Economic considerations and health in all policies initiatives: evidence from interviews with key informants in Sweden, Quebec and South Australia

BMC Public Health

Ahmed M Bayoumi¹  Patricia J O’Campo²  Ketan Shankardass²  Agnes Molnar³  Andrew D Pinto³ 

[1] Division of General Internal Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

关键词: Health in all policies;    Policy and implementation;    Public health;    Health impact assessment;    Healthy public policy;    Economic analysis;   

Others  :  1127866
DOI  :  10.1186/s12889-015-1350-0

 received in 2014-08-21, accepted in 2015-01-05,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Health in All Policies (HiAP) is a form of intersectoral action that aims to include the promotion of health in government initiatives across sectors. To date, there has been little study of economic considerations within the implementation of HiAP.

Methods

As part of an ongoing program of research on the implementation of HiAP around the world, we examined how economic considerations influence the implementation of HiAP. By economic considerations we mean the cost and financial gain (or loss) of implementing a HiAP process or structure within government, or the cost and financial gain (or loss) of the policies that emerge from such a HiAP process or structure. We examined three jurisdictions: Sweden, Quebec and South Australia. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 12 to 14 key informants in each jurisdiction. Two investigators separately coded transcripts to identify relevant statements.

Results

Initial readings of transcripts led to the development of a coding framework for statements related to economic considerations. First, economic evaluations of HiAP are viewed as important for prompting HiAP and many forms of economic evaluation were considered. However, economic evaluations were often absent, informal, or incomplete. Second, funding for HiAP initiatives is important, but is less important than a high-level commitment to intersectoral collaboration. Furthermore, having multiple sources of funding of HiAP can be beneficial, if it increases participation across government, but can also be disadvantageous, if it exposes underlying tensions. Third, HiAP can also highlight the challenge of achieving both economic and social objectives.

Conclusions

Our results are useful for elaborating propositions for use in realist multiple explanatory case studies. First, we propose that economic considerations are currently used primarily as a method by health sectors to promote and legitimize HiAP to non-health sectors with the goal of securing resources for HiAP. Second, allocating resources and making funding decisions regarding HiAP are inherently political acts that reflect tensions within government sectors. This study contributes important insights into how intersectoral action works, how economic evaluations of HiAP might be structured, and how economic considerations can be used to both promote HiAP and to present barriers to implementation.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Pinto et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]World Health Organization. Ottawa charter for health promotion. First international conference on health promotion. Ottawa, Canada: World Health Organization; 1986.
• [2]World Health Organization. The Bangkok charter for health promotion in a globalized world. Health Promot Int. 2006; 21 Suppl 1:10–14.
• [3]Marmot M, Friel S, Bell R, Houweling TA, Taylor S, et al.: Commission on the Social Determinants of Health: Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final report of the commission on social determinants of health. Lancet. 2008, 375(9560):1661-9.
• [4]World Health Organization: 8th Global Conference on Health Promotion. Health in All Policies - Conference definition. [http://www.healthpromotion2013.org/healthpromotion/health-in-all-policies] Accessed 13 Feb 2015.
• [5]Stahl T, Wismar M, Ollila E, Lahtinen E, Leppo K: Health in all policies: prospects and potentials. Finland Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland; 2006.
• [6]Ollila E: Health in all policies: from rhetoric to action. Scand J Public Health 2011, 39(6 Suppl):11-8.
• [7]Greaves LJ, Bialystok LR: Health in all policies–all talk and little action? Can J Public Health 2011, 102(6):407-9.
• [8]McQueen DV, Wismar M, Lin V, Jones CM, Davies M: Intersectoral governance for health in all policies: structures, actions and experience. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, World Health Organization, Copenhagen, Denmark; 2012.
• [9]Krech R: Healthy public policies: looking ahead. Health Promot Int 2011, 26(2):ii268-72.
• [10]Lopez-Valcarcel BG, Ortun V: Putting health in all welfare policies: is it warranted? A Southern European perspective. J Epidemiol Community Health 2010, 64(6):497-9.
• [11]Public Health Agency of Canada. Crossing sectors - Experiences in intersectoral action, public policy and health. Ottawa, Canada: Government of Canada; 2007.
• [12]WHO, Government of South Australia: The Adelaide statement on health in all policies: moving towards a shared governance for health and well-being Health Promot Int 2010, 25(2):258-60.
• [13]Kickbusch I: Health in all policies: where to from here? Health Promot Int 2010, 25(3):261-4.
• [14]Freiler A, Muntaner C, Shankardass K, Mah CL, Molnar A, Renahy E, et al.: Glossary for the implementation of health in all policies (HiAP). J Epidemiol Community Health 2013, 67(12):1068-72.
• [15]Shankardass K, Solar O, Murphy K, Greaves L, O’Campo P: A scoping review of intersectoral action for health equity involving governments. Int J Public Health 2012, 57(1):25-33.
• [16]Hsieh H, Shannon S: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005, 15(9):1277-88.
• [17]Wismar M, Blau J, Ernst K, Figueras J: The effectiveness of health impact assessment: scope and limitations of supporting decision-making in Europe. World Health Organization, Geneva; 2007.
• [18]Leppo K, Ollila E, Pena S, Wismar M, Cook S: Health in all policies: seizing opportunities, implementing policies. Finland: Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland; 2013.
• [19]Schang LK, Czabanowska KM, Lin V: Securing funds for health promotion: lessons from health promotion foundations based on experiences from Austria, Australia, Germany, Hungary and Switzerland. Health Promot Int 2012, 27(2):295-305.
• [20]de Leeuw E, Clavier C: Healthy public in all policies. Health Promot Int 2011, 26(2):ii237-44.
• [21]Mohindra KS: Healthy public policy in poor countries: tackling macro-economic policies. Health Promot Int 2007, 22(2):163-9.
• [22]Bambra C, Fox D, Scott-Samuel A: Towards a politics of health. Health Promot Int 2005, 20(2):187-93.
• [23]Gilchrist VJ, Williams RL: Key informant interviews. In Doing qualitative research. 2nd edition. Edited by Crabtree B, Miller W. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks; 1999:71-88.
• [24]Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2005.
• [25]Weatherly H, Drummond M, Claxton K, Cookson R, Ferguson B, Godfrey C, et al.: Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: key challenges and recommendations. Health Policy 2009, 93(2–3):85-92.
• [26]Cookson R, Drummond M, Weatherly H: Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions. Health Econ Policy Law 2009, 4(Pt 2):231-45.
• [27]Richardson J: Is the incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation really so simple? A comment on Cookson, Drummond and Weatherly. Health Econ Policy Law 2009, 4(Pt 2):247-54. discussion 261–3
• [28]Marks L, Weatherly H, Mason A: Prioritizing investment in public health and health equity: what can commissioners do? Public Health 2013, 127(5):410-8.
• [29]Ndumbe-Eyoh S, Moffatt H: Intersectoral action for health equity: a rapid systematic review. BMC Public Health 2013, 13:1056-2458-13-1056. BioMed Central Full Text
• [30]Russell LB: Preventing chronic disease: an important investment, but don’t count on cost savings. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009, 28(1):42-5.
• [31]Mayes R, Oliver TR: Chronic disease and the shifting focus of public health: is prevention still a political lightweight? J Health Polit Policy Law 2012, 37(2):181-200.
• [32]Koivusalo M: The state of health in all policies (HiAP) in the European union: potential and pitfalls. J Epidemiol Community Health 2010, 64(6):500-3.
• [33]Greer SL, Lillvis DF: Beyond leadership: political strategies for coordination in health policies. Health Policy 2014, 116(1):12-7.
• [34]Howard R, Gunther S. Health in all policies: An EU literature review 2006 – 2011 and interview with key stakeholders. [http://www.equitychannel.net/uploads/HiAP%20%20Final%20Report%20May%202012.pdf] Accessed 13 Feb 2015.
• [35]Fafard P. Implementing HiAP: health in all meets horizontal government [http://opha.on.ca/getattachment/Events/Health-In-All-Policies-A-Healthy-Eating-and-Nutrit/Implementing-HiAP-Health-In-All-Meets-Horizontal-Government.pdf.aspx] Accessed 13 Feb 2015.
• [36]World Health Organization. The Helsinki statement on health in all policies. Helsinki, Finland: 2013.
• [37]Shankardass K, Renahy E, Muntaner C, O’Campo P. Strengthening the implementation of health in all policies: a methodology for realist explanatory case studies. Health Policy Plan. 2014. E-publication: May 10, 2014. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czu021
• [38]Melkas T: Health in all policies as a priority in Finnish health policy: a case study on national health policy development. Scand J Public Health 2013, 41(11 Suppl):3-28.
• [39]Wismar M, McQueen D, Lin V, Jones CM, Davies M: Rethinking the politics and implementation of health in all policies. Isr J Health Policy Res 2013, 2(1):17-4015-2-17. BioMed Central Full Text
• [40]Wildavsky A: The political economy of efficiency: cost-benefit analysis, systems analysis, and program budgeting. Public Adm Rev 1966, 26:292-310.