Case study: San Francisco's use of neighborhood indicators to encourage healthy urban development

Towards healthy urbanism: inclusive, equitable and sustainable (THRIVES) - an urban design and planning framework from theory to praxis

The globally distributed health impacts of environmental degradation and widening population inequalities require a fundamental shift in understandings of healthy urbanism - including policies and decisions that shape neighbourhood and building design. The built environment tends to disadvantage or exclude women, children, the elderly, disabled, poor and other groups, starting from design and planning stages through to occupation, and this results in avoidable health impacts. Although these concepts are not new, they are rapidly emerging as built environment research and practice priorities without clear understanding of the interconnected aims of healthy environments that are sustainable, equitable and inclusive. This article promotes a new framework - Towards Healthy uRbanism: InclusiVe Equitable Sustainable (THRIVES) - that extends previous conceptualisations and reorients focus towards the existential threat of environmental breakdown and the social injustice created through inequitable and exclusive urban governance and design processes and outcomes. The Framework was developed through synthesising knowledge from research and practice, and by testing this new conceptualisation in a participatory workshop. Ongoing research is exploring implementation of the Framework in practice. If widely adopted, this Framework may contribute towards achieving the goals of sustainable development through a focus on increasing human health and wellbeing in urban development.

Use of Urban Health Indicator Tools by Built Environment Policy- and Decision-Makers: a Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

Global initiatives have raised awareness of the need for cross-departmental and cross-sectoral activities to support urban health, sustainability, and equity, with respective indicators routinely used as a way to catalyze and monitor action toward pre-defined goals. Despite the existence of at least 145 urban health indicator (UHI) tools globally, there has been very little research on the use of indicators by policy- and decision-makers; more attention has been devoted to their development and validation. This paper describes the second part of a two-part systematic review of the characteristics (part A) and use (part B, this part) of UHI tools by municipal built environment policy- and decision-makers. Part B is a narrative synthesis of studies on the use of UHI tools. This PRISMA-P compliant review follows a mixed methods sequential explanatory design. The search was conducted using seven bibliographic databases, grey literature searches, and key journal hand searches. Ten studies describing the use of ten UHI tools in seven countries were included in the narrative synthesis, resulting in development of a theory of change (ToC). We found that both expert-led and participatory indicator projects can be underpinned by research evidence and residents' knowledge. Our findings contradict the dominant view of indicator use in policy-making as a linear process, highlighting a number of technical, organizational, political, knowledge, and contextual factors that affect their use. Participatory UHI tools with community involvement were generally more effective at supporting "health in all policies" and "whole-of-society" approaches to governing healthy cities than expert-led processes. UHI tool producers proposed a range of techniques to address urban health complexity characteristics. Finally, in combining data from both parts of the review, we found that potentially important UHI tool features, such as neighbourhood-scale data, were influential in the use of indicators by built environment policy- and decision-makers.

Characteristics and use of urban health indicator tools by municipal built environment policy and decision-makers: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

There is wide agreement that there is a lack of attention to health in municipal environmental policy-making, such as urban planning and regeneration. Explanations for this include differing professional norms between health and urban environment professionals, system complexity and limited evidence for causality between attributes of the built environment and health outcomes. Data from urban health indicator (UHI) tools are potentially a valuable form of evidence for local government policy and decision-makers. Although many UHI tools have been specifically developed to inform policy, there is poor understanding of how they are used. This study aims to identify the nature and characteristics of UHI tools and their use by municipal built environment policy and decision-makers.

METHODS

Health and social sciences databases (ASSIA, Campbell Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, Social Policy and Practice and Web of Science Core Collection) will be searched for studies using UHI tools alongside hand-searching of key journals and citation searches of included studies. Advanced searches of practitioner websites and Google will also be used to find grey literature. Search results will be screened for UHI tools, and for studies which report on or evaluate the use of such tools. Data about UHI tools will be extracted to compile a census and taxonomy of existing tools based on their specific characteristics and purpose. In addition, qualitative and quantitative studies about the use of these tools will be appraised using quality appraisal tools produced by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and synthesised in order to gain insight into the perceptions, value and use of UHI tools in the municipal built environment policy and decision-making process. This review is not registered with PROSPERO.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review focuses specifically on UHI tools that assess the physical environment's impact on health (such as transport, housing, air quality and greenspace). This study will help indicator producers understand whether this form of evidence is of value to built environment policy and decision-makers and how such tools should be tailored for this audience.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

N/A.

A Tool for Providing Data on Small Areas: Development of Neighborhood Profiles for Santa Clara County, California, 2014

Data on small geographic areas that can be easily accessed and updated have become essential for targeting public health programs and services. Disaggregating data at the sub-county or sub-city level has the potential to reveal disparities not otherwise evident for large geographies. As important as such data are, the methods to produce data on small geographic areas are challenging and resource-intensive, and little description and analysis of such tools exists. We describe a tool--neighborhood profiles--that provides a way for public health agencies and their partners to define neighborhood boundaries, select indicators, and disseminate data in a user-friendly format. We also share lessons learned, including the importance of involving planning departments in boundary definition to ensure relevance to the community, selecting a framework that links indicators to broader conceptual categories that can highlight disparities, and forming a team with the diverse skills necessary for planning and developing the profiles.

Towards an international taxonomy of integrated primary care: a Delphi consensus approach

BACKGROUND

Developing integrated service models in a primary care setting is considered an essential strategy for establishing a sustainable and affordable health care system. The Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC) describes the theoretical foundations of integrated primary care. The aim of this study is to refine the RMIC by developing a consensus-based taxonomy of key features.

METHODS

First, the appropriateness of previously identified key features was retested by conducting an international Delphi study that was built on the results of a previous national Delphi study. Second, categorisation of the features among the RMIC integrated care domains was assessed in a second international Delphi study. Finally, a taxonomy was constructed by the researchers based on the results of the three Delphi studies.

RESULTS

The final taxonomy consists of 21 key features distributed over eight integration domains which are organised into three main categories: scope (person-focused vs. population-based), type (clinical, professional, organisational and system) and enablers (functional vs. normative) of an integrated primary care service model.

CONCLUSIONS

The taxonomy provides a crucial differentiation that clarifies and supports implementation, policy formulation and research regarding the organisation of integrated primary care. Further research is needed to develop instruments based on the taxonomy that can reveal the realm of integrated primary care in practice.