Health in All Policies in South Australia: what has supported early implementation?

Our Healthy Community Conceptual Framework and Intervention Model for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention in Municipalities

This paper introduces the conceptual framework and intervention model of Our Healthy Community (OHC), a new, coordinated, and integrated approach towards health promotion and disease prevention in municipalities. The model is inspired by systems-based approaches and employs a supersetting approach for engaging stakeholders across sectors in the development and implementation of interventions to increase health and well-being among citizens. The conceptual model includes a combination of a bottom-up approach emphasizing involvement of citizens and other community-based stakeholders combined with a top-down approach emphasizing political, legal, administrative, and technical support from a variety of councils and departments in local municipality government. The model operates bidirectionally: (1) by pushing political and administrative processes to promote the establishment of conducive structural environments for making healthy choices, and (2) by involving citizens and professional stakeholders at all levels in co-creating processes of shaping their own community and municipality. An operational intervention model was further developed by the OHC project while working with the OHC in two Danish municipalities. The operational intervention model of OHC comprises three main phases and key actions to be implemented at the levels of local government and community: (1) Local government: Situational analysis, dialogue, and political priorities; (2) Community: Thematic co-creation among professional stakeholders; and (3) Target area: Intervention development and implementation. The OHC model will provide municipalities with new tools to improve the citizens' health and well-being with available resources. Health promotion and disease prevention interventions are developed, implemented, and anchored in the local community by citizens and local stakeholders at municipal and local community levels using collaboration and partnerships as leverage points.

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.

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.

Australian State and Territory Eclectic Approaches to Obesity Prevention in the Early Years: Policy Mapping and Perspectives of Senior Health Officials

Background

The international increase in the prevalence of childhood obesity has hastened in recent decades. This rise has coincided with the emergence of comorbidities in childhood-such as type II diabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, metabolic syndrome, sleep apnoea and hypertension-formerly only described in adulthood. This phenomenon suggests global social and economic trends are impacting on health supportive environments. Obesity prevention is complex and necessitates both long-term and systems approaches. Such an approach considers the determinants of health and how they interrelate to one another. Investment in the early years (from conception to about 5 years of age) is a key life stage to prevent obesity and establish lifelong healthy habits relating to nutrition, physical activity, sedentary behavior and sleep. In Australia, obesity prevention efforts are spread across national and state/territory health departments. It is not known from the literature how, with limited national oversight, state and territory health departments approach obesity prevention in the early years.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study including policy mapping and interviews with senior officials from each Australian state/territory health department. A series of questions were developed from the literature to guide the policy mapping, drawing on the World Health Organisation Ending Childhood Obesity Report, and adapted to the state/territory context. The policy mapping was iterative. Prior to the interviews initial policy mapping was undertaken. During the interviews, these policies were discussed, and participants were asked to supply any additional policies of relevance to obesity prevention. The semi-structured interviews explored the approaches to obesity prevention taken in each jurisdiction and the barriers and enablers faced for policy implementation. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data, using NVivo software.

Results

State and territory approaches to obesity prevention are eclectic and while there are numerous similarities between jurisdictions, no two states are the same. The diversity of approaches between jurisdictions is influenced by the policy culture and unique social, geographic, and funding contexts in each jurisdiction. No Australian state/territory had policies against all the guiding questions. However, there are opportunities for sharing and collaborating within and between Australian jurisdictions to establish what works, where, and for whom, across Australia's complex policy landscape.

Conclusions

Even within a single country, obesity prevention policy needs to be adaptable to local contexts. Opportunities for jurisdictions within and between countries to share, learn, and adapt their experiences should be supported and sustained funding provided.

'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 future of public health policymaking after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from Health in All Policies

Background: 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP) describes the pursuit of health equity. It has five main elements: treat health as a human right; identify evidence of the 'social determinants' of health inequalities, recognise that most powers to affect health are not held by health departments, promote intersectoral policymaking and collaboration inside and outside of government, and generate political will. Studies describe its potential but bemoan a major implementation gap. Some HiAP scholars learn from policymaking research how to understand this gap, but the use of policy theories is patchy. In that context, our guiding research question is: How does HiAP research use policy theory to understand policymaking? It allows us to zoom-out to survey the field and zoom-in to identify: the assumed and actual causes of policy change, and transferable lessons to HiAP scholars and advocates. Methods: Our qualitative systematic review (two phases, 2018 and 2020) identified 4972 HiAP articles. Of these, 113 journal articles (research and commentary) provide a non-trivial reference to policymaking (at least one reference to a policymaking concept). We use the 113 articles to produce a general HiAP narrative and explore how the relatively theory-informed articles enhance it. Results: Most articles focus on policy analysis (identifying policy problems and solutions) rather than policy theory (explaining policymaking dynamics). They report a disappointing gap between HiAP expectations and policy outcomes. Theory-informed articles contribute to a HiAP playbook to close that gap or a programme theory to design and evaluate HiAP in new ways.   Conclusions: Few HiAP articles use policy theories for their intended purpose. Policy theories provide lessons to aid critical reflection on power, political dilemmas, and policymaking context. HiAP scholars seek more instrumental lessons, potentially at the cost of effective advocacy and research.

The future of public health policymaking after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from Health in All Policies

Background: 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP) describes the pursuit of health equity. It has five main elements: treat health as a human right; identify evidence of the 'social determinants' of health inequalities, recognise that most powers to affect health are not held by health departments, promote intersectoral policymaking and collaboration inside and outside of government, and generate political will. Studies describe its potential but bemoan a major implementation gap. Some HiAP scholars learn from policymaking research how to understand this gap, but the use of policy theories is patchy. In that context, our guiding research question is: How does HiAP research use policy theory to understand policymaking? It allows us to zoom-out to survey the field and zoom-in to identify: the assumed and actual causes of policy change, and transferable lessons to HiAP scholars and advocates. Methods: Our qualitative systematic review (two phases, 2018 and 2020) identified 4972 HiAP articles. Of these, 113 journal articles (research and commentary) provide a non-trivial reference to policymaking (at least one reference to a policymaking concept). We use the 113 articles to produce a general HiAP narrative and explore how the relatively theory-informed articles enhance it. Results: Most articles focus on policy analysis (identifying policy problems and solutions) rather than policy theory (explaining policymaking dynamics). They report a disappointing gap between HiAP expectations and policy outcomes. Theory-informed articles contribute to a HiAP playbook to close that gap or a programme theory to design and evaluate HiAP in new ways.   Conclusions: Few HiAP articles use policy theories for their intended purpose. Policy theories provide lessons to aid critical reflection on power, political dilemmas, and policymaking context. HiAP scholars seek more instrumental lessons, potentially at the cost of effective advocacy and research.

Learning from intersectoral action beyond health: a meta-narrative review

Intersectoral action (ISA) is considered pivotal for achieving health and societal goals but remains difficult to achieve as it requires complex efforts, resources and coordinated responses from multiple sectors and organizations. While ISA in health is often desired, its potential can be better informed by the advanced theory-building and empirical application in real-world contexts from political science, public administration and environmental sciences. Considering the importance and the associated challenges in achieving ISA, we have conducted a meta-narrative review, in the research domains of political science, public administration, environmental and health. The review aims to identify theory, theoretical concepts and empirical applications of ISA in these identified research traditions and draw learning for health. Using the multidisciplinary database of SCOPUS from 1996 to 2017, 5535 records were identified, 155 full-text articles were reviewed and 57 papers met our final inclusion criteria. In our findings, we trace the theoretical roots of ISA across all research domains, describing the main focus and motivation to pursue collaborative work. The literature synthesis is organized around the following: implementation instruments, formal mechanisms and informal networks, enabling institutional environments involving the interplay of hardware (i.e. resources, management systems, structures) and software (more specifically the realms of ideas, values, power); and the important role of leaders who can work across boundaries in promoting ISA, political mobilization and the essential role of hybrid accountability mechanisms. Overall, our review reaffirms affirms that ISA has both technical and political dimensions. In addition to technical concerns for strengthening capacities and providing support instruments and mechanisms, future research must carefully consider power and inter-organizational dynamics in order to develop a more fulsome understanding and improve the implementation of intersectoral initiatives, as well as to ensure their sustainability. This also shows the need for continued attention to emergent knowledge bases across different research domains including health.

Designing a toolkit for the assessment of Health in All Policies at a national scale in Iran

Background: Equitable promotion of health indicators requires cooperation among different sectors more than ever. The "Health in All Policies" (HiAP) approach contributes to this process through strengthening intersectoral collaboration. To implement this approach at a national scale, indicators of health-oriented performance from various organizations, and their measurement methods, need to be precisely defined. The aim of present study was to design a toolkit for implementing HiAP in Iran. Methods: A review of literature and documents, as well as conducting semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were undertaken to collect data for this qualitative study. Content analysis was applied to the collected data and the results were placed in three categories: criteria, sub-criteria and indicators; implementation processes; and implementation requirements. Results: The toolkit aims to achieve various objectives, including intersectoral excellence and the systematic development of intersectoral collaboration. In the process section, reports on measures taken by organizations are assessed by a three-member audit committee. The top three organizations, in terms of intersectoral cooperation in achieving public health goals, are introduced in a Health Week. Requirements for success in achieving the HiAP approach include financial resources to implement the HiAP, a database, an electronic method for submitting reports, training courses, monitoring and annual reporting of relevant indicators, and formulating regulations in order to assess organizations. Conclusion: Justification and training in various organizations to support the implementation of health-oriented measures, providing an annual ranking of organizations, and encouraging the organizations can contribute to the institutionalization of the toolkit through the SupremeCouncil for Health and Food Security. It is recommended that a Secretariat of sustainable development to be established under the Plan and Budget Organization (PBO) of the Islamic republic of Iran to monitor portfolio indicators.

Quantitative measures of health policy implementation determinants and outcomes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Public policy has tremendous impacts on population health. While policy development has been extensively studied, policy implementation research is newer and relies largely on qualitative methods. Quantitative measures are needed to disentangle differential impacts of policy implementation determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) and outcomes to ensure intended benefits are realized. Implementation outcomes include acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, compliance/fidelity, feasibility, penetration, sustainability, and costs. This systematic review identified quantitative measures that are used to assess health policy implementation determinants and outcomes and evaluated the quality of these measures.

METHODS

Three frameworks guided the review: Implementation Outcomes Framework (Proctor et al.), Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (Damschroder et al.), and Policy Implementation Determinants Framework (Bullock et al.). Six databases were searched: Medline, CINAHL Plus, PsycInfo, PAIS, ERIC, and Worldwide Political. Searches were limited to English language, peer-reviewed journal articles published January 1995 to April 2019. Search terms addressed four levels: health, public policy, implementation, and measurement. Empirical studies of public policies addressing physical or behavioral health with quantitative self-report or archival measures of policy implementation with at least two items assessing implementation outcomes or determinants were included. Consensus scoring of the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale assessed the quality of measures.

RESULTS

Database searches yielded 8417 non-duplicate studies, with 870 (10.3%) undergoing full-text screening, yielding 66 studies. From the included studies, 70 unique measures were identified to quantitatively assess implementation outcomes and/or determinants. Acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness, and compliance were the most commonly measured implementation outcomes. Common determinants in the identified measures were organizational culture, implementation climate, and readiness for implementation, each aspects of the internal setting. Pragmatic quality ranged from adequate to good, with most measures freely available, brief, and at high school reading level. Few psychometric properties were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Well-tested quantitative measures of implementation internal settings were under-utilized in policy studies. Further development and testing of external context measures are warranted. This review is intended to stimulate measure development and high-quality assessment of health policy implementation outcomes and determinants to help practitioners and researchers spread evidence-informed policies to improve population health.

REGISTRATION

Not registered.

Collaboration in health promotion for newly arrived migrants in Sweden

As a group, newly arrived migrants in Sweden face inequities in health compared to the general population. Successful promotion of population health requires awareness of and focus on health from several sectors of society. In light of this, the aim was to study the views of local authority officials on collaboration in health promotion activities for newly arrived migrants. Data was collected through five focus group interviews with 23 local authority officials working with the integration of newly arrived migrants in the Establishment Program in a municipality or at the Employment Services in northern Sweden. An inductive qualitative latent content analysis was performed, and the analysis showed that the participating officials considered health promotion as desirable in the Establishment Program, but it also raised complex issues within the existing organisations. The officials described unclear roles, but also possible changes to the organisation that would improve the possibility of working to promote health. The present study adds to the relatively limited knowledge of health promotion in integration activities and offers clinical relevance for policymakers through the officials' suggestions for improvements in the Establishment Program. It also raises important questions for further research.

Community engagement to promote health and reduce inequalities in Spain: a narrative systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Over the past decade, increasing attention has been paid to community engagement in health (CEH) across Europe. This study aimed to identify and review CEH interventions to promote health and reduce inequalities within the Spanish context and the key facilitators for these community processes.

METHODS

A systematic search in six databases, followed by a forward citation search, was conducted to identify implementation literature on CEH in Spain. Articles were included when engagement occurred in at least two stages of the interventions and was not limited to information or consultation of stakeholders.

RESULTS

A total of 2023 results were identified; 50 articles were reviewed full text. Five articles were finally selected for inclusion. Data were extracted on various factors including details of the interventions, results achieved, stakeholders involved and their relationships. A narrative synthesis was performed to present results and support the discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

Three main points are discussed: the role of professionals and citizens in CEH interventions, providing training to enable a reorientation towards a CEH practice and the relevance of contexts as enablers for community engagement processes to thrive.

Public Health from the Middle-Out: A New Analytical Perspective

Obstacles to collaborative public health frameworks such as Health in All Policies continue to emerge. Partnership-based public health programs present opportunities to study how public servants and practitioners address these barriers in real time. To this end, we utilized “Middle-Out,” a socio-technical analytical approach that highlights the importance of Middle Actors-stakeholders positioned between policymakers and grassroots—to policy diffusion, innovation and collaboration in public health. We conducted participatory observation in administrative settings of Israel’s National Program to Promote Active, Healthy Lifestyle, 30 stakeholder interviews and document analysis. We examined two dimensions of impact from the Middle-Out: Directions of Influence—Middle-Up, Middle-Down and Sideways, and Modes of Influence—Enabling, Mediating and Aggregating. Through Middle-Out’s lens, our analysis transcends visible benchmarks such as legislation and macro-level resource-allocation, focusing, instead, on elusive administrative spaces within which Middle Actors shape policies, steer funding and facilitate continuity. Incorporating Middle-Out into public health’s conceptual toolbox, we conclude, can improve understanding of complex public health policy arenas, increase recognition of critical socio-technical changemakers and catalyze more effective design of policy tools and strategies that specifically harness Middle Actors’ strengths and qualities.

To what extent can the activities of the South Australian Health in All Policies initiative be linked to population health outcomes using a program theory-based evaluation?

Background

This paper reports on a five-year study using a theory-based program logic evaluation, and supporting survey and interview data to examine the extent to which the activites of the South Australian Health in All Policies initiative can be linked to population health outcomes.

Methods

Mixed-methods data were collected between 2012 and 2016 in South Australia (144 semi-structured key informant interviews; two electronic surveys of public servants in 2013 (n = 435) and 2015 (n = 483); analysis of state government policy documents; and construction of a program logic model to shape assessment of the feasibility of attribution to population health outcomes).

Results

Multiple actions on social determinants of health in a range of state government sectors were reported and most could be linked through a program logic model to making some contribution to future population health outcomes. Context strongly influences implementation; not all initiatives will be successful and experimentation is vital. Successful initiatives included HiAP influencing the urban planning department to be more concerned with the health impacts of planning decisions, and encouraging the environment department to be concerned with the health impacts of its work.

Conclusions

The theory-based program logic suggests that SA HiAP facilitated improved population health through working with multiple government departments. Public servants came to appreciate how their sectors impact on health. Program logic is a mechanism to evaluate complex public health interventions in a way that takes account of political and economic contexts. SA HiAP was mainly successful in avoiding lifestyle drift in strategy. The initiative encouraged a range of state government departments to tackle conditions of daily living. The broader underpinning factors dictating the distribution of power, money and resources were not addressed by HiAP. This reflects HiAP’s use of a consensus model which was driven by (rather than drove) state priorities and sought ‘win-win’ strategies.

From Mid-Level Policy Analysis to Macro-Level Political Economy Comment on "Developing a Framework for a Program Theory-Based Approach to Evaluating Policy Processes and Outcomes: Health in All Policies in South Australia"

This latest contribution by the evaluation research team at Flinders University/Southgate Institute on their multiyear study of South Australia’s Health in All Policies (HiAP) initiative is simultaneously frustrating, exemplary, and partial. It is frustrating because it does not yet reveal the extent to which the initiative achieved its stated outcomes; that awaits further papers. It is exemplary in describing an evaluation research design in which the research team has excelled over the years, and in adding to it an element of theory testing and re-testing. It is partial, in that the political and economic context considered important in examining both process and outcome of the HiAP initiative stops at the Australian state’s borders as if the macro-level national and global political economy (and its power relations) have little or no bearing on the sustainability of the policy learning that the initiative may have engendered. To ask that of an otherwise elegant study design that effectively engages policy actors in its implementation may be demanding too much; but it may now be time that more critical political economy theories join with those that elaborate well the more routine praxis of public policy-making.

Developing a Framework for a Program Theory-Based Approach to Evaluating Policy Processes and Outcomes: Health in All Policies in South Australia

Background: The importance of evaluating policy processes to achieve health equity is well recognised but such evaluation encounters methodological, theoretical and political challenges. This paper describes how a program theorybased evaluation framework can be developed and tested, using the example of an evaluation of the South Australian Health in All Policies (HiAP) initiative.

Methods: A framework of the theorised components and relationships of the HiAP initiative was produced to guide evaluation. The framework was the product of a collaborative, iterative process underpinned by a policy-research partnership and drew on social and political science theory and relevant policy literature.

Results: The process engaged key stakeholders to capture both HiAP specific and broader bureaucratic knowledge and was informed by a number of social and political science theories. The framework provides a basis for exploring the interactions between framework components and how they shape policy-making and public policy. It also enables an assessment of HiAP’s success in integrating health and equity considerations in policies, thereby laying a foundation for predicting the impacts of resulting policies.

Conclusion: The use of a program theory-based evaluation framework developed through a consultative process and informed by social and political science theory has accommodated the complexity of public policy-making. The framework allows for examination of HiAP processes and impacts, and for the tracking of contribution towards distal outcomes through the explicit articulation of the underpinning program theory.

Politics, policies and processes: a multidisciplinary and multimethods research programme on policies on the social determinants of health inequity in Australia

INTRODUCTION

The development and implementation of multisectoral policy to improve health and reduce health inequities has been slow and uneven. Evidence is largely focused on the facts of health inequities rather than understanding the political and policy processes. This 5-year funded programme of research investigates how these processes could function more effectively to improve equitable population health.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The programme of work is organised in four work packages using four themes (macroeconomics and infrastructure, land use and urban environments, health systems and racism) related to the structural drivers shaping the distribution of power, money and resources and daily living conditions. Policy case studies will use publicly available documents (policy documents, published evaluations, media coverage) and interviews with informants (policy-makers, former politicians, civil society, private sector) (~25 per case). NVIVO software will be used to analyse the documents to see how 'social and health equity' is included and conceptualised. The interview data will include qualitative descriptive and theory-driven critical discourse analysis. Our quantitative methodological work assessing the impact of public policy on health equity is experimental that is in its infancy but promises to provide the type of evidence demanded by policy-makers.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Our programme is recognising the inherently political nature of the uptake, formulation and implementation of policy. The early stages of our work indicate its feasibility. Our work is aided by a Critical Policy Reference Group. Multiple ethics approvals have been obtained with the foundation approval from the Social and Behavioural Ethics Committee, Flinders University (Project No: 6786).The theoretical, methodological and policy engagement processes established will provide improved evidence for policy-makers who wish to reduce health inequities and inform a new generation of policy savvy knowledge on social determinants.

Health in All Policies in South Australia-Did It Promote and Enact an Equity Perspective?

Mobilising cross-sectoral action is helpful in addressing the range of social determinants that contribute to health inequities. The South Australian Health in All Policies (SA HiAP) approach was implemented from 2007 to stimulate cross-sector policy activity to address the social determinants of health to improve population wellbeing and reduce health inequities. This paper presents selected findings from a five year multi-methods research study of the SA HiAP approach and draws on data collected during interviews, observation, case studies, and document analysis. The analysis shows that SA HiAP had dual goals of facilitating joined-up government for co-benefits (process focus); and addressing social determinants of health and inequities through cross-sectoral policy activity (outcomes focus). Government agencies readily understood HiAP as providing tools for improving the process of intersectoral policy development, while the more distal outcome-focused intent of improving equity was not well understood and gained less traction. While some early rhetorical support existed for progressing an equity agenda through SA HiAP, subsequent economic pressures resulted in the government narrowing its priorities to economic goals. The paper concludes that SA HiAP’s initial intentions to address equity were only partially enacted and little was done to reduce inequities. Emerging opportunities in SA, and internationally, including the UN Sustainable Development Goals, may revive interest in addressing equity.

The Case for "Environment in All Policies": Lessons from the "Health in All Policies" Approach in Public Health

BACKGROUND

Both public health, and the health of the natural environment, are affected by policy decisions made across portfolios as diverse as finance, planning, transport, housing, education, and agriculture. A response to the interdependent character of public health has been the "health in all policies" (HiAP) approach.

OBJECTIVES

With reference to parallels between health and environment, this paper argues that lessons from HiAP are useful for creating a new integrated environmental management approach termed "environment in all polices" (EiAP).

DISCUSSION

This paper covers the theoretical foundations of HiAP, which is based on an understanding that health is strongly socially determined. The paper then highlights how lessons learned from HiAP's implementation in Finland, California, and South Australia might be applied to EiAP. It is too early to learn from evaluations of HiAP, but it is apparent that there is no single tool kit for its application. The properties that are likely to be necessary for an effective EiAP approach include a jurisdiction-specific approach, ongoing and strong leadership from a central agency, independent analysis, and a champion. We then apply these properties to Victoria (Australia) to demonstrate how EiAP might work.

CONCLUSIONS

We encourage further exploration of the feasibility of EiAP as an approach that could make explicit the sometimes surprising environmental implications of a whole range of strategic policies. Citation: Browne GR, Rutherfurd ID. 2017. The case for "environment in all policies": lessons from the "health in all policies" approach in public health. Environ Health Perspect 125:149-154; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP294.

Engagement of Sectors Other than Health in Integrated Health Governance, Policy, and Action

Health is created largely outside the health sector. Engagement in health governance, policy, and intervention development and implementation by sectors other than health is therefore important. Recent calls for building and implementing Health in All Policies, and continued arguments for intersectoral action, may strengthen the potential that other sectors have for health. This review clarifies the conceptual foundations for integral health governance, policy, and action, delineates the different sectors and their possible engagement, and provides an overview of a continuum of methods of engagement with other sectors to secure integration. This continuum ranges from institutional (re)design to value-based narratives. Depending on the lens applied, different elements can be identified within the continuum. This review is built on insights from political science, leadership studies, public health, empirical Health in All Policy research, knowledge and evidence nexus approaches, and community perspectives. Successful integration of health governance, policy, and action depends on integration of the elements on the continuum.

Using Win-Win Strategies to Implement Health in All Policies: A Cross-Case Analysis

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.