquestionable contribution by experts and politicians from Finland to make it theoretically relevant and politically attractive. The initiators enriched the concept itself and furnished sufficient amount of energy to acquire partisans in many countries and international institutions. The concept is founded on models accepting many determinants of health and their dynamic nature. Many factors impact health status, it changes over time and they evolve as well. Even when external factors are not taken into account individual's health goes forward, or rather backward. A great majority of all these factors lie outside control of medicine, medical sciences and ministries of health. The multi causational models of health determinants help to identify these areas of human activities - undertaken also in a form of many public policies - where processes affecting health may appear. Very often the authors of a public policy remains unaware that his/her initiative can influence health and sometimes the results are deplorable. The decision makers can avoid taking improper decisions provided they have sufficient consciousness and access to necessary information. It is also workable of in a government a special job is set up to warn in advance that a project or programme under consideration may cause health consequences. It is very practical to use procedures and tools offered by Health Impact Assessment (HIA) approach but it is essential to guarantee all indispensable political acceptance and support to make the process appropriately efficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]