A decision-making model for health promotion advocacy: the case for advocacy of drunk driving control measures

Does public health advocacy seek to redress health inequities? A scoping review

The public health (PH) sector is ideally situated to take a lead advocacy role in catalysing and guiding multi-sectoral action to address social determinants of health inequities, but evidence suggests that PH's advocacy role has not been fully realised. The purpose of this review was to determine the extent to which the PH advocacy literature addresses the goal of reducing health and social inequities, and to increase understanding of contextual factors shaping the discourse and practice of PH advocacy. We employed scoping review methods to systematically examine and chart peer-reviewed and grey literature on PH advocacy published from January 1, 2000 to June 30, 2015. Databases and search engines used included: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index, Google Scholar, Google, Google Books, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Grey Literature Report. A total of 183 documents were charted, and included in the final analysis. Thematic analysis was both inductive and deductive according to the objectives. Although PH advocacy to address root causes of health inequities is supported theoretically and through professional practice standards, the empirical literature does not reflect that this is occurring widely in PH practice. Tensions within the discourse were noted and multiple barriers to engaging in PH advocacy for health equity were identified, including a preoccupation with individual responsibilities for healthy lifestyles and behaviours, consistent with the emergence of neoliberal governance. If the PH sector is to fulfil its advocacy role in catalysing action to reduce health inequities, it will be necessary to address advocacy barriers at multiple levels, promote multi-sectoral efforts that implicate the state and corporations in the production of health inequities, and rally state involvement to redress these injustices.

Development of complex interventions in stroke care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Stroke care is complex, requiring input from professionals, patients and carers. Identifying and developing appropriate intervention components to meet these complex needs is difficult. The Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for developing and evaluating 'complex' (nonpharmacological) interventions aims to improve intervention development. This study uses the Framework to review complex interventions in stroke care.

METHODS

Systematic review with multiple search strategies (electronic databases, recent journals, gray literature) was used. The MRC Framework was used to guide the search strategy and assess study quality. 'Complex interventions' were defined as educational/psychosocial interventions to change knowledge, beliefs or behaviors.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies were included: 39 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 28 other designs. Complex interventions targeted healthcare professionals (17), and patients, carers and the general population (21 targeting primary or secondary prevention; 30 targeting adjustment and recovery after stroke). Compared with recovery studies, primary and secondary prevention studies were significantly less likely to have been evaluated in RCTs. Interventions evaluated in RCTs were significantly less likely to influence primary outcomes (26%) compared with other designs (44%). Theoretical grounding to support intervention choice was reported in 40 studies but only 14 were theoretically 'well developed'; 21 RCTs listed multiple primary outcome measures, with 10 listing 5 or more. Of these only 3 reported considering statistical power before recruitment and none was sufficiently powered.

CONCLUSIONS

Few complex interventions in stroke care have been adequately developed or evaluated. This may explain failures to demonstrate efficacy. In future, greater attention is needed to theoretical development and methodological quality.