Evaluating Health in All Policies Comment on "Developing a Framework for a Program Theory-Based Approach to Evaluating Policy Processes and Outcomes: Health in All Policies in South Australia"

How to Evaluate Health in All Policies at the Local Level: Methodological Insights Within Municipalities From the WHO French Healthy Cities Network

BACKGROUND

This article proposes a method for analysing the degree of maturity of Health in All Policies (HiAP) among World Health Organization-French Healthy Cities Network (WHO-FHCN) as part of the GoveRnance for Equity, EnviroNment and Health in the City (GREENH-City) project. We focused on the creation or enhancement of health-promoting environments, and more specifically, public green spaces.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional quantitative study guided by the evaluative framework of the HiAP maturity level developed by Storm et al mixed with a qualitative interpretation. A self-administered questionnaire was sent to elected officials and health department officers in the 85 member cities of the WHO-FHCN in 2017. Subsequently 58 cities were included in the analysis, which was based on a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and a hierarchical ascending classification (HAC).

RESULTS

Thirty-two criteria among a total of 100 were identified and were used to organize the cities into 8 groups which was then reduced to three profiles among the cities: a less advanced HiAP profile, an established HiAP profile and an advanced HiAP profile. This process allows us to identify 4 dimensions that make it possible to evaluate the level of maturity of cities in the HiAP process, namely: (1) the consideration of social inequalities in health and/or health issues in the policies/actions of the sector studied, (2) occasional intersectoral collaboration, ie, one-off initiatives between the health department and others sectors, (3) the existence of joint projects, ie, common projects between two or more sectors, (4) the existence of intersectoral bodies, in this case on the theme of urban green spaces including an intersectoral committee and/or working groups.

CONCLUSION

Four dimensions which allow to the measurement of the degree of progress in implementing health-all-policies are proposed. With a view to integrating knowledge into public action, this study carried out under real conditions offers a realistic method to evaluate HiAP.

The future of public health policymaking after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from Health in All Policies

Background: 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP) describes the pursuit of health equity. It has five main elements: treat health as a human right; identify evidence of the 'social determinants' of health inequalities, recognise that most powers to affect health are not held by health departments, promote intersectoral policymaking and collaboration inside and outside of government, and generate political will. Studies describe its potential but bemoan a major implementation gap. Some HiAP scholars learn from policymaking research how to understand this gap, but the use of policy theories is patchy. In that context, our guiding research question is: How does HiAP research use policy theory to understand policymaking? It allows us to zoom-out to survey the field and zoom-in to identify: the assumed and actual causes of policy change, and transferable lessons to HiAP scholars and advocates. Methods: Our qualitative systematic review (two phases, 2018 and 2020) identified 4972 HiAP articles. Of these, 113 journal articles (research and commentary) provide a non-trivial reference to policymaking (at least one reference to a policymaking concept). We use the 113 articles to produce a general HiAP narrative and explore how the relatively theory-informed articles enhance it. Results: Most articles focus on policy analysis (identifying policy problems and solutions) rather than policy theory (explaining policymaking dynamics). They report a disappointing gap between HiAP expectations and policy outcomes. Theory-informed articles contribute to a HiAP playbook to close that gap or a programme theory to design and evaluate HiAP in new ways.   Conclusions: Few HiAP articles use policy theories for their intended purpose. Policy theories provide lessons to aid critical reflection on power, political dilemmas, and policymaking context. HiAP scholars seek more instrumental lessons, potentially at the cost of effective advocacy and research.

The future of public health policymaking after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from Health in All Policies

Background: 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP) describes the pursuit of health equity. It has five main elements: treat health as a human right; identify evidence of the 'social determinants' of health inequalities, recognise that most powers to affect health are not held by health departments, promote intersectoral policymaking and collaboration inside and outside of government, and generate political will. Studies describe its potential but bemoan a major implementation gap. Some HiAP scholars learn from policymaking research how to understand this gap, but the use of policy theories is patchy. In that context, our guiding research question is: How does HiAP research use policy theory to understand policymaking? It allows us to zoom-out to survey the field and zoom-in to identify: the assumed and actual causes of policy change, and transferable lessons to HiAP scholars and advocates. Methods: Our qualitative systematic review (two phases, 2018 and 2020) identified 4972 HiAP articles. Of these, 113 journal articles (research and commentary) provide a non-trivial reference to policymaking (at least one reference to a policymaking concept). We use the 113 articles to produce a general HiAP narrative and explore how the relatively theory-informed articles enhance it. Results: Most articles focus on policy analysis (identifying policy problems and solutions) rather than policy theory (explaining policymaking dynamics). They report a disappointing gap between HiAP expectations and policy outcomes. Theory-informed articles contribute to a HiAP playbook to close that gap or a programme theory to design and evaluate HiAP in new ways.   Conclusions: Few HiAP articles use policy theories for their intended purpose. Policy theories provide lessons to aid critical reflection on power, political dilemmas, and policymaking context. HiAP scholars seek more instrumental lessons, potentially at the cost of effective advocacy and research.

Policy, Theory, and Evaluation: Stop Mixing the Fruit Salad Comment on "Developing a Framework for a Program Theory-Based Approach to Evaluating Policy Processes and Outcomes: Health in All Policies in South Australia"

The study of Health in All Policies (HiAP) is gaining momentum. Authors are increasingly turning to wide swathes of political and social theory to frame (Program) Theory Based (or Informed) Evaluation (TBE) approaches. TBE for HiAP is not only prudent, it adds a level of elegance and insight to the research toolbox. However, it is still necessary to organize theoretical thinking appropriately. A commentary on a recent Int J Health Policy Manag paper argued that the framing of context and causality were hard to establish. This paper argues that this is not the most pressing issue. Rather, it claims we need to go back to basics to establish an appropriate HiAP evaluation paradigm. Such a basic paradigm would hinge on an understanding of power.