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

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.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. Keywords: Health in all policies, Health impact assessment, Healthy public polic

Health promotion by communities and in communities: current issues for research and practice.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This paper explores contemporary issues around community-based health promotion in the light of international health policies reaffirming the central role of community action within broader efforts to achieve health equity. Adopting a system-level approach poses challenges for current health promotion practice and evaluation, particularly where there is a shift in emphasis from small-scale community health projects towards mainstream community programmes, capable of engaging widely across diverse populations. METHODS: Drawing on research with community members carried out by the Centre for Health Promotion Research, Leeds Metropolitan University, UK, the paper re-examines assumptions about the nature of interventions within community settings, and what participation means from a lay perspective. Key research issues for community-based health promotion are highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: The paper concludes by proposing that community-based interventions need to be reframed, if the dual challenges of citizen involvement and evidence based practice are to be met

Building the field of health policy and systems research: framing the questions.

In the first of a series of articles addressing the current challenges and opportunities for the development of Health Policy & Systems Research (HPSR), Kabir Sheikh and colleagues lay out the main questions vexing the field

Developing a model to estimate the potential impact of municipal investment on city health

This article summarizes a process which exemplifies the potential impact of municipal investment on the burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in city populations. We report on Developing an evidence-based approach to city public health planning and investment in Europe (DECiPHEr), a project part funded by the European Union. It had twin objectives: first, to develop and validate a vocational educational training package for policy makers and political decision takers; second, to use this opportunity to iterate a robust and user-friendly investment tool for maximizing the public health impact of 'mainstream' municipal policies, programs and investments. There were seven stages in the development process shared by an academic team from Sheffield Hallam University and partners from four cities drawn from the WHO European Healthy Cities Network. There were five iterations of the model resulting from this process. The initial focus was CVD as the biggest cause of death and disability in Europe. Our original prototype 'cost offset' model was confined to proximal determinants of CVD, utilizing modified 'Framingham' equations to estimate the impact of population level cardiovascular risk factor reduction on future demand for acute hospital admissions. The DECiPHEr iterations first extended the scope of the model to distal determinants and then focused progressively on practical interventions. Six key domains of local influence on population health were introduced into the model by the development process: education, housing, environment, public health, economy and security. Deploying a realist synthesis methodology, the model then connected distal with proximal determinants of CVD. Existing scientific evidence and cities' experiential knowledge were 'plugged-in' or 'triangulated' to elaborate the causal pathways from domain interventions to public health impacts. A key product is an enhanced version of the cost offset model, named Sheffield Health Effectiveness Framework Tool, incorporating both proximal and distal determinants in estimating the cost benefits of domain interventions. A key message is that the insights of the policy community are essential in developing and then utilising such a predictive tool

Health literacy: setting an international collaborative research agenda

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health literacy is an increasingly important topic in both the policy and research agendas of many countries. During the recent 36^thAnnual Meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group, the authors led an audio-taped 3-hour forum, "<it>Studying Health Literacy: Developing an International Collaboration</it>," where the current state of health literacy (HL) in the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) was presented and attendees were encouraged to debate a future research agenda.</p> <p>Discussion of Forum Themes</p> <p>The debate centred around three distinct themes, including: (1) refining HL definitions and conceptual models, (2) HL measurement and assessment tools, and (3) developing a collaborative international research agenda. The attendees agreed that future research should be theoretically grounded and conceptual models employed in studies should be explicit to allow for international comparisons to be drawn.</p> <p>Summary and Authors Reflections</p> <p>The importance of HL research and its possible contribution to health disparities is becoming increasingly recognised internationally. International collaborations and comparative studies could illuminate some of the possible determinants of disparities, and also possibly provide a vehicle to examine other research questions of interest.</p