-
Frontiers in Public Health 2023The host-pathogen relationship is inherently dynamic and constantly evolving. Applying an implementation science lens to policy evaluation suggests that policy impacts... (Review)
Review
RATIONALE
The host-pathogen relationship is inherently dynamic and constantly evolving. Applying an implementation science lens to policy evaluation suggests that policy impacts are variable depending upon key implementation outcomes (feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness costs) and conditions and contexts.
COVID-19 CASE STUDY
Experiences with non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) including masking, testing, and social distancing/business and school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic response highlight the importance of considering public health policy impacts through an implementation science lens of constantly evolving contexts, conditions, evidence, and public perceptions. As implementation outcomes (feasibility, acceptability) changed, the effectiveness of these interventions changed thereby altering public health policy impact. Sustainment of behavioral change may be a key factor determining the duration of effectiveness and ultimate impact of pandemic policy recommendations, particularly for interventions that require ongoing compliance at the level of the individual.
PRACTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING AND EVALUATING PANDEMIC POLICY
Updating public health policy recommendations as more data and alternative interventions become available is the evidence-based policy approach and grounded in principles of implementation science and dynamic sustainability. Achieving the ideal of real-time policy updates requires improvements in public health data collection and analysis infrastructure and a shift in public health messaging to incorporate uncertainty and the necessity of ongoing changes. In this review, the Dynamic Infectious Diseases Public Health Response Framework is presented as a model with a practical tool for iteratively incorporating implementation outcomes into public health policy design with the aim of sustaining benefits and identifying when policies are no longer functioning as intended and need to be adapted or de-implemented.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Real-time decision making requires sensitivity to conditions on the ground and adaptation of interventions at all levels. When asking about the public health effectiveness and impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions, the focus should be on , and they can achieve public health impact. In the future, rather than focusing on models of public health intervention effectiveness that assume static impacts, policy impacts should be considered as dynamic with ongoing re-evaluation as conditions change to meet the ongoing needs of the ultimate end-user of the intervention: the public.
Topics: Humans; Implementation Science; Pandemics; COVID-19; Public Policy; Communicable Diseases; Health Policy
PubMed: 37663826
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1207679 -
Health Expectations : An International... Mar 2012This paper aims to describe and disseminate the process and initial outcomes of the first National Health Assembly (NHA) in Thailand, as an innovative example of health...
AIM
This paper aims to describe and disseminate the process and initial outcomes of the first National Health Assembly (NHA) in Thailand, as an innovative example of health policy making.
SETTING
The first NHA, held in December 2008 in Bangkok, brought together over 1500 people from government agencies, academia, civil society, health professionals and the private sector to discuss key health issues and produce resolutions to guide policy making. It adapted the approach used at the World Health Assembly of the World Health Organization.
METHOD
Findings are derived from a literature review, document analysis, and the views and experiences of the authors, two of whom contributed to the organization of the NHA and two of whom were invited external observers.
RESULTS
Fourteen agenda items were discussed and resolutions passed. Potential early impacts on policy making have included an increase in the 2010 public budget for Thailand's universal health coverage scheme as total public expenditure has decreased; cabinet endorsement of proposed Strategies for Universal Access to Medicines for Thai People; and establishment of National Commissions on Health Impact Assessment and Trade and Health.
DISCUSSION
The NHA was successful in bringing together various actors and sectors involved in the social production of health, including groups often marginalized in policy making. It provides an innovative model of how governments may be able to increase public participation and intersectoral collaboration that could be adapted in other contexts. Significant challenges remain in ensuring full participation of interested groups and in implementing, and monitoring the impact of, the resolutions passed.
Topics: Congresses as Topic; Health Policy; Humans; Interviews as Topic; Policy Making; Public Policy; Thailand
PubMed: 21281413
DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00656.x -
Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem Sep 2020To analyze regulation and public policies related to nursing and the specialist nurse in community and public health nursing.
OBJECTIVE
To analyze regulation and public policies related to nursing and the specialist nurse in community and public health nursing.
METHODS
Analysis of the legal and normative framework of community and public health nursing in Portugal, as well as current public health policies, regarding the competences and intervention of this nurse, articulated with the attributions of the Public Health Unit.
RESULTS
The intervention of this nurse deserves a broad reflection, in the sense of maximizing the activities of community and public health, essential for the implementation of public policies and obtaining health gains.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
This nurse has competences foreseen in the regulations and standards for public health interventions, in line with the attributions of the Public Health Unit, of the National Health Service, in which specialties are identified for their performance in the current structure.
Topics: Health Policy; Humans; Portugal; Public Health; Public Health Nursing; Public Policy; State Medicine
PubMed: 32901741
DOI: 10.1590/0034-7167-2019-0550 -
BMJ Global Health Jul 2021Migration health is affected by decision making at levels ranging from global to local, both within and beyond the health sector. These decisions impact seeking,... (Review)
Review
Migration health is affected by decision making at levels ranging from global to local, both within and beyond the health sector. These decisions impact seeking, entitlements, service delivery, policy making and knowledge production on migration health. It is key that ethical challenges faced by decision makers are recognised and addressed in research and data, clinical practice and policy making on migration health. An ethical approach can provide methods to identify ethical issues, frameworks for systematising information and suggesting ethically acceptable solutions, and guidance on procedural concerns and legitimate decision making processes. By unpacking dilemmas, conflicts of interests and values at stake, an ethical approach is relevant for all who make decisions about migration health policy and practice. Adopting an ethical approach to migration health benefits governments, organisations, policy makers, health workers, data managers, researchers and migrants themselves. First, it highlights the inherent normative questions and trade-offs at stake in migration health. Second, it assists decision makers in deciding what is the ethically justifiable thing to do through an 'all things considered' approach. Third, ethical frameworks and technical guidance set normative and practical standards for decision makers facing ethical questions - from 'bedside rationing' to collection of big data or in policy making - that can ensure that migrants' interests are considered. Fourth, there is a need for greater transparency and accountability in decision making, as well as meaningful participation of migrant groups. An ethical approach connects to public health, economic and human rights arguments and highlights the urgent need to mainstream concerns for migrants in global and national health responses.
Topics: Health Policy; Human Rights; Humans; Policy Making; Public Health; Public Policy
PubMed: 34321236
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006425 -
BMJ Open Jun 2022Understanding the Latin American Social Innovation in Health (SIH) approach requires a process of typifying and identifying main criteria of the approach based on the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Understanding the Latin American Social Innovation in Health (SIH) approach requires a process of typifying and identifying main criteria of the approach based on the employed practices of different health initiatives implemented throughout the region. This article presents a descriptive analysis of the main criteria of SIH.
DESIGN
To identify the theoretical and methodological developments of SIH between the years 2013 and 2018, a scoping review was conducted using a mixed approach. 80 texts in English, Spanish and Portuguese were screened through a reflexive analysis process involving intratextual and intertextual reading.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
The documentary research covered journals, books and higher degree theses addressing experiences or theoretical constructs developed in the Latin American region.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES
The approaches identified in the studied initiatives were mutually complementary; moreover, based on the typification of the main criteria between approaches and implementation proposals, the convergences and divergences between SIH and other approaches found in the sample were identified. In most cases, the different approaches in the sample are committed to initiatives that include some degree of innovation, improve access to healthcare services and recognise in one way or another a public policy in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
RESULTS
Eighteen characteristic criteria were identified, of which nine particularly differentiate SIH from other approaches conceptually and methodologically. Further work is essential to eliminate the vague delimitation between social and technological aspects of innovation.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings indicate that although the SIH concept is in construction, it is advancing down a path of recognition in the region, defining its role as an important field of study on social transformation in health and development.
Topics: Delivery of Health Care; Humans; Latin America; Public Policy; Sustainable Development
PubMed: 35680255
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063205 -
Public Health Reports (Washington, D.C.... 1987Public policy is an area of increasing study. Of concern in this presentation is the consensus-building feature of policymaking in the United States. The role of...
Public policy is an area of increasing study. Of concern in this presentation is the consensus-building feature of policymaking in the United States. The role of government in following the procedures established to achieve consensus and the importance of citizen participation in this open process cannot be under-estimated. The five central features of American consensus building are separation of powers, multiple levels of government, citizen participation, policymaker accountability, and individual freedoms. These features frame the efforts of those who shape the public policies that determine the ways laws are made and enforced and public funds are spent.
Topics: Government; Health Policy; Policy Making; Politics; United States
PubMed: 3120226
DOI: No ID Found -
Canadian Journal of Public Health =... 2011
Topics: Canada; Humans; Policy Making; Public Health; Public Policy
PubMed: 21714311
DOI: 10.1007/BF03404886 -
Journal of Behavioral Medicine Feb 2019Behavioral medicine has made significant contributions to our understanding of how to prevent disease and improve health. However, social and environmental factors...
Behavioral medicine has made significant contributions to our understanding of how to prevent disease and improve health. However, social and environmental factors continue to have a major influence on health in ways that will be difficult to combat on a population level without concerted efforts to scale interventions and translate the evidence into public health policies. Now is also the right time to increase our efforts to produce policy relevant research and partnerships that will maximize the chances that our evidence is taken to scale in ways that can influence population health broadly, and perhaps contribute to the reduction of the recalcitrant health disparities that plague virtually every area of behavioral medicine focus. As a field we must take an active role in policy translation, learning from the public policy and political science disciplines, and our own pioneers in policy translation. This article discusses importance of accelerating evidence translation to policy, and suggests several factors that could enhance our translation efforts, including embracing policy translation as a key goal in behavioral medicine, increasing our understanding in variability of evidence-based policy adoption across and within states, improving our understanding of how to most effectively communicate our findings to policy makers, conducting research that is responsive to policy makers' needs, and considering the important role of local policy partnerships.
Topics: Administrative Personnel; Behavioral Medicine; Evidence-Based Practice; Health Policy; Humans; Public Health; Public Policy
PubMed: 30825091
DOI: 10.1007/s10865-018-9979-7 -
Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 2019This paper examines the issues related to conflict of interest (COI) in generation and dissemination of evidence from systematic reviews and its influence on evidence in...
This paper examines the issues related to conflict of interest (COI) in generation and dissemination of evidence from systematic reviews and its influence on evidence in developing public health policy. Several examples exist on COI in the health and nutrition field due to the influence of private corporations and funding institutions. COI is an important factor contributing to publication bias in primary studies because of dynamics such as delayed publication, suppression of negative findings, and falsifying of data, thus influencing systematic review findings. Systematic review findings have also been found to be biased because of financial and/or non-financial COI. A set of recommendations, such as increased government funding towards research, explicit COI policies in journals, clinical trial data transparency, and methodological guidelines, including COI compliance while conducting and reporting systematic reviews, is proposed. The government has a larger role in regulating COI in production and reporting of evidence and its use in public policy decision-making.
Topics: Conflict of Interest; Editorial Policies; Health Policy; Humans; India; Public Policy; Publishing; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 31791937
DOI: 10.20529/IJME.2019.058 -
Public Health Research & Practice Apr 2024Objectives and importance of study: For public policy to respond effectively to social, economic, and health challenges, there is an urgent need for research-policy...
Objectives and importance of study: For public policy to respond effectively to social, economic, and health challenges, there is an urgent need for research-policy collaboration to advance evidence-informed policy. Many organisations seek to promote these engagement activities, but little is known about how this is experienced by researchers and policy actors. This study aimed to understand how policy actors and researchers in Australia experience collaboration and the impediments and enablers they encounter. Study type and methods: An online survey was developed, and using convenience sampling, self-identified Australian policy actors and researchers were invited to participate. Results: In total, 170 responses were analysed, comprising 58% policy actors and 42% researchers. Respondents reported the primary purpose for collaboration was evidence-informed policy making. Policy actors reported that the most common barrier to collaboration with academics was 'budget constraints' while academics reported 'budget, 'political risk' and 'structural barriers'. Reported enablers were 'leadership' and 'connections'. Conclusions: Our findings build upon existing evidence that highlights the importance of collaboration for facilitating evidence-informed policy. Structural deficits in both policy agencies and research funding systems and environments continue to present challenges to policy-research partnerships. Future initiatives could use these findings to implement preferred collaboration methods, alongside rigorous evaluation, to explore 'what works' in promoting engagement for evidence-informed policy.
Topics: Humans; Australia; Policy Making; Public Policy; Leadership; Research Design; Health Policy
PubMed: 37559184
DOI: 10.17061/phrp33232308