-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Oct 1991
Topics: Advertising; Female; Health Promotion; Humans; Male; Public Policy; Smoking; Smoking Prevention; United Kingdom
PubMed: 1954426
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.303.6808.973 -
BMJ Global Health Jun 2022
Topics: Health Policy; Humans; Public Policy
PubMed: 35672117
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009704 -
Health Research Policy and Systems Aug 2020Calls for evidence-informed public health policy-making often ignore that there are multiple, and often competing, bodies of potentially relevant evidence to which...
Calls for evidence-informed public health policy-making often ignore that there are multiple, and often competing, bodies of potentially relevant evidence to which policy-makers have recourse in identifying policy priorities and taking decisions. In this paper, we illustrate how policy frames may favour the use of specific bodies of evidence. For the sixth Dutch Public Health Status and Foresight report (2014), possible future trends in population health and healthcare expenditure were used as a starting point for a deliberative dialogue with stakeholders to identify and formulate the most important societal challenges for the Dutch health system. Working with these stakeholders, we expanded these societal challenges into four normative perspectives on public health. These perspectives can be regarded as policy frames. In each of the perspectives, a specific body of evidence is favoured and other types of evidence are neglected. Crucial outcomes in one body may be regarded as irrelevant from other perspectives. Consequently, the results of research from a single body of evidence may not be helpful in the policy-making processes because policy-makers need to account for trade-offs between all competing interests and values. To support these policy processes, researchers need to combine qualitative and quantitative methodologies to address different outcomes from the start of their studies. We feel it is time for the research community to re-politicise the idea of evidence use and for policy-makers to demand research that helps them to account for all health-related policy goals. This is a prerequisite for real evidence-informed policy-making.
Topics: Administrative Personnel; Health Policy; Humans; Policy Making; Public Health; Public Policy
PubMed: 32831080
DOI: 10.1186/s12961-020-00614-9 -
Revista de Saude Publica 2020Chronic kidney disease is a pathology with exponential increasing prevalence worldwide. This trend derives mainly from population aging and the growth of chronic...
Chronic kidney disease is a pathology with exponential increasing prevalence worldwide. This trend derives mainly from population aging and the growth of chronic conditions, making prevention a priority in public health. Thus, this observation instigates debates on the advances and challenges in public policies aimed at facing the progression of this disease and its risk factors in a contemporary reality that requires changes in the management models of chronic conditions. Brazilian and international experiences show that actions to prevent chronic kidney disease in risk groups remain incipient, especially in low-income countries. This area requires investment, supporting planning individualized, interdisciplinary and shared care with primary health care, as well as the user's responsibility for their care, with proactivity and establishment and monitoring of goals to achieve satisfactory results.
Topics: Brazil; Chronic Disease; Health Policy; Humans; Primary Health Care; Public Health; Public Policy; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
PubMed: 32844982
DOI: 10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054001708 -
Therapie 2012A cohort is a group of individuals sharing some characteristics, followed longitudinally. Essential tools of epidemiology, these studies provide pieces of evidence of...
A cohort is a group of individuals sharing some characteristics, followed longitudinally. Essential tools of epidemiology, these studies provide pieces of evidence of the relationship between an exposition and outcomes in order to guide public health policies. In France, many cohorts have been conducted over the past few years. Sometimes, initiated by independent research teams (e.g. E3N) but more often, either requested by health authorities in a global public health plan (e.g. MEMENTO in the Alzheimer plan) or conducted to investigate a safety issue (e.g. France Coag). Besides, post authorization studies often consist in prospective cohorts. Because of objectives, designs and governance arrangements diversity; participants questioned whether it was interesting for researchers, regulators and industrials to use this epidemiological tool. Some findings about difficulties met in cohorts' establishment have been shared by each other. In order to make cohorts more efficient, participants have made some recommendations.
Topics: Cohort Studies; France; Health Policy; Humans; Prospective Studies; Public Health; Public Policy; Research
PubMed: 23110838
DOI: 10.2515/therapie/2012049 -
International Journal of Environmental... Apr 2022Measuring the health and wellbeing of the population is the first step in visualizing the real needs of the population in order to promote healthy habits, as well as...
Measuring the health and wellbeing of the population is the first step in visualizing the real needs of the population in order to promote healthy habits, as well as effective health and social policy responses [...].
Topics: Public Health; Public Policy
PubMed: 35564496
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095103 -
Journal of Public Health Policy Jun 2023
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; COVID-19 Vaccines; COVID-19; Health Policy; Public Policy; Vaccination
PubMed: 36788273
DOI: 10.1057/s41271-023-00398-6 -
Social Science & Medicine (1982) May 2021'What does 'The Public' think?' is a question often posed by researchers and policy makers, and public values are regularly invoked to justify policy decisions. Over...
CONTEXT
'What does 'The Public' think?' is a question often posed by researchers and policy makers, and public values are regularly invoked to justify policy decisions. Over time there has been a participatory turn in the social and health sciences, including health technology assessment and priority setting in health, towards citizen participation such that public policies reflect public values. It is one thing to agree that public values are important, however, and another to agree on how public values should be elicited, deliberated upon and integrated into decision-making. Surveys of public values rarely deliver unanimity, and preference heterogeneity, or plurality, is to be expected.
METHODS
This paper examines the role of public values in health policy and how to elicit, analyse, and present values, in the face of plurality. We delineate the strengths and weaknesses of aggregative and deliberative methods before setting out a new empirical framework, drawing on Sunstein's Incompletely Theorised Agreements, based on three levels: principles, policies and patients. The framework is illustrated using a recognised policy dilemma - the provision of high cost, limited-effect medicines intended to extend life for people with terminal illnesses.
FINDINGS
Application of the multi-level framework to public values permits transparent consideration of plurality, including analysis of coherence and consensus, in a way that offers routes to policy recommendations that are based on public values and justified in those terms.
CONCLUSIONS
Using the new framework and eliciting quantitative and qualitative data across levels of abstraction has the potential to inform policy recommendations grounded in public values, where values are plural. This is not to suggest that one solution will magically emerge, but rather that choices between policies can be explicitly justified in relation to the properties of public values, and a much clearer understanding of (in)consistencies and areas of consensus.
Topics: Administrative Personnel; Health Policy; Health Priorities; Humans; Public Policy; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 33882440
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113892 -
Journal of Physical Activity & Health Jan 2011Improving parks in low income and minority neighborhoods may be a key way to increase physical activity and decrease overweight and obesity prevalence among children at... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Improving parks in low income and minority neighborhoods may be a key way to increase physical activity and decrease overweight and obesity prevalence among children at the greatest risk. To advocate effectively for improved recreation infrastructure, public health advocates must understand the legal and policy landscape in which public recreation decisions are made.
METHODS
In this descriptive legal analysis, we reviewed federal, state, and local laws to determine the authority of each level of government over parks. We then examined current practices and state laws regarding park administration in urban California and rural Texas.
RESULTS
We identified several themes through the analysis: (1) multiple levels of governments are often involved in parks offerings in a municipality, (2) state laws governing parks vary, (3) local authority may vary substantially within a state, and (4) state law may offer greater authority than local jurisdictions use.
CONCLUSIONS
Public health advocates who want to improve parks need to (1) think strategically about which levels of government to engage; (2) identify parks law and funding from all levels of government, including those not typically associated with local parks; and (3) partner with advocates with similar interests, including those from active living and school communities.
Topics: Humans; Poverty Areas; Public Facilities; Public Policy; Recreation; United States
PubMed: 21350251
DOI: 10.1123/jpah.8.s1.s109 -
Journal of Physical Activity & Health Apr 2022Considering the large health burden of physical inactivity, effective physical activity promotion is a "best buy" for noncommunicable disease and obesity prevention. The...
BACKGROUND
Considering the large health burden of physical inactivity, effective physical activity promotion is a "best buy" for noncommunicable disease and obesity prevention. The MOVING policy framework was developed to promote and monitor government policy actions to increase physical activity as part of the EU Horizon 2020 project "Confronting Obesity: Co-creating policy with youth (CO-CREATE)."
METHOD
A scanning exercise, documentary review of key international policy documents, and thematic analysis of main recommendations were conducted. Themes were reviewed as part of a consultation with physical activity experts.
RESULTS
There were 6 overarching policy framework areas: M-make opportunities and initiatives that promote physical activity in schools, the community, and sport and recreation; O-offer physical activity opportunities in the workplace and training in physical activity promotion across multiple professions; V-visualize and enact structures and surroundings that promote physical activity; I-implement transport infrastructure and opportunities that support active societies; N-normalize and increase physical activity through public communication that motivates and builds behavior change skills; and G-give physical activity training, assessment, and counseling in health care settings.
CONCLUSIONS
The MOVING framework can identify policy actions needed, tailor options suitable for populations, and assess whether approaches are sufficiently comprehensive.
Topics: Adolescent; Exercise; Health Policy; Health Promotion; Humans; Obesity; Public Policy; Schools; Workplace
PubMed: 35316789
DOI: 10.1123/jpah.2021-0732