Housing, health and master planning: rules of engagement

Governance of Intersectoral Collaborations for Population Health and to Reduce Health Inequalities in High-Income Countries: A Complexity-Informed Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP) approach has been widely advocated as a way to involve multiple government sectors in addressing health inequalities, but implementation attempts have not always produced the expected results. Explaining how HiAP-style collaborations have been governed may offer insights into how to improve population health and reduce health inequalities.

METHODS

Theoretically focused systematic review. Synthesis of evidence from evaluative studies into a causal logic model.

RESULTS

Thirty-one publications based on 40 case studies from nine high-income countries were included. Intersectoral collaborations for population health and equity were multi-component and multi-dimensional with collaborative activity spanning policy, strategy, service design and service delivery. Governance of intersectoral collaboration included structural and relational components. Both internal and external legitimacy and credibility delivered collaborative power, which in turn enabled intersectoral collaboration. Internal legitimacy was driven by multiple structural elements and processes. Many of these were instrumental in developing (often-fragile) relational trust. Internal credibility was supported by multi-level collaborations that were adequately resourced and shared power. External legitimacy and credibility was created through meaningful community engagement, leadership that championed collaborations and the identification of 'win-win' strategies. External factors such as economic shocks and short political cycles reduced collaborative power.

CONCLUSION

This novel review, using systems thinking and causal loop representations, offers insights into how collaborations can generate internal and external legitimacy and credibility. This offers promise for future collaborative activity for population health and equity; it presents a clearer picture of what structural and relational components and dynamics collaborative partners can focus on when planning and implementing HiAP initiatives. The limits of the literature base, however, does not make it possible to identify if or how this might deliver improved population health or health equity.

Housing and health in vulnerable social groups: an overview and bibliometric analysis

Previous studies have confirmed that poor living conditions can lead to a wide range of health problems. However, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, vulnerable groups in unstable housing are more susceptible to disease. This study aims to systematically examine the housing and health problems of vulnerable groups using a bibliometric approach to explore how housing causes health problems, types of health illnesses, and coping strategies. It is found that the poor housing mechanism, persistent inequalities, and poor housing environments have a significant impact on the health of vulnerable groups. Therefore, the government must make concerted efforts across all sectors to ensure that the housing and health care needs of vulnerable groups are improved, and that housing security standards and related policies are improved; targeted safety plans are formulated with community as the carrier, taking into account the characteristics of vulnerable groups; and new information technology is widely used to provide medical convenience for vulnerable groups. It is hoped that the research in this paper can arouse social attention to the health of vulnerable groups and improve their health from the perspective of housing, so as to point out the direction for solving the housing health problems of vulnerable groups in the future.

Quality and reporting standards, resources, training materials and information for realist evaluation: the RAMESES II project

Background

Many of the problems confronting policy- and decision-makers, evaluators and researchers today are complex, as are the interventions designed to tackle them. Their success depends both on individuals’ responses and on the wider context of people’s lives. Realist evaluation tries to make sense of these complex interventions. It is a form of theory-driven evaluation, based on realist philosophy, that aims to understand why these complex interventions work, how, for whom, in what context and to what extent.

Objectives

Our objectives were to develop (a) quality standards, (b) reporting standards, (c) resources and training materials, (d) information and resources for patients and other lay participants and (e) to build research capacity among those interested in realist evaluation.

Methods

To develop the quality and reporting standards, we undertook a thematic review of the literature, supplemented by our content expertise and feedback from presentations and workshops. We synthesised findings into briefing materials for realist evaluations for the Delphi panel (a structured method using experts to develop consensus). To develop our resources and training materials, we drew on our experience in developing and delivering education materials, feedback from the Delphi panel, the RAMESES JISCMail e-mail list, training workshops and feedback from training sessions. To develop information and resources for patients and other lay participants in realist evaluation, we convened a group consisting of patients and the public. We built research capacity by running workshops and training sessions.

Results

Our literature review identified 152 realist evaluations, and when 37 of these had been analysed we were able to develop our briefing materials for the Delphi panel. The Delphi panel comprised 35 members from 27 organisations across six countries and five disciplines. Within three rounds, the panels had reached a consensus on 20 key reporting standards. The quality standards consist of eight criteria for realist evaluations. We developed resources and training materials for 15 theoretical and methodological topics. All resources are available online (www.ramesesproject.org). We provided methodological support to 17 projects and presentations or workshops to help build research capacity in realist evaluations to 29 organisations. Finally, we produced a generic patient information leaflet for lay participants in realist evaluations.

Limitations

Our project had ambitious goals that created a substantial workload, leading to the need to prioritise objectives. For example, we truncated the literature review and focused on standards and training material development.

Conclusions

Although realist evaluation holds much promise, misunderstandings and misapplications of it are common. We hope that our project’s outputs and activities will help to address these problems. Our resources are the start of an iterative journey of refinement and development of better resources for realist evaluations. The RAMESES II project seeks not to produce the last word on these issues, but to capture current expertise and establish an agreed state of the science. Much methodological development is needed in realist evaluation but this can take place only if there is a sufficient pool of highly skilled realist evaluators. Capacity building is the next key step in realist evaluation.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

What makes health impact assessments successful? Factors contributing to effectiveness in Australia and New Zealand

BACKGROUND

While many guidelines explain how to conduct Health Impact Assessments (HIAs), less is known about the factors that determine the extent to which HIAs affect health considerations in the decision making process. We investigated which factors are associated with increased or reduced effectiveness of HIAs in changing decisions and in the implementation of policies, programs or projects. This study builds on and tests the Harris and Harris-Roxas' conceptual framework for evaluating HIA effectiveness, which emphasises context, process and output as key domains.

METHODS

We reviewed 55 HIA reports in Australia and New Zealand from 2005 to 2009 and conducted surveys and interviews for 48 of these HIAs. Eleven detailed case studies were undertaken using document review and stakeholder interviews. Case study participants were selected through purposeful and snowball sampling. The data were analysed by thematic content analysis. Findings were synthesised and mapped against the conceptual framework. A stakeholder forum was utilised to test face validity and practical adequacy of the findings.

RESULTS

We found that some features of HIA are essential, such as the stepwise but flexible process, and evidence based approach. Non-essential features that can enhance the impact of HIAs include capacity and experience; 'right person right level'; involvement of decision-makers and communities; and relationships and partnerships. There are contextual factors outside of HIA such as fit with planning and decision making context, broader global context and unanticipated events, and shared values and goals that may influence a HIA. Crosscutting factors include proactive positioning, and time and timeliness. These all operate within complex open systems, involving multiple decision-makers, levels of decision-making, and points of influence. The Harris and Harris-Roxas framework was generally supported.

CONCLUSION

We have confirmed previously identified factors influencing effectiveness of HIA and identified new factors such as proactive positioning. Our findings challenge some presumptions about 'right' timing for HIA and the rationality and linearity of decision-making processes. The influence of right timing on decision making needs to be seen within the context of other factors such as proactive positioning. This research can help HIA practitioners and researchers understand and identify what can be enhanced within the HIA process. Practitioners can adapt the flexible HIA process to accommodate the external contextual factors identified in this report.

'Including health in systems responsible for urban planning': a realist policy analysis research programme

INTRODUCTION

Realist methods are increasingly being used to investigate complex public health problems. Despite the extensive evidence base clarifying the built environment as a determinant of health, there is limited knowledge about how and why land-use planning systems take on health concerns. Further, the body of research related to the wider determinants of health suffers from not using political science knowledge to understand how to influence health policy development and systems. This 4-year funded programme of research investigates how the land-use planning system in New South Wales, Australia, incorporates health and health equity at multiple levels.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The programme uses multiple qualitative methods to develop up to 15 case studies of different activities of the New South Wales land-use planning system. Comparison cases from other jurisdictions will be included where possible and useful. Data collection includes publicly available documentation and purposively sampled stakeholder interviews and focus groups of up to 100 participants across the cases. The units of analysis in each case are institutional structures (rules and mandates constraining and enabling actors), actors (the stakeholders, organisations and networks involved, including health-focused agencies), and ideas (policy content, information, and framing). Data analysis will focus on and develop propositions concerning the mechanisms and conditions within and across each case leading to inclusion or non-inclusion of health. Data will be refined using additional political science and sociological theory. Qualitative comparative analysis will compare cases to develop policy-relevant propositions about the necessary and sufficient conditions needed to include health issues.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics has been approved by Sydney University Human Research Ethics Committee (2014/802 and 2015/178). Given the nature of this research we will incorporate stakeholders, often as collaborators, throughout. We outline our research translation strategies following best practice approaches.

Health Impact Assessment in New South Wales & Health in All Policies in South Australia: differences, similarities and connections

BACKGROUND

Policy decisions made within all sectors have the potential to influence population health and equity. Recognition of this provides impetus for the health sector to engage with other sectors to facilitate the development of policies that recognise, and aim to improve, population outcomes. This paper compares the approaches implemented to facilitate such engagement in two Australian jurisdictions. These are Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in New South Wales (NSW) and Health in All Policies (HiAP) in South Australia (SA).

METHODS

The comparisons presented in this paper emerged through collaborative activities between stakeholders in both jurisdictions, including critical reflection on HIA and HiAP practice, joint participation in a workshop, and the preparation of a discussion paper written to inform a conference plenary session. The plenary provided an opportunity for the incorporation of additional insights from policy practitioners and academics.

RESULTS

Comparison of the approaches indicates that their overall intent is similar. Differences exist, however, in the underpinning principles, technical processes and tactical strategies applied. These differences appear to stem mainly from the organisational positioning of the work in each state and the extent to which each approach is linked to government systems.

CONCLUSIONS

The alignment of the HiAP approach with the systems of the SA Government increases the likelihood of influence within the policy cycle. However, the political priorities and sensitivities of the SA Government limit the scope of HiAP work. The implementation of the HIA approach from outside government in NSW means greater freedom to collaborate with a range of partners and to assess policy issues in any area, regardless of government priorities. However, the comparative distance of HIA from NSW Government systems may reduce the potential for impact on government policy. The diversity in the technical and tactical strategies that are applied within each approach provides insight into how the approaches have been tailored to suit the particular contexts in which they have been implemented.

The fit between health impact assessment and public policy: practice meets theory

PURPOSE AND SETTING

The last decade has seen increased use of health impact assessment (HIA) to influence public policies developed outside the Health sector. HIA has developed as a structured, linear and technical process to incorporate health, broadly defined, into policy. This is potentially incongruent with complex, non-linear and tactical policy making which does not necessarily consider health. HIA research has however not incorporated existing public policy theory to explain practitioners' experiences with HIA and policy. This research, therefore, used public policy theory to explain HIA practitioners' experiences and investigate 'What is the fit between HIA and public policy?'

METHODS

Empirical findings from nine in-depth interviews with international HIA practitioners were re-analysed against public policy theory. We reviewed the HIA literature for inclusion of public policy theories then compared these for compatibility with our critical realist methodology and the empirical data. The theory 'Policy Cycles and Subsystems' (Howlett et al., 2009) was used to re-analyse the empirical data.

FINDINGS

HIAs for policy are necessarily both tactical and technical. Within policy subsystems using HIA to influence public policy requires tactically positioning health as a relevant public policy issue and, to facilitate this, institutional support for collaboration between Public Health and other sectors. HIA fits best within the often non-linear public policy cycle as a policy formulation instrument. HIA provides, tactically and technically, a space for practical reasoning to navigate facts, values and processes underlying the substantive and procedural dimensions of policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Re-analysing empirical experiential data using existing public policy theory provided valuable explanations for future research, policy and practice concerning why and how HIA fits tactically and technically with the world of public policy development. The use of theory and empiricism opens up important possibilities for future research in the search for better explanations of complex practical problems.