Revitalizing the setting approach – supersettings for sustainable impact in community health promotion

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

Bjarne Bruun Jensen³  Kjeld Poulsen³  Bent Egberg Mikkelsen¹  Laura Tolnov Clausen³  Helene Christine Reinbach¹  Ulla Toft²  Paul Bloch³ 

[1] AAU-MENU, Meal Science & Public Health Nutrition, Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15, Copenhagen, DK- 2450, SV, Denmark;Research Centre for Prevention and Health, Glostrup University Hospital, Nordre Ringvej 57, Building 84-85, Glostrup, DK-2600, Denmark;Steno Health Promotion Center, Steno Diabetes Center, Niels Steensens Vej 8, Gentofte, DK-2820, Denmark

关键词: Supersetting;    Action research;    Sustainable development;    Empowerment;    Participation;    Integration;    Local community;    Health promotion;    Setting approach;   

Others  :  1136195
DOI  :  10.1186/s12966-014-0118-8

 received in 2014-01-13, accepted in 2014-09-08,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The concept of health promotion rests on aspirations aiming at enabling people to increase control over and improve their health. Health promotion action is facilitated in settings such as schools, homes and work places. As a contribution to the promotion of healthy lifestyles, we have further developed the setting approach in an effort to harmonise it with contemporary realities (and complexities) of health promotion and public health action. The paper introduces a modified concept, the supersetting approach, which builds on the optimised use of diverse and valuable resources embedded in local community settings and on the strengths of social interaction and local ownership as drivers of change processes. Interventions based on a supersetting approach are first and foremost characterised by being integrated, but also participatory, empowering, context-sensitive and knowledge-based. Based on a presentation of “Health and Local Community”, a supersetting initiative addressing the prevention of lifestyle diseases in a Danish municipality, the paper discusses the potentials and challenges of supporting local community interventions using the supersetting approach.

Discussion

The supersetting approach is a further development of the setting approach in which the significance of integrated and coordinated actions together with a participatory approach are emphasised and important principles are specified, all of which contribute to the attainment of synergistic effects and sustainable impact of supersetting initiatives. The supersetting approach is an ecological approach, which places the individual in a social, environmental and cultural context, and calls for a holistic perspective to change potentials and developmental processes with a starting point in the circumstances of people’s everyday life. The supersetting approach argues for optimised effectiveness of health promotion action through integrated efforts and long-lasting partnerships involving a diverse range of actors in public institutions, private enterprises, non-governmental organisations and civil society.

Summary

The supersetting approach is a relevant and useful conceptual framework for developing intervention-based initiatives for sustainable impact in community health promotion. It strives to attain synergistic effects from activities that are carried out in multiple settings in a coordinated manner. The supersetting approach is based on ecological and whole-systems thinking, and stipulates important principles and values of integration, participation, empowerment, context and knowledge-based development.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Bloch et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]WHO: Primary Health Care: Report of the International Conference on Primary Health Care, Alma-Ata, USSR. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1978.
• [2]The World Health Report 2008. Primary Health Care Now More Than Ever. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; 2008.
• [3]Commission on the Social Determinants of Health: Closing the gap in a generation. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; 2008.
• [4]Bhatia M, Rifkin S: A renewed focus on primary health care: revitalize or reframe? Globalization Health 2010, 6:13.
• [5]The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. First International Conference on Health Promotion, Ottawa, 17–21 November 1986 In Milestones in Health Promotion. Statements from Global Conferences. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; 2009.
• [6]Health Promotion Glossary. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; 1998.
• [7]Poland BD, Green LW, Rootman I: Settings for Health Promotion. Linking Theory and Practice. Sage Publications, London. United Kingdom; 2000.
• [8]Global Strategy for Health for All by the year 2000. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; 1981.
• [9]Healthy Settings. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; 2013.
• [10]Healthy Cities. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen. Denmark; 2013.
• [11]Whitehead M, Dahlgren G: What can be done about inequalities in health? Lancet 1991, 338(8774):1059-1063.
• [12]Equity, Social Determinants and Public Health Programmes. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; 2010.
• [13]Preventing Chronic Diseases - A Vital Investment. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; 2005.
• [14]Thomas S, Fayter D, Misso K, Ogilvie D, Petticrew M, Sowden A, Whitehead M, Worthy G: Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: systematic review. Tob Control 2008, 17:230-237.
• [15]Adelaide Statement on Health in All Policies – Moving towards a Shared Governance for Health and Well-being. World Health Organization, Government of South Australia, Adelaide; 2010.
• [16]Jensen BB: Environmental and health education viewed from an action perspective – a case from Denmark. J Curriculum Stud 2004, 36(4):405-425.
• [17]Jungk R, Müllert N: Future Workshops: How to Create Desirable Futures. Institute for Social Inventions, London; 1987.
• [18]Dodgson R, Lee K, Drager N: Global Health Governance. A Conceptual Review. Discussion Paper No. 1. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; 2002.
• [19]Kaul I, Grunberg I, Stern M: Global Public Goods, International Cooperation in the 21st Century. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Oxford University Press, , Oxford; 1999.
• [20]Walley J, Lawn JE, Tinker A, de Francisco A, Chopra M, Rudan I, Bhutta ZA, Black RE: Primary health care: making Alma-Ata a reality. Lancet 2008, 372(9642):1001-1007.
• [21]Kickbusch I: 21st century determinants of health: a new challenge for health promotion. Glob Health Promot 2012, 19(3):5-7.
• [22]Whitelaw S, Baxendale A, Bryce C, Machardy L, Young I, Witney E: “Settings” based health promotion: a review. Health Promot Int 2001, 16(4):339-353.
• [23]Bronfenbrenner U: Ecological systems theory. In Six theories of Child Development: Revised Formulations and Current Issues. Edited by Vasta R. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London, England; 1992.
• [24]Dooris M: Joining up settings for health: a valuable investment for strategic partnerships? Crit Public Health 2004, 14:37-49.
• [25]Dooris M: Expert voices for change: bridging the silos – towards healthy and sustainable settings for the 21st century. Health Place 2013, 29:39-50.
• [26]Ståhl T, Wismar M, Ollila E, Lahtinen E, Leppo K: Health in All Policies. Prospects and potentials. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland; 2006.
• [27]McQueen DV, Wismar M, Lin V, Jones CM, Davies M: Intersectoral Governance for Health in All Policies. Structures, Actions and Experiences. 2012.
• [28]Poland B, Dooris M: A green and healthy future: the settings approach to building health, equity and sustainability. Crit Public Health 2010, 20(3):281-298.
• [29]McQueen D: Critical issues in theory for health promotion. In Health and Modernity: The Role of Theory in Health Promotion. Edited by McQueen D, Kickbusch I. Springer, New York; 2007.
• [30]Dooris M, Poland B, Kolbe L, de Leeuw E, McCall D, Wharf-Higgins J: Healthy settings: building evidence for the effectiveness of whole system health promotion: challenges and future directions. In Global Perspectives on Health Promotion Effectiveness. Edited by McQueen D, Jones C. Springer Science and Business Media, New York; 2007.
• [31]Dooris M: Holistic and sustainable health improvement: the contribution of the settings-based approach to health promotion. Perspect Public Health 2009, 129:29-36.
• [32]Kickbusch I: Triggering Debate - White Paper. The Food System. A Prism of Present and Future Challenges for Health Promotion and Sustainable Development. 2010.
• [33]Naaldenberg J, Vaandrager L, Koelen M, Wagemakers A, Saan H, de Hoog K: Elaborating on systems thinking in health promotion practice. Glob Health Promot 2009, 16(1):39-47.
• [34]Bracht N, Tsouros A: Principles and strategies of effective community participation. Health Promot Int 1990, 5(3):199-208.
• [35]Bracht N, Rice RE: Community partnership strategies in health campaigns. In Public communication campaigns. 4th edition. Edited by Rice RE, Atkin K. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA; 2012:289-304.
• [36]Mansuri G, Rao V: Localizing Development: Does Participation Work?. World Bank, Washington D.C; 2013.
• [37]Rifkin SB: Paradigm lost: Toward a new understanding of community participation in health programmes. Acta Trop 1996, 61:79-92.
• [38]Heritage Z, Dooris M: Community participation and empowerment in Healthy Cities. Health Promot Int 2009, 24(S1):i45-i55.
• [39]Dooris M, Heritage Z: Healthy Cities: facilitating the active participation and empowerment of local people. J Urban Health 2011, 90(suppl.1):74-91.
• [40]Wallerstein N: What is the Evidence on Effectiveness of Empowerment to Improve Health?. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark; 2006.
• [41]Community Engagement. 2008.
• [42]Shareck M, Frohlich KL, Poland B: Reducing social inequalities in health through settings-related interventions – a conceptual framework. Glob Health Promot 2013, 20:39-52.
• [43]Fulop N, Allen P, Clarke A, Black N: Studying the Organisation and Delivery of Health Services: Research Methods. Routledge, London; 2001.
• [44]Connell JP, Kubisch A, Schorr L, Weiss C: New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. Concepts, Methods and Contexts. The Aspen Institute, Washington DC; 1995.
• [45]Fulbright-Anderson A, Kubisch A, Connell J: New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. Theory, Measurement, and Analysis. The Aspen Institute, Washington DC; 1998.
• [46]Pawson R, Tilley N: Realistic Evaluation. SAGE, London; 1997.
• [47]Coryn C, Noakes L, Westine C, Schröter D: A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. Am J Eval 2011, 32:199-226.
• [48]Marchal B, van Belle S, van Josefien O, Hoerée T, Kegels G: Is realist evaluation keeping its promise? A review of published empirical studies in the field of health systems research. Evaluation 2012, 18:192-212.
• [49]Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G: Intervention & Mapping: a process for designing theory- and evidence-based health education programs. Health Educ Behav 1998, 25:545-563.
• [50]Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G, Gottlieb NH, Fernández ME: Planning Health Promotion Programs; An Intervention Mapping Approach. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA; 2011.
• [51]Windsor LC: Using concept mapping in community-based participatory research: a mixed methods approach. J Mixed Methods Res 2013, 7(3):274-293.
• [52]Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB: Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health 1998, 19:173-202.