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

Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) reporting tool: developing a checklist for policymakers

INTRODUCTION

Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) is a decision support tool that shows users how a new program, policy, or innovation affects health equity in different population groups. Various HEIA reporting and dissemination tools are available, nevertheless, a practical standard tool to present the results of HEIA in an appropriate period to policymakers is lacking. This work reports the development of a tool (a checklist) for HEIA reporting at the decision-making level, aiming to promote the application of HEIA evidence for improving health equity.

METHODS

This is a mixed-method study that was carried out over four stages in 2022-2023: 1) identifying HEIA models, checklists, and reporting instruments; 2) development of the initial HEIA reporting checklist; 3) checklist validation; and 4) piloting the checklist. We also analyzed the Face, CVR, and CVI validity of the tool.

RESULTS

We developed the initial checklist through analysis of 53 included studies and the opinions of experts. The final checklist comprised five sections: policy introduction (eight subsections), managing the HEIA of policy (seven subsections), scope of the affected population (three subsections), HEIA results (seven subsections), and recommendations (three subsections).

CONCLUSION

Needs assessment, monitoring during implementation, health impact assessment, and other tools such as monitoring outcome reports, appraisals, and checklists are all methods for assessing health equity impact. Other equity-focused indicators, such as the equity lens and equity appraisal, may have slightly different goals than the HEIA. Similarly, the formats for presenting and publishing HEIA reports might vary, depending on the target population and the importance of the report.

Mental Health and Mental Wellbeing Impact Assessment Frameworks-A Systematic Review

Mental health is largely shaped by the daily environments in which people live their lives, with positive components of mental health emphasising the importance of feeling good and functioning effectively. Promoting mental health relies on broad-based actions over multiple sectors, which can be difficult to measure. Different types of Impact Assessment (IA) frameworks allow for a structured approach to evaluating policy actions on different levels. A systematic review was performed exploring existing IA frameworks relating to mental health and mental wellbeing and how they have been used. A total of 145 records were identified from the databases, from which 9 articles were included in the review, with a further 6 studies included via reference list and citation chaining. Five different mental-health-related IA frameworks were found to be implemented in a variety of settings, mostly in relation to evaluating community actions. A Narrative Synthesis summarised key themes from the 15 included articles. Findings highlight the need for participatory approaches in IA, which have the dual purpose of informing the IA evaluation and advocating for the need to include mental health in policy development. However, it is important to ensure that IA frameworks are user-friendly, designed to be used by laypeople in a variety of sectors and that IA frameworks are operational in terms of time and monetary resources.

Why is health improvement policy so difficult to secure?

Many governments seek to improve population health, and some seek to reduce health inequalities. Yet, there remains a large gap between their policy statements and actual outcomes. Perennial questions in public health research include: why is this gap so large, why does it endure, and what can be done to close it? This essay uses political science and policy studies insights to address these questions, focusing on the distinctive issues that relate to (1) broad aims like 'prevention', (2) specific strategies for health improvement, or (3) new events. On the one hand, the idea of 'prevention' has widespread appeal, when governments think they can save money or reduce inequalities by preventing problems happening or worsening. While health protection seeks to inoculate populations against communicable diseases, health improvement strategies, including 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP), primarily address non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Further, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlights the unequal spread of ill health, showing that preventive health ideas should be at the core of policy. On the other hand, there is a large gap between rhetorical and substantive commitment to prevention, a continuous HiAP implementation gap, and a tendency for COVID-19 health protection to overshadow health improvement. Explaining each problem clearly helps to identify the factors that generally undermine prevention policies and those specific to more detailed strategies like HiAP or events like COVID-19. We do not prioritise leadership or 'political will' as the policymaking problem. Instead, we identify the systemic factors that apply to even the most sincere, competent, and energetic policymakers. Health improvement policy is typically undermined by a lack of: clarity about what prevention means in practice; congruity between the prevention agenda (emphasising the need for major change to policy and policymaking) and routine government business; and, capacity to overcome obstacles to policy change.

What are the Tools Available for the Job? Coordination Instruments at Uganda's Central Government Level and Their Implications for Multisectoral Action for Health

Managing sectoral interdependences requires functional tools that facilitate coordinated multisectoral efforts. The pursuit of multisectoral action (MSA) for health is intrinsically linked to broader efforts in many governments to achieve greater internal coordination. This research explores the nature of coordination instruments for MSA at the national level in Uganda and the complexities of how these tools play out in implementation. Data was collected through 26 purposive in-depth interviews with national-level stakeholders, including government officials and non-state actors, and a review of selected government strategic documents. An adapted framework by Bouckaert and colleagues (2010) was used to establish a typology of coordination instruments (CIs) and break them down into structural and management tools, and infer their underlying coordination mechanisms based on their design and operational features. A multitheoretical framework guided the analysis of the factors influencing the implementation dynamics and functioning of the tools. The study found that the government of Uganda uses a range of structural and management instrument mixes mutually influencing each other and mainly based on hierarchy and network mechanisms. These instruments constitute and generate the resources that structure interorganisational relationships across vertical and horizontal boundaries. The instrument mixes also create hybrid institutional configurations that generate complementary but at times conflicting influences. This study demonstrated that a contextualized examination of specific coordination tools can be enhanced by delineating the underlying institutional forms of ideal type mechanisms. Such an approach can inspire more complex analysis and comparisons of CIs within and across government levels, policy domains or issues over time. Health policy and systems research needs to pay attention to the instrument mixes in government systems and their dynamic interaction across policy issues and over time.

'Writing budgets for meetings and teas?': a multitheoretical analysis of intragovernmental coordination for multisectoral action for health in Uganda

Introduction

Coordination across policy domains and among government agencies is considered critical for addressing complex challenges such as inequities, urbanisation and climate change. However, the factors influencing coordination among government entities in low-income and middle-income countries are not well known. Although theory building is well suited to explain complex social phenomena, theory-based health policy and systems studies are limited. This paper examined the factors influencing coordination among government entities at the central government level in Uganda.

Methods

This theory-based case study used a qualitative approach. Primary data were collected through 26 national-level key informant interviews supplemented with a review of 6 national strategic and policy documents. Data were analysed abductively using a multitheoretical framework combining the transaction cost economics theory, principal–agent theory, resource dependence theory and political economy perspective.

Results

Complex and dynamic interactions among different factors, both internal and external to the government, were found. Interdependencies, coordination costs, non-aligned interests, and institutional and ideational aspects were crucial factors. The power dynamics within the bureaucratic structures and the agency of the coordinated entities influence the effectiveness of coordination efforts. New public management principles promoted in the 1990s by donor institutional strengthening projects (characterised by agencification and setting up of independent agencies to circumvent ineffective big line ministries) created further fragmentation within the government. The donors and international agendas were occasionally supportive but sometimes counterintuitive to national coordination efforts.

Conclusion

The multitheoretical framework derives a deep analysis of the factors that influence organisational decision-making to coordinate with others or not. Achieving intragovernmental coordination requires more time and resources to guide the software aspects of institutional change—articulating a shared vision on coordination across government. Shaping incentives to align interests, managing coordination costs and navigating historical-institutional contexts are critical. Countervailing political actions and power dynamics should be judiciously navigated.

Strategic Assessment of Neighbourhood Environmental Impacts on Mental Health in the Lisbon Region (Portugal): A Strategic Focus and Assessment Framework at the Local Level

Scientific evidence shows that each place/environment generates specific conditions with associated impacts on the mental health and well-being of the population. A holistic, multilevel and integrated environmental approach to mental health enhances the understanding of this phenomena, supporting the local decision-making processes to improve spatial planning of neighbourhood environments. The aim of this study is to develop a strategic assessment framework, based on four municipalities in the Lisbon Region (Portugal), that explores policy and planning initiatives capable of generating favourable neighbourhood environmental conditions for mental health while also detecting risks. Using baseline results of significant statistical associations between individuals’ perceptions of their neighbourhood environment and their mental health in the Lisbon Region, a Strategic Focus on Environmental and Mental Health Assessment framework (SEmHA) was built, by applying the methodology “Strategic Thinking for Sustainability” in Strategic Environmental Assessment, developed by Partidário in 2012. Taking into account the promotion of the population’s mental health, four critical decision factors of neighbourhood environments were identified: (1) public space quality (e.g., improving sense of place), (2) physical environment quality (e.g., low levels of noise exposure), (3) professional qualification and creation of economic activities (e.g., attracting new economic activities), and (4) services and facilities (e.g., improving access to health and education services). The proposed strategic focus and assessment framework contributes to ensuring that interventions in neighbourhood environments truly achieve community mental health benefits and reduce inequalities, thus helping policy makers to assess impacts at the local level.

Health Impact Assessments of Health Sector Proposals: An Audit and Narrative Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Health impact assessment (HIA) is a tool used to assess the potential health impacts of proposed projects, programs, and policies. The extent of the use of HIAs conducted on health sector proposals, and what they focus on, is currently largely undocumented. This paper reviews HIAs conducted on health sector proposals, their characteristics and describes the settings in which they were conducted.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted, including peer-reviewed journals and grey literature utilizing keywords, synonyms, and subject headings relevant to HIA and the health sector. Eligibility criteria were independently applied to the identified works and data appraisal conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist tool.

RESULTS

19 HIAs were identified and included in the review, including 13 rapid, three intermediate, and two comprehensive HIAs. The HIAs use was evident across a range of health service contexts, though all but one had been conducted in developed countries.

CONCLUSION

The use of HIAs in the health sector is limited. There were various benefits attributed to the HIAs analysed including and not limited to the allocation of resources, reducing inequalities, and identification of possible negative consequences of a project. There is an opportunity to improve the use and reporting of HIAs across health settings internationally to enhance the consideration of broader determinants of health, influence decision making, and use of evidence in health sector planning for the future.

'Health in All Policies'-A Key Driver for Health and Well-Being in a Post-COVID-19 Pandemic World

Policy in all sectors affects health, through multiple pathways and determinants. Health in all policies (HiAP) is an approach that seeks to identify and influence the health and equity impacts of policy decisions, to enhance health benefits and avoid harm. This usually involves the use of health impact assessment or health lens analysis. There is growing international experience in these approaches, and some countries have cross-sectoral governance structures that prioritize the assessment of the policies that are most likely to affect health. The fundamental elements of HiAP are inter-sectoral collaboration, policy influence, and holistic consideration of the range of health determinants affected by a policy area or proposal. HiAP requires public health professionals to invest time to build partnerships and engage meaningfully with the sectors affecting the social determinants of health and health equity. With commitment, political will and tools such as the health impact assessment, it provides a powerful approach to integrated policymaking that promotes health, well-being, and equity. The COVID-19 pandemic has raised the profile of public health and highlighted the links between health and other policy areas. This paper describes the rationale for, and principles underpinning, HiAP mechanisms, including HIA, experiences, challenges and opportunities for the future.

The added value of using the HEPA PAT for physical activity policy monitoring: a four-country comparison

BACKGROUND

Public policy is increasingly recognized as an important component of physical activity promotion. This paper reports on the current status of physical activity policy development and implementation in four European countries based on the Health-Enhancing Physical Activity Policy Audit Tool (HEPA PAT) developed by WHO. It compares the findings to previous studies and discusses the general utility of this tool and its unique features in relation to other instruments.

METHODS

The study was conducted as part of the Policy Evaluation Network ( www.jpi-pen.eu ) in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Poland. Data collection built upon information obtained via the EU Physical Activity Monitoring Framework survey, additional desk research and expert opinion. Data analysis employed Howlett's policy cycle framework to map and compare national physical activity policies in the four countries.

RESULTS

In all countries under study, policy agenda-setting is influenced by prevalence data from national health monitoring systems, and the sport and/or health sector takes the lead in policy formulation. Key policy documents were located mainly in the health sector but also in sport, urban design and transport. Physical activity programmes implemented to meet policy objectives usually cover a broad range of target groups, but currently only a small selection of major policies are evaluated for effectiveness. National experts made several suggestions to other countries wishing to establish physical activity policies, e.g. regarding cross-sectoral support and coordination, comprehensive national action plans, and monitoring/surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a detailed overview of physical activity policies in the four countries. Results show that national governments are already very active in the field but that there is room for improvement in a number of areas, e.g. regarding the contribution of sectors beyond sport and health. Using the HEPA PAT simultaneously in four countries also showed that procedures and timelines have to be adapted to national contexts. Overall, the instrument can make an important contribution to understanding and informing physical activity policy, especially when used as an add-on to regular monitoring tools like the EU HEPA Monitoring Framework.

Reconceptualising the study of alcohol policy decision-making: the contribution of political science

In this article, we demonstrate the applicability of a 3-I (interests, institutions, and ideas) framework to alcohol policy research. The analysis uses literature from political science research to provide a core theoretical framework. To help illustrate the argument, we draw on relevant examples from alcohol policy in the UK as well as initial findings from an ongoing research study on minimum-unit pricing in Wales. The Welsh case study provides an opportunity to examine the value of the framework in generating testable hypotheses in alcohol policy research. We find that several interrelated factors promoted policy change in Wales, including the government's power to legislate on matters of public health (institutionally), a relatively weak alcohol industry (a key interest group), and a public health community with specific policy arguments on why and how to tackle alcohol-related harms (ideas). Our analysis has important implications for public health research and evidence-based policymaking. It suggests that the uptake of new ideas depends on the existing configuration of interests, institutions and ideas. This analysis provides alcohol policy researchers with a portable framework for analysing the policy context.

Health Impact Assessments in Spain: Have They Been Effective?

Background: Health impact assessment (HIA) has scarcely been developed in Spain, in comparison with other European countries. Moreover, little is known about the effectiveness of HIA, taking into account direct impacts—changes on the decision-making process—as well as indirect impacts or those related to the process outcomes. From this broad perspective of HIA usefulness, the purpose was to assess the effectiveness of five HIAs carried out in Spain at the local level, and the role played by context and process factors on these impacts. Methods: We carried out a qualitative study based on 14 interviews to HIAs participants from different sectors. A documentary review and nonparticipant observation techniques were implemented for an in depth understanding. Results: The direct effectiveness of the HIAs was partial, but they had indirect effectiveness in all cases. The institutional and socio-political context, however, was not favorable to effectiveness. The elements of the process were largely determined by the context, although their influence, mediated by the role of proactive individuals, favored the effectiveness of the HIAs. Conclusions: When assessing HIA effectiveness, it is important to take into account a broad perspective on the nature of impacts and those factors influencing direct and indirect effectiveness. In Spain, the institutional and sociopolitical context was less favorable to HIA effectiveness than process-related factors. In order to implement the Health in All Policies strategy, will be necessary to improve context-related factors, such as institutional facilitators for HIA and democratic quality.

Developing a critical realist informed framework to explain how the human rights and social determinants of health relationship works

Background

That there is a relationship between human rights and health is well established and frequently discussed. However, actions intended to take account of the relationship between human rights and social determinants of health have often been limited by lack of clarity and ambiguity concerning how these rights and determinants may interact and affect each other. It is difficult to know what to do when you do not understand how things work. As our own understanding of this consideration is founded on perspectives provided by the critical realist paradigm, we present an account of and commentary on our application of these perspectives in an investigation of this relationship.

Findings

We define the concept of paradigm and review critical realism and related implications for construction of knowledge concerning this relationship. Those implications include the need to theorise possible entities involved in the relationship together with their distinctive properties and consequential power to affect one another through exercise of their respective mechanisms (ways of working). This theorising work enabled us identify a complex, multi-layered assembly of entities involved in the relationship and some of the array of causal mechanisms that may be in play. These are presented in a summary framework.

Conclusion

Researchers’ views about the nature of knowledge and its construction inevitably influence their research aims, approaches and outcomes. We demonstrate that by attending to these views, which are founded in their paradigm positioning, researchers can make more progress in understanding the relationship between human rights and the social determinants of health, in particular when engaged in theorizing work. The same approaches could be drawn on when other significant relationships in health environments are investigated.

Systematic Literature Review of Health Impact Assessments in Low and Middle-Income Countries

Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) motivate effective measures for safeguarding public health. There is consensus that HIAs in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are lacking, but no study systematically focuses on those that have been successfully conducted across all regions of the world, nor do they highlight factors that may enable or hinder their implementation. Our objectives are to (1) systematically review, geographically map, and characterize HIA activity in LMICs; and (2) apply a process evaluation method to identify factors which are important to improve HIA implementation in LMICs. A systematic review of peer-reviewed HIAs in 156 LMICs was performed in Scopus, Medline, Web of Science, Sociological abstracts, and LILACs (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences) databases. The search used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and covered HIAs across all type of interventions, topics, and health outcomes. HIAs were included if they reported a clear intervention and health outcome to be assessed. No time restriction was applied, and grey literature was not included. The eligible studies were subjected to six process evaluation criteria. The search yielded 3178 hits and 57 studies were retained. HIAs were conducted in 26 out of 156 countries. There was an unequal distribution of HIAs across regions and within LMICs countries. The leading topics of HIA in LMICs were air pollution, development projects, and urban transport planning. Most of the HIAs reported quantitative approaches (72%), focused on air pollution (46%), appraised policies (60%), and were conducted at the city level (36%). The process evaluation showed important variations in the way HIAs have been conducted and low uniformity in the reporting of six criteria. No study reported the time, money, and staff used to perform HIAs. Only 12% of HIAs were based on participatory approaches; 92% of HIAs considered multiple outcomes; and 61% of HIAs provided recommendations and fostered cross-national collaboration. The limited transparency in process, weak participation, and inconsistent delivery of recommendations were potential limitations to HIA implementation in low and middle-income countries. Scaling and improving HIA implementation in low and middle-income countries in the upcoming years will depend on expanding geographically by increasing HIA governance, adapting models and tools in quantitative methods, and adopting better reporting practices.

Researching Healthy Public Policy: Navigating the 'Black Box' Means Thinking More About Power Comment on "Developing a Framework for a Program Theory-Based Approach to Evaluating Policy Processes and Outcomes: Health in All Policies in South Australia"

Lawless et al provide a valuable narrative of using program logic to develop an evaluation of Health in All Policies (HiAP) in South Australia. In this commentary I argue that the paper and analysis is an extremely useful example of navigating the supposed black box of policy-making. However the original makes the reader work too hard and is distracting from the main narrative of explaining the logic behind the HiAP approach in South Australia. My response covers avoiding epistemological traps and weighing up the pragmatics of collaborative policy research with more complex institutional policy issues like power.

Health impact assessment (HIA) of political proposals at the local level: successful introduction, but what has happened 15 years later?

Health impact assessments (HIAs) were first introduced in Sweden in the mid-to-late 1990s, with the aim of placing health issues on the political agenda and helping to reduce health inequalities. In the early 2000s, HIAs entered a second phase and the Swedish Parliament adopted a national public health policy. A national survey conducted in 2001 showed that 10/289 municipalities had begun to use HIA and 55/289 had decided to use HIA or had initiated an adoption process. In a 2013 follow-up study based on a strategic sample of municipalities, 9/36 municipalities reported using HIA and/or similar tools. Corresponding figures for the 21 Swedish regions were 10 regions in 2001 and four in 2013. HIA and similar tools (sustainability analyses, child impact assessments, and others) were applied to the same extent as HIA. Fifteen years after implementation began, HIA is still being used. Regions show a clear decrease in the use of HIA. There are several explanations for this development. One is the political context, and other explanations are shifts in which actors are responsible for HIA and for public health at the local/regional levels.

Exploration of the functions of health impact assessment in real-world policymaking in the field of social health inequality: towards a conception of conceptual learning

With the implementation of health impact assessment (HIA)'s conceptual model into real-world policymaking, a number of fundamental issues arise concerning its decision-support function. Rooted in a rational vision of the decision-making process, focus regarding both conceptualisation and evaluation has been mainly on the function of instrumental policy-learning. However, in the field of social health inequalities, this function is strongly limited by the intrinsic 'wickedness' of the policy issue. Focusing almost exclusively on this instrumental function, the real influence HIA can have on policymaking in the longer term is underestimated and remains largely unexploited. Drawing insights from theoretical models developed in the field of political science and sociology, we explore the different decision-support functions HIA can fulfill and identify conceptual learning as potentially the most important. Accordingly, dominant focus on the technical engineering function, where knowledge is provided in order to 'rationalise' the policy process and to tackle 'tame' problems, should be complemented with an analysis of the conditions for conceptual learning, where knowledge introduces new information and perspectives and, as such, contributes in the longer term to a paradigm change.

Is health impact assessment useful in the context of trade negotiations? A case study of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement

OBJECTIVE

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a recently concluded free trade agreement involving Australia and 11 other Pacific-rim nations, which has the potential for far-reaching impacts on public health. A health impact assessment (HIA) was carried out during the negotiations to determine the potential future public health impact in Australia and to provide recommendations to mitigate potential harms. This paper explores the findings and outcomes of the HIA, and how this approach can be used to provide evidence for public health advocacy.

DESIGN

A modified version of the standard HIA process was followed. The HIA was led by technical experts in HIA, trade policy, and health policy, in collaboration with advocacy organisations concerned with the TPP and health. The HIA reviewed the provisions in leaked TPP text in order to determine their potential impact on future health policy. As part of this process, researchers developed policy scenarios in order to examine how TPP provisions may affect health policies and their subsequent impact to health for both the general and vulnerable populations. The four policy areas assessed were the cost of medicines, tobacco control, alcohol control and food labelling.

RESULTS

In all areas assessed, the HIA found that proposed TPP provisions were likely to adversely affect health. These provisions are also likely to more adversely affect the health of vulnerable populations.

CONCLUSIONS

The HIA produced relevant evidence that was useful in advocacy efforts by stakeholders, and engaging the public through various media platforms.

Framing health for land-use planning legislation: A qualitative descriptive content analysis

PURPOSE AND SETTING

Framing health as a relevant policy issue for other sectors is not well understood. A recent review of the New South Wales (Australia) land-use planning system resulted in the drafting of legislation with an internationally unprecedented focus on human health. We apply a political science approach to investigate the question 'how and to what extent were health and wider issues framed in submissions to the review?'

METHODS

We investigated a range of stakeholder submissions including health focussed agencies (n = 31), purposively identified key stakeholders with influence on the review (n = 24), and a random sample of other agencies and individuals (n = 47). Using qualitative descriptive analysis we inductively coded for the term 'health' and sub-categories. We deductively coded for 'wider concerns' using a locally endorsed 'Healthy Urban Development Checklist'. Additional inductive analysis uncovered further 'wider concerns'.

FINDINGS

Health was explicitly identified as a relevant issue for planning policy only in submissions by health-focussed agencies. This framing concerned the new planning system promoting and protecting health as well as connecting health to wider planning concerns including economic issues, transport, public open space and, to a slightly lesser extent, environmental sustainability. Key stakeholder and other agency submissions focussed on these and other wider planning concerns but did not mention health in detail. Health agency submissions did not emphasise infrastructure, density or housing as explicitly as others.

CONCLUSIONS

Framing health as a relevant policy issue has the potential to influence legislative change governing the business of other sectors. Without submissions from health agencies arguing the importance of having health as an objective in the proposed legislation it is unlikely health considerations would have gained prominence in the draft bill. The findings have implications for health agency engagement with legislative change processes and beyond in land use planning.

'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.

Evaluating deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy

BACKGROUND

Deliberative dialogues have recently captured attention in the public health policy arena because they have the potential to address several key factors that influence the use of research evidence in policymaking. We conducted an evaluation of three deliberative dialogues convened in Canada by the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy in order to learn more about deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy.

METHODS

The evaluation included a formative assessment of participants' views about and experiences with ten key design features of the dialogues, and a summative assessment of participants' intention to use research evidence of the type that was discussed at the dialogue. We surveyed participants immediately after each dialogue was completed and again six months later. We analyzed the ratings using descriptive statistics and the written comments by conducting a thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 31 individuals participated in the three deliberative dialogues that we evaluated. The response rate was 94% (N = 29; policymakers (n = 9), stakeholders (n = 18), researchers (n = 2)) for the initial survey and 56% (n = 14) for the follow-up. All 10 of the design features that we examined as part of the formative evaluation were rated favourably by all participant groups. The findings of the summative evaluation demonstrated a mean behavioural intention score of 5.8 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

CONCLUSION

Our findings reinforce the promise of deliberative dialogues as a strategy for supporting evidence-informed public health policies. Additional work is needed to understand more about which design elements work in which situations and for different issues, and whether intention to use research evidence is a suitable substitute for measuring actual behaviour change.

Creating change in government to address the social determinants of health: how can efforts be improved?

BACKGROUND

The evidence base for the impact of social determinants of health has been strengthened considerably in the last decade. Increasingly, the public health field is using this as a foundation for arguments and actions to change government policies. The Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach, alongside recommendations from the 2010 Marmot Review into health inequalities in the UK (which we refer to as the 'Fairness Agenda'), go beyond advocating for the redesign of individual policies, to shaping the government structures and processes that facilitate the implementation of these policies. In doing so, public health is drawing on recent trends in public policy towards 'joined up government', where greater integration is sought between government departments, agencies and actors outside of government.

METHODS

In this paper we provide a meta-synthesis of the empirical public policy research into joined up government, drawing out characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives.We use this thematic synthesis as a basis for comparing and contrasting emerging public health interventions concerned with joined-up action across government.

RESULTS

We find that HiAP and the Fairness Agenda exhibit some of the characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives, however they also utilise 'change instruments' that have been found to be ineffective. Moreover, we find that - like many joined up initiatives - there is room for improvement in the alignment between the goals of the interventions and their design.

CONCLUSION

Drawing on public policy studies, we recommend a number of strategies to increase the efficacy of current interventions. More broadly, we argue that up-stream interventions need to be 'fit-for-purpose', and cannot be easily replicated from one context to the next.

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 search for underlying principles of health impact assessment: progress and prospects: Comment on "Investigating underlying principles to guide health impact assessment"

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a relatively young field of endeavour, and hence, future progress will depend on the planning, implementation and rigorous evaluation of additional HIAs of projects, programmes and policies the world over. In the June 2014 issue of the International Journal of Health Policy and Management, Fakhri and colleagues investigated underlying principles of HIA through a comprehensive review of the literature and expert consultation. With an emphasis on the Islamic Republic of Iran, the authors identified multiple issues that are relevant for guiding HIA practice. At the same time, the study unravelled current shortcomings in the understanding and definition of HIA principles and best practice at national, regional, and global levels. In this commentary we scrutinise the research presented, highlight strengths and limitations, and discuss the findings in the context of other recent attempts to guide HIA.

Investigating underlying principles to guide health impact assessment

BACKGROUND

Many countries conduct Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of their projects and policies to predict their positive and negative health impacts. In recent years many guides have been developed to inform HIA practice, largely reflecting local developments in HIA. These guides have often been designed for specific contexts and specific need, making the choice between guides difficult. The objective of the current study is to identify underlying principles in order to guide HIA practice in Iran.

METHODS

This study was conducted in three stages: 1) Studies comparing HIA guidelines were reviewed to identify criteria used for comparison seeking emphasized principles. 2) The HIA characteristics extracted from published papers were categorized in order to determine the principles that could guide HIA practice. 3) Finally, these principles were agreed by experts using nominal group technique.

RESULTS

The review of the studies comparing HIA guides demonstrated there are no clear comparison criteria for reviewing HIA guides and no study mentioned HIA principles. Investigating the HIA principles from peer-reviewed papers, we found 14 issues. These were, considering of general features in planning and conducting HIAs such as HIA stream, level, timing and type, considering of the wider socio-political and economic context, considering of economic, technical and legal aspects of HIA and capacities for HIA, rationality and comprehensiveness, using appropriate evidence, elaborating on HIA relation to other forms of Impact Assessment, considering of equity, and encouraging intersectoral and interdisciplinary cooperation, involvement of stakeholders and transparency as underlying principles to guide HIA practice. The results emphasize how critical these technical as well as tactical considerations are in the early scoping step of an HIA which plans the conduct of the HIA in reponse to local contextual issues.

CONCLUSION

Determining the principles of HIA from peer-reviewed papers provides an opportunity for guiding HIA practice comprehensively. It seems to be feasible to develop a universal guide that covers all principles required.

Housing, health and master planning: rules of engagement

OBJECTIVES

Knowledge about health focussed policy collaboration to date has been either tactical or technical. This article focusses on both technical and tactical issues to describe the experience of cross-sectoral collaboration between health and housing stakeholders across the life of a housing master plan, including but not limited to a health impact assessment (HIA).

STUDY DESIGN

A single explanatory case study of collaboration on a master plan to regenerate a deprived housing estate in Western Sydney was developed to explain why and how the collaboration worked or did not work.

METHODS

Data collection included stakeholder interviews, document review, and reflections by the health team. Following a realist approach, data was analysed against established public policy theory dimensions.

RESULTS

Tactically we did not know what we were doing. Despite our technical knowledge and skills with health focussed processes, particularly HIA, we failed to appreciate complexities inherent in master planning. This limited our ability to provide information at the right points. Eventually however the HIA did provide substantive connections between the master plan and health. We use our analysis to develop technical and tactical rules of engagement for future cross-sectoral collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

This case study from the field provides insight for future health focussed policy collaboration. We demonstrate the technical and tactical requirements for future intersectoral policy and planning collaborations, including HIAs, with the housing sector on master planning. The experience also suggested how HIAs can be conducted flexibly alongside policy development rather than at a specific point after a policy is drafted.