Search

Introduction: The finding that there is a social gradient in health has prompted considerable interest in public health circles. Recent influential works describing health inequities and their causes do not always argue cogently for a policy framework that would drive the most appropriate solutions differentially across the social gradient This paper aims to develop a practice heuristic for proportionate universalism. Methods: Through a review the proposed heuristic integrates evidence from welfare state and policy research, the literature on universal and targeted policy frameworks, and a multi-level governance approach that adopts the principle of subsidiarity. Results: The proposed heuristic provides a more-grained analysis of different policy approaches, integral for operationalizing the concept of proportionate universalism. Conclusion: The proposed framework would allow governments at all levels, social policy developers and bureaucrats, public health professionals and activists to consider the appropriateness of distinctive policy objectives across distinctive population needs within universal welfare state principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inequalities in the distribution of the social determinants of health are now a widely recognised problem, seen as requiring immediate and significant action (CSDH. Closing the Gap in a Generation. Geneva: WHO; 2008; Marmot M. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review. Strategic Review of Health Inequalitites inEngland Post-2010. London; 2010). Despite recommendations for action on the social determinants of health dating back to the 1980s, inequalities in many countries continue to grow. In this paper we provide an analysis of recommendations from major social determinants of health reports using the concept of 'system leverage points'. Increasingly, powerful and effective action on the social determinants of health is conceptualised as that which targets government action on the non-health issues which drive health outcomes. Methods: Recommendations for action from 6 major national reports on the social determinants of health were sourced. Recommendations from each report were coded against two frameworks: Johnston et al's recently developed Intervention Level Framework (ILF) and Meadow's seminal '12 places to intervene in a system' (Johnston LM, Matteson CL, Finegood DT. Systems Science and Obesity Policy: A Novel Framework forAnalyzing and Rethinking Population- Level Planning. American journal of public health. 2014;(0):e1-e9; Meadows D. Thinking in Systems. USA: Sustainability Institute; 1999) (N = 166). Results: Our analysis found several major changes over time to the types of recommendations being made, including a shift towards paradigmatic change and away from individual interventions. Results from Meadow's framework revealed a number of potentially powerful system intervention points that are currently underutilised in public health thinking regarding action on the social determinants of health. Conclusion: When viewed through a systems lens, it is evident that the power of an intervention comes not from where it is targeted, but rather how it works to create change within the system. This means that efforts targeted at government policy can have only limited effectiveness if they are aimed at changing relatively weak leverage points. Our analysis raises further (and more nuanced) questions about what effective action on the social determinants of health looks like. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inequalities in the distribution of the social determinants of health are now a widely recognised problem, seen as requiring immediate and significant action (CSDH. Closing the Gap in a Generation. Geneva: WHO; 2008; Marmot M. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review. Strategic Review of Health Inequalitites inEngland Post-2010. London; 2010). Despite recommendations for action on the social determinants of health dating back to the 1980s, inequalities in many countries continue to grow. In this paper we provide an analysis of recommendations from major social determinants of health reports using the concept of ‘system leverage points’. Increasingly, powerful and effective action on the social determinants of health is conceptualised as that which targets government action on the non-health issues which drive health outcomes. Methods: Recommendations for action from 6 major national reports on the social determinants of health were sourced. Recommendations from each report were coded against two frameworks: Johnston et al’s recently developed Intervention Level Framework (ILF) and Meadow’s seminal ‘12 places to intervene in a system’ (Johnston LM, Matteson CL, Finegood DT. Systems Science and Obesity Policy: A Novel Framework forAnalyzing and Rethinking Population- Level Planning. American journal of public health. 2014;(0):e1-e9; Meadows D. Thinking in Systems. USA: Sustainability Institute; 1999) (N = 166). Results: Our analysis found several major changes over time to the types of recommendations being made, including a shift towards paradigmatic change and away from individual interventions. Results from Meadow’s framework revealed a number of potentially powerful system intervention points that are currently underutilised in public health thinking regarding action on the social determinants of health. Conclusion: When viewed through a systems lens, it is evident that the power of an intervention comes not from where it is targeted, but rather how it works to create change within the system. This means that efforts targeted at government policy can have only limited effectiveness if they are aimed at changing relatively weak leverage points. Our analysis raises further (and more nuanced) questions about what effective action on the social determinants of health looks like. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is now well documented that many of the key drivers of health reside in our everyday living conditions. In the last two decades, public health has urged political action on these critical social determinants of health (SDH). As noted by the World Health Organisation, encouraging action in this area is challenging. Recent research has argued that public health researchers need to gain a deeper understanding of the complex and changing rationalities of policymaking. This, it seems, is the crucial next step for social determinants of health research. In this paper, we turn our attention to the practitioners of ‘the art of government’, in order to gain insight into how to secure upstream change for the SDH. Through interviews with policy actors (including politicians, senior government advisors, senior public servants and experienced policy lobbyists) the research sought to understand the nature of government and policymaking, as it pertains to action on the SDH. Through exploring the policy process, we examine how SDH discourses, evidence and strategies align with existing policy processes in the Australian context. Participants indicated that approaches to securing change that are based on linear conceptualisations of the policy process (as often found in public health) may be seen as ‘out of touch’ with the messy reality of policymaking. Rather, a more dialogic approach that embraces philosophical and moral reasoning (alongside evidence) may be more effective. Based on our findings, we recommend that SDH advocates develop a deeper awareness of the political and policy structures and the discursive conventions they seek to influence within specific settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, public health research has become increasingly focused on issues of social inequality and social disadvantage. This is because social issues, such as poor housing and unemployment, have been found to impact health significantly, and are now referred to as 'the social determinants of health'. As a result of this shift, public health is now principally concerned with what are historically considered to be social policy issues. This paper discusses the confluence of public health and social policy; it examines the opportunities and risks posed by this convergence for those working in social policy seeking to reduce poverty and inequality. We argue that, while much can be gained in the two fields by working more closely together, there remain fundamental differences in perspectives and approaches. In order to maximise benefits, these points of difference need to be thought through sooner rather than later. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Personalisation is a growing international policy paradigm that aims to create both improved outcomes for individuals, and reduce fiscal pressures on government, by giving greater choice and control to citizens accessing social services. In personalisation schemes, individuals purchase services from a 'service market' using individual budgets or vouchers given to them by governments. Personalisation schemes have grown in areas such as disability and aged care across Europe, the UK and Australia. There is a wealth of evidence in public health and health care that demonstrates that practically all forms of social services, programs and interventions produce unequal benefit depending on socio-economic position. Research has found that skills required to successfully negotiate service systems leads to disproportionate benefit to the 'middle class. With an unprecedented emphasis on individual skills, personalisation has even greater potential to widen and entrench social inequalities. Despite the increase in numbers of people now accessing services through such schemes, there has been no examination of how different social groups benefit from these schemes, how this widens and entrenches social inequities, and – in turn – what can be done to mitigate this. Methods: This article presents a meta-review of the evidence on personalisation and inequality. A qualitative meta-analysis was undertaking of existing research into personalisation schemes in social services to identify whether and how such schemes are impacting different socio-economic groups. Results: No research was identified which seeks to understand the impact of personalisation schemes on inequality. However, a number of 'proxies' for social class were identified, such as education, income, and employment, which had a bearing on outcome. We provide a theoretical framework for understanding why this is occurring, using concepts drawn from Bourdieu. Conclusion: Personalisation schemes are likely to be entrenching, and potentially expanding, social inequalities. More attention needs to be given to this aspect of personal budgets by policymakers and researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lifestyle drift is increasingly seen as a barrier to broad action on the social determinants of health. The term is currently used in the population health literature to describe how broad policy initiatives for tackling inequalities in health that start off with social determinants (upstream) approach drift downstream to largely individual lifestyle factors, as well as the general trend of investing a the individual level. Lifestyle drift occurs despite the on-going efforts of public health advocates, such as anti-obesity campaigners, to draw attention to the social factors which shape health behavior and outcomes. In this article, we explore whether the sociology of social problems can help understand lifestyle drift in the context of obesity. Specifically, we apply Jamrozik and Nocella's residualist conversion model to the problem of obesity in order to explore whether such an approach can provide greater insight into the processes that underpin lifestyle drift and inform our attempts to mitigate it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction:Policy and regulatory interventions aimed at creating environments more conducive to physical activity (PA) are an important component of strategies to improve population levels of PA. However, many potentially effective policies are not being broadly implemented. This study sought to identify potential policy/regulatory interventions targeting PA environments, and barriers/facilitators to their implementation at the Australian state/territory government level. Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with senior representatives from state/territory governments, statutory authorities and non-government organisations (n = 40) to examine participants': 1) suggestions for regulatory interventions to create environments more conducive to PA; 2) support for preselected regulatory interventions derived from a literature review. Thematic and constant comparative analyses were conducted. Results:Policy interventions most commonly suggested by participants fell into two areas: 1) urban planning and provision of infrastructure to promote active travel; 2) discouraging the use of private motorised vehicles. Of the eleven preselected interventions presented to participants, interventions relating to walkability/cycling and PA facilities received greatest support. Interventions involving subsidisation (of public transport, PA-equipment) and the provision of more public transport infrastructure received least support. These were perceived as not economically viable or unlikely to increase PA levels. Dominant barriers were: the powerful 'road lobby', weaknesses in the planning system and the cost of potential interventions. Facilitators were: the provision of evidence, collaboration across sectors, and synergies with climate change/ environment agendas. Conclusion:This study points to how difficult it will be to achieve policy change when there is a powerful 'road lobby' and government investment prioritises road infrastructure over PA-promoting infrastructure. It highlights the pivotal role of the planning and transport sectors in implementing PA-promoting policy, however suggests the need for clearer guidelines and responsibilities for state and local government levels in these areas. Health outcomes need to be given more direct consideration and greater priority within non-health sectors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective is to identify and test regulatory options for creating supportive environments for physical activity and healthy eating among local governments in Victoria, Australia. A literature review identified nine potential areas for policy intervention at local government level, including the walking environment and food policy. Discussion documents were drafted which summarized the public health evidence and legal framework for change in each area. Levels of support for particular interventions were identified through semi-structured interviews conducted with key informants from local government. We conducted 11 key informant interviews and found support for policy intervention to create environments supportive of physical activity but little support for policy changes to promote healthy eating. Participants reported lack of relevance and competing priorities as reasons for not supporting particular interventions. Promoting healthy eating environments was not considered a priority for local government above food safety. There is a real opportunity for action to prevent obesity at local government level (e.g. mandate the promotion of healthy eating environments). For local government to have a role in the promotion of healthy food environments, regulatory change and suitable funding are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social exclusion and social inclusion have been popular policy themes in the UK and Europe, and made more modest appearances in countries such as Canada and New Zealand, for over a decade. In 2007, the Australian Government became the latest country in this trend of structuring social policy around issues of exclusion, launching its ‘Social Inclusion Agenda’ (SIA). The SIA aims to increase social and economic participation through a reorientation of social services and increased attention to issues of equity. At the same time, there has been international consensus on the importance of the social determinants of health (such as education, income and gender) for individuals and populations. The SIA has the potential to make a substantive contribution to the social determinants of health and hence the health and wellbeing of the population. However, much will depend on the extent to which international discourses of inclusion, exclusion, structural inequality and third way politics are taken up, adapted or discarded in the Australian context. At this formative stage of the SIA's development, the public health community is in a unique position to contribute to the development and direction of the SIA to secure the potential health gains it offers. This article outlines the formulation of social inclusion policy in Australia, and discusses the potential promises and pitfalls of a social inclusion approach. Our examination of the Australian experience of social inclusion policy provides an opportunity to reflect on the relationship between social inclusion and health internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]