'Health in All Policies'-A Key Driver for Health and Well-Being in a Post-COVID-19 Pandemic World

A systematic review of whether Health Impact Assessment frameworks support best practice principles

OBJECTIVES

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is an evidence-based approach to assess the likely public health impacts of a policy or plan in any sector. Several HIA frameworks are available to guide practitioners doing a HIA. This systematic review sought to determine whether these support practitioners to meet best practice principles defined by the International Association for Impact Assessment.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a systematic review.

METHODS

Three complementary search strategies were used to identify frameworks in June 2022. We used three databases to find completed HIAs published in the last five years and hand-searched their reference lists for frameworks. We also searched 23 HIA repositories using Google's Advanced function and contacted HIA practitioners via two international mailing lists. We used a bespoke quality appraisal tool to assess frameworks against the principles.

RESULTS

The search identified 24 HIA frameworks. None of the frameworks achieved a 'good' rating for all best practice principles. Many identified the principles but did not provide guidance on how to meet them at all HIA steps. The highest number of frameworks were rated 'good' for ethical use of evidence and comprehensive approach to health (n = 15). Eight frameworks were rated as 'good' for participation, and two for equity. The highest number of frameworks rated 'poor' for sustainability (n = 11).

CONCLUSIONS

There is marked variation in the degree to which HIA frameworks support the best practice principles. HIA practitioners could select elements from different frameworks for practical guidance to meet all the best practice principles.

Integrating health across the Sustainable Development Goals in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: Assessment of Voluntary National Reviews from 18 countries

Voluntary National Reviews are the formal mechanism for countries to report on progress and share lessons learned on SDG implementation. We assessed the Voluntary National Reviews submitted by countries in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region to note the reported progress on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) implementation, the review preparation process and how health is positioned and framed to identify priorities for accelerating progress on the health-related SDGs. We extracted quantitative and qualitative data from 26 Voluntary National Reviews from 18 countries submitted during the period 2016 to January 2022. We focused on three areas: SDG implementation, the review preparation process and the positioning of health in the reviews. Three assessors conducted the data extraction based on the agreed framework according to their language of expertise (Arabic, English and French). One assessor supervised the whole process for consistency. If there was a doubt in interpretation, it was discussed and agreed among the assessors. Countries have established a mechanism for SDG implementation under high-level leadership, engaged in multistakeholder consultations, aligned and mainstreamed SDGs to national plans, and created a monitoring and review mechanism. Countries reported use of national participatory approach for the report preparation. The prioritization of both health and well-being (SDG3) and economic growth (SDG8) in the reports is unique compared to other regional and global assessments. Health was often framed around disease and health care provision without linkages to societal inequities and structural challenges. The reports indicated good progress in SDG implementation. Addressing upstream issues and the determinants of health requires the health sector to take a more strategic approach in advocating for health and well-being. Further research is needed to demonstrate how to address synergies and trade-offs of policy choices and identify the co-benefits of addressing health in the context of fiscal instability and widening inequities in the region.

Legislative Health Notes: Preliminary Learnings From Piloting a New Policy Analysis Tool

CONTEXT

In 2018, the Health Impact Project (the Project) developed and tested a new health in all policies (HiAP) tool called "legislative health notes" to provide state and local legislators with peer-reviewed evidence, public health data, and local data that illustrate potential positive and negative health and equity effects of proposed bills.

OBJECTIVES

The Project sought to refine the health note methodology while piloting the tool in the Colorado and Indiana General Assemblies, and with the Council of the District of Columbia, and worked with affiliates to introduce them in North Carolina, Ohio, and California.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

External partners solicited feedback on health notes via semistructured interviews and surveys from legislators, legislative staff, and expert reviewers who were familiar with health notes in each of these jurisdictions.

RESULTS

Respondents shared that health notes were nonpartisan, were easy for nonexperts to understand, and would be more effective if delivered earlier in the legislative process.

CONCLUSION

In response to informant feedback, practitioners can explore adding high-level summaries, increasing focus on health equity implications and the potential to work with legislators during the policy formulation phase. Data from this pilot suggest that legislative health notes are a promising nonpartisan and standardized tool to better understand the health and equity implications of proposed legislation.

Advancing health equity through social care interventions

OBJECTIVE

To use evidence on addressing racism in social care intervention research to create a framework for advancing health equity for all populations with marginalized social identities (e.g., race, gender, and sexual orientation). Such groups have disproportionate social needs (e.g., food insecurity) and negative social determinants of health (SDOH; e.g., poverty). We recommend how the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) could advance health equity for marginalized populations through social care research and care delivery.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

This commentary is informed by a literature review of social care interventions that were affiliated with healthcare systems; input from health equity researchers, policymakers, and community leaders attending the AHRQ Health Equity Summit; and consensus of the authors.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We recommend that AHRQ: (1) create an ecosystem that values research on SDOH and the effectiveness and implementation of social care interventions in the healthcare sector; (2) work with other federal agencies to (a) develop position statements with actionable recommendations about racism and other systems that perpetuate marginalization based on social identity and (b) develop aligned, complementary approaches to research and care delivery that address social marginalization; (3) advance both inclusive care delivery and inclusive research teams; (4) advance understanding of racism as a social determinant of health and effective strategies to mitigate its adverse impact on health; (5) advance the creation and scaling of effective strategies for addressing SDOH in healthcare systems, particularly in co-creation with community partners; and (6) require social care intervention researchers to use methods that advance our understanding of social health equity.

CONCLUSIONS

AHRQ, as a federal agency, could help advance health equity using a range of strategies, including using the agency's levers to ensure AHRQ stakeholders examine and address the unique experiences of socially marginalized populations in SDOH and social care intervention research.

Unlocking the WHO's Age-Friendly Healthcare Principles: Portugal's Quest and Recommendations

Countries worldwide are grappling with a pressing demographic challenge characterized by a growing older population. This poses a significant healthcare dilemma, presenting challenges for healthcare systems and providers. To address these challenges, the World Health Organization (WHO) has devised a set of Age-Friendly Principles, aimed at optimizing healthcare provision for older people. This article delves into the current state of healthcare adaptation for older adults in Portugal and assesses the implementation of the WHO Principles. Case studies were conducted in three distinct regions of Portugal, involving semistructured interviews with key decision makers from both the healthcare sector and organizations wielding direct influence over health policies (n = 11). A comprehensive content analysis was conducted employing the webQDA software. The findings unveiled a noteworthy trend in which most interviewees displayed limited familiarity with the WHO Principles. Nevertheless, all interviewees acknowledged the need to adapt the healthcare system accordingly. Strengths were identified, primarily within the healthcare management system, but noteworthy gaps were also revealed, particularly in terms of facility preparedness and professional training. Interviewees proposed various interventions to enhance age-friendly healthcare provision; however, they concurrently pinpointed challenges related to human resources, infrastructure, and financial management. In their concluding recommendations, interviewees underscored the development of tools to facilitate the application and evaluation of the WHO Principles, as well as the development by the WHO of an accreditation system to encourage the application of the principles in healthcare providers across the world.

Current status and influencing factors of policy identification in health impact assessment: a case study of Zhejiang Province

BACKGROUND

Health impact assessment (HIA) is a procedure, method and tool for evaluating the potential health impacts of policies, plans and construction projects, as well as the distribution of these impacts on population. Majority of international studies on health impact assessment have focussed on conceptual papers or case evaluations, neglecting participants' views on policies.

METHODS

A semi-structured interview with 30 health impact assessment experts was employed in this study, and the Nvivo software was utilized to analyse factors that influence policy identification. Subsequently, a multi-stage stratified random sampling method was adopted to survey 655 pilot staff members involved in health impact assessment in Zhejiang Province. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the current status and identify the factors influencing policy identification. In addition, hierarchical linear regression analysis and structural equation modelling were employed to determine the relationship between policy identification and influencing factors.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were found among participants in the level of identification of policies across three dimensions. The policy sentiment dimension had the highest score (4.137 ± 0.664), followed by policy cognition (4.075 ± 0.632) and policy evaluation (3.631 ± 0.797) dimensions. Subject trust had a positive impact on policy cognition (β = 0.503, P < 0.001), policy sentiment (β = 0.504, P < 0.001) and policy evaluation (β = 0.465, P < 0.001). Procedural justice had a positive impact on policy sentiment (β = 0.085, P < 0.01) and policy evaluation (β = 0.084, P < 0.05), but not policy cognition (β = 0.056, P > 0.05). Policy identification is influenced by age and average monthly salary among other factors.

CONCLUSION

These results highlight the importance of subjective trust and procedural justice in policy identification of health impact assessment. They provide valuable insights to developing interventions to overcome barriers to the implementation and enhancement of global identification of policies. Going forward, cross-sectoral synergies, enhanced international communication and training to increase participants' trust in the policy should be optimized to improve health impact assessment. Additional measures should be taken, such as ensuring seamless communication channels, embedding health impact assessment in administrative mechanisms, and establishing strong oversight and grievance mechanisms to improve fairness and transparency in the implementation and results of health impact assessment.

Políticas para la salud global en tiempo de pandemias: experiencia panamericana

Este artículo describe aportes ante escenarios pandémicos como el de la influenza del 2009 y el del SARS-CoV-2, de tres marcos analíticos de la Salud Global, la Diplomacia para la Salud Global, los Determinantes Sociales de la Salud y la Salud en Todas las Políticas, que pueden guiar la definición de políticas globales y nacionales en respuesta a las pandemias, aprovechando la experiencia panamericana. También, se proponen futuras direcciones para la gobernanza de autoridades nacionales y globales, cuya gestión corresponde a la Organización Mundial de la Salud, en colaboración con las nuevas configuraciones geopolíticas de cooperación, cuyo desafío actual es el éxito del mecanismo COVAX.

The National Clinical Care Commission Report to Congress: Leveraging Federal Policies and Programs for Population-Level Diabetes Prevention and Control: Recommendations From the National Clinical Care Commission

The etiology of type 2 diabetes is rooted in a myriad of factors and exposures at individual, community, and societal levels, many of which also affect the control of type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Not only do such factors impact risk and treatment at the time of diagnosis but they also can accumulate biologically from preconception, in utero, and across the life course. These factors include inadequate nutritional quality, poor access to physical activity resources, chronic stress (e.g., adverse childhood experiences, racism, and poverty), and exposures to environmental toxins. The National Clinical Care Commission (NCCC) concluded that the diabetes epidemic cannot be treated solely as a biomedical problem but must also be treated as a societal problem that requires an all-of-government approach. The NCCC determined that it is critical to design, leverage, and coordinate federal policies and programs to foster social and environmental conditions that facilitate the prevention and treatment of diabetes. This article reviews the rationale, scientific evidence base, and content of the NCCC's population-wide recommendations that address food systems; consumption of water over sugar-sweetened beverages; food and beverage labeling; marketing and advertising; workplace, ambient, and built environments; and research. Recommendations relate to specific federal policies, programs, agencies, and departments, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and others. These population-level recommendations are transformative. By recommending health-in-all-policies and an equity-based approach to governance, the NCCC Report to Congress has the potential to contribute to meaningful change across the diabetes continuum and beyond. Adopting these recommendations could significantly reduce diabetes incidence, complications, costs, and inequities. Substantial political resolve will be needed to translate recommendations into policy. Engagement by diverse members of the diabetes stakeholder community will be critical to such efforts.

Conceptualizing inequities and oppression in oral health research

Major sociohistorical processes have profound effects on oral health, with impacts experienced through structural oppression manifested in policies and practices across the lifespan. Structural oppression drives oral health inequities and impacts population-level oral health. In this global perspective paper, we challenge old assumptions about oral health inequities, address misleading conceptualizations in their description and operation and reframe oral health through the lens of intersecting systems of oppression. Furthermore, we emphasize the need for oral health researchers to explore causal pathways through which oppression harms oral health and engage in social science concepts to understand the root causes of oral health inequities fully. Finally, we call on policymakers, dental scholars and decision makers to consider health equity in all policies and to take a systems-oriented approach to effectively address oral health inequities.

Sports and the Pandemic: The Impact of COVID-19 on Active Living and Life Satisfaction of Climbers

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant changes in every aspect of our lives. Because of the measures imposed, people were only allowed to leave their homes for certain purposes, and all types of cultural and sports events were canceled. Climbers were greatly affected by these limited options for regular physical activity outside of the home environment. Little is known about the crisis' effects on the climbing community in German-speaking regions. Thus, we surveyed 1028 German-speaking climbers (mean age 34.6 years, SD 10.4; 50.4% females) from December 2020 to February 2021. A cross-sectional online survey collected data on climbing frequency and preferences as well as levels of life satisfaction, using the standardized Short Life Satisfaction Questionnaire for Lockdowns (SLSQL) before and during the crisis. Results showed that due to the pandemic, study subjects climbed less frequently, preferred outdoor locations to climb, and showed decreased life satisfaction scores (21%, (d = 0.87, p < 0.001). In conclusion, these findings highlighted that the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative effect on climbing sports activities and life satisfaction in this study sample. To preserve physical and mental health, indoor and outdoor sport activities should be continued as much as possible with reasonable hygiene concepts in place.

Predicted and observed impacts of COVID-19 lockdowns: two Health Impact Assessments in Scotland and Wales

Health Impact Assessment is a key approach used internationally to identify positive or negative impacts of policies, plans and proposals on health and well-being. In 2020, HIAs were undertaken in Scotland and Wales to identify the potential health and well-being impacts of the ‘stay at home’ and physical distancing measures implemented at the start of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. There is sparse evidence evaluating whether the impacts predicted in HIAs occur following policy implementation. This paper evaluates the impacts anticipated in the COVID-19 HIAs against actual observed trends. The processes undertaken were compared and predicted impacts were tabulated by population groups and main determinants of health. Routine data and literature evidence were collated to compare predicted and observed impacts. Nearly all health impacts anticipated in both HIAs have occurred in the direction predicted. There have been significant adverse impacts through multiple direct and indirect pathways including loss of income, social isolation, disruption to education and services, and psychosocial effects. This research demonstrates the value of prediction in impact assessment and fills a gap in the literature by comparing the predicted impacts identified within the HIAs with observed trends. Post-COVID-19 recovery should centre health and well-being within future policies and decisions. Processes like HIA can support this as part of a ‘health in all policies’ approach to improve the health and well-being of populations.

Managerial Perception of Risk in an Organization in a Post-COVID-19 Work Environment

The COVID-19 pandemic drew the attention of all industries and organizations to the importance of comprehensive preparation for various types of crises and disruptions. Without proper risk management for crisis situations, it is impossible to talk about organizational resilience, maintaining organizational continuity, or ensuring the company's ability to protect workers' lives and health in a crisis. While the COVID-19 pandemic is rapidly reshaping the work environment, significant challenges related to risk management are emerging. The purpose of this research paper is to examine the impact of a pandemic on the risk perception in an organization by managers of all three levels (strategic, operational, and line level) and to examine the impact of broadly understood risk management on organizational performance. For the examination of operational risk perception, empirical research was conducted in Polish enterprises. The methodology of the survey is based on a questionnaire of operational risk and risk management perception in a post-COVID-19 work environment. According to the survey results, risk management was generally perceived better than the level of operational risk, compared to the period before the pandemic. Therefore, a substantial improvement in risk management during the crisis allowed the surveyed organizations to cope with the pandemic, and even slightly enhance their performance. Organizations have been able to achieve their goals mainly by slightly reducing risk appetite and lowering the tolerable risk level threshold. Even so, organizations have improved their ability to adapt and seize opportunities.

Facilitators, Barriers and Views on the Role of Public Health Institutes in Promoting and Using Health Impact Assessment-An International Virtual Scoping Survey and Expert Interviews

Public health institutes have an important role in promoting and protecting the health and well-being of populations. A key focus of such institutes are the wider determinants of health, embracing the need to advocate for 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP). A valuable tool to support this is the health impact assessment. This study aims to support public health institutes to advocate more successfully for the use of health impact assessments and HiAP in order to promote and protect health, well-being and equity. During July 2021, a quantitative online survey was undertaken across international networks with 17 valid responses received. Semi-structured interviews were also administered with nine expert representatives and analysed thematically. In total, 64.7% (n = 11) of survey respondents were aware of health impact assessments and 47.1% (n = 8) currently conducted health impact assessments. It was noted that there are differing approaches to HIAs, with a need for a clear set of standards. Barriers to use included lack of knowledge, training and resources. Overall, 64.7% (n = 11) of survey respondents would like to do more to develop knowledge and capacity around health impact assessments. The results from this study can serve as a platform to help build knowledge, networks and expertise, to help support a 'Health in All Policies' approach and address inequalities which exist in all societies.