Epidemiology and the macrosocial determinants of health

In the past two decades, public health researchers have taken renewed interest in investigating the role of social factors in health. This holds substantial promise in terms of identifying manipulable social factors that are amenable to policy intervention. Most existing empirical and conceptual epidemiologic work, however, has focused on the more proximal social determinants, such as interpersonal relations. These factors, although perhaps easier to study epidemiologically, are much less relevant to policy makers than more "macrosocial" factors such as taxation policies. Limited epidemiologic attention to macrosocial determinants of health is ironic given that macrosocial factors such as the rapid industrialization and urbanization in the 19th century contributed to the organization of public health practice and, tangentially, to academic public health research. We suggest here that greater investment in the study of macrosocial determinants has the potential to make a significant and unique contribution to the greater public health agenda and should be a prominent aspect of social epidemiologic inquiry in the coming decades.     

Individual and social determinants of obesity in strategic health messages: Interaction with political ideology

Antiobesity health communication campaigns often target individual behavior, but these ads might inflate the role of individual responsibility at the expense of other health determinants. In a 2 × 2 full-factorial, randomized, online experiment, 162 American adults viewed antiobesity advertisements that varied in emphasizing social or individual causation for obesity through text and images. Locus for attribution of responsibility for obesity causes and solutions was measured, as was how these responses were moderated by political ideology. Participants who viewed text emphasizing individual responsibility were less likely to agree that genetic factors caused obesity. Conservative participants who viewed images of overweight individuals were less likely than liberal participants to agree that social factors were responsible for causing obesity. In addition, among conservative participants who viewed images of fast food versus images of overweight individuals, agreement that the food industry bore some responsibility mediated support for policy solutions to obesity. These findings, among others, demonstrate that awareness of multilevel determinants of health outcomes can be a precursor of support for policy solutions to obesity among those not politically inclined to support antiobesity policy. In addition, stigmatizing images of overweight individuals in antiobesity campaigns might overemphasize the role of individual behavior in obesity at the expense of other factors.     

Identifying and strengthening the structural roots of urban health in Canada: participatory policy research and the urban health agenda

An urban health research agenda for health promoters is presented. In Canada, urban issues are emerging as a major concern of policy makers. The voices raising these issues are from the non-health sectors, but many of these issues such as increasing income inequality and poverty, homelessness and housing insecurity, and social exclusion of youth, immigrants, and ethno-racial minorities have strong health implications as they are important social determinants of health. Emphasis on these and other social determinants of health and the policy decisions that strengthen or weaken them is timely as the quality of Canadian urban environments has become especially problematic. We argue for a participatory urban health research and action agenda with four components: (a) an emphasis on health promotion and the social determinants of health; (b) community-based participatory research; and (c) drawing on the lived experience of people to influence (d) policy analysis and policy change. Urban health researchers and promoters are urged to draw upon new developments in population health and community-based health promotion theory and research to identify and strengthen the roots of urban health through citizen action on public policy.     

The case for more active policy attention to health promotion

Until recently, when anthrax triggered a concern about preparedness in the public health infrastructure, U.S. health policy and health spending had been dominated by a focus on payment for medical treatment. The fact that many of the conditions driving the need for treatment are preventable ought to draw attention to policy opportunities for promoting health. Following a brief review of the determinants of population health-genetic predispositions, social circumstances, environmental conditions, behavioral patterns, and medical care-this paper explores some of the factors inhibiting policy attention and resource commitment to the nonmedical determinants of population health and suggests approaches for sharpening the public policy focus to encourage disease prevention and health promotion.     

Shaping public policy and population health in the United States: why is the public health community missing in action?

Renewed international interest in the structural determinants of health manifests itself in a focus on the social determinants of health and the public policy antecedents that shape their quality. This increased international interest in public policy in support of the structural determinants of health has had little traction in the United States. This should be surprising since the United States presents one of the worst population health profiles and public policy environments in support of health among wealthy developed nations. The U.S. position as a health status and policy outlier results from long-term institutional changes that are shaped by political, economic, and social forces. U.S. public health researchers' and workers' neglect of these structural and public policy issues conforms to the dominant ideological discourses that serve to justify these changes. The author presents some means by which public health researchers and workers can challenge these dominant discourses.     

Homelessness,health and the policy process: A literature review

Homelessness has serious consequences for the health of people experiencing homelessness, and presents a challenge to the provision of quality care by health services. Policymaking to address homelessness, as with other social determinants of health (SDH), is complicated by issues of complex causation, intersectoral working and the dominance of biomedicine within health policy. This paper investigates how policies addressing homelessness have been explored using formal policy process theories (PPT). It also examines how health (as an actor and an idea) has intersected with the issue of homelessness reaching policy agendas and in policy implementation. A systematised search of academic databases for peer-reviewed literature from 1986 to 2018 identified six studies of homelessness policy change from Australia, Canada, France and the United States. PPT were able to articulate the interplay of actors, ideas and structures in homelessness policymaking. When the health sector was involved, it tended to be in terms of healthcare service utilisation rather than a broader public health framework emphasising structural social determinants of homelessness. Tensions between differing the priorities of local homelessness actors and a biomedical evidence-based policy paradigm were noted. Future policy action on homelessness requires new models of intersectoral governance that account for the complexity of health determinants, a health workforce enabled to engage with the SDH, and meaningful inclusion of those with lived and living experience of homelessness in policy formulation.     

Promoting LGBT health and wellbeing through inclusive policy development

In this paper we argue the importance of including gender and sexually diverse populations in policy development towards a more inclusive form of health promotion. We emphasize the need to address the broad health and wellbeing issues and needs of LGBT people, rather than exclusively using an illness-based focus such as HIV/AIDS. We critically examine the limitations of population health, the social determinants of health (SDOH), and public health goals, in light of the lack of recognition of gender and sexually diverse individuals and communities. By first acknowledging the unique health and social care needs of LGBT people, then employing anti-oppressive, critical and intersectional analyses we offer recommendations for how to make population health perspectives, public health goals, and the design of public health promotion policy more inclusive of gender and sexual diversity. In health promotion research and practice, representation matters. It matters which populations are being targeted for health promotion interventions and for what purposes, and it matters which populations are being overlooked. In Canada, current health promotion policy is informed by population health and social determinants of health (SDOH) perspectives, as demonstrated by Public Health Goals for Canada. With Canada's multicultural makeup comes the challenge of ensuring that diverse populations are equitably and effectively recognized in public health and health promotion policy.     

Experiences from the Swedish determinants-based public health policy

A comprehensive Swedish public health policy was adopted by the Swedish Parliament, the Riksdag, in April 2003. It pushes health up on the political agenda and affords equity in health high priority. The first phase of implementation of the policy, 2003-5, is described in the 2005 Public Health Policy Report published by the Swedish National Institute of Public Health (SNIPH). For the purpose of investigating the implementation, SNIPH has monitored the development of 42 determinants and used reports from 22 central agencies and eight county administrative boards together with interviews with all Sweden's county councils (21) and a questionnaire sent out to all municipalities (290). The experiences from the implementation of the policy are that: the determinants approach - focusing on structural factors in society, people's living conditions and health behaviours that affect health - is in general well understood and emphasises the role of other sectors in public health; the use of indicators to follow up exposures to determinants is of key importance; the support to actors outside the health service is needed to identify their public health role; a continuous steering from the government and other political bodies is of vital importance; public health promotion on the regional level needs a higher level of co-ordination; municipalities need more skills development; Sweden has a new government that was elected in September 2006; the new government has retracted the former government's public health policy communication submitted to the Riksdag in the spring of 2006, but does not intend to change the public health policy.     

Health policy and mental health.

Health policy can be described as policy directed at the determinants of health, i.e. biological and environmental factors, lifestyle and the health care system. This type of policy now has become a policy objective in an increasing number of countries. In this article mental health is placed in the broad context of this policy. The central question is: can the mental health field grasp the opportunity of a growing interest in prevention and health promotion in general, as major objectives of health policy? Or will it stay more or less isolated from the mainstream of current developments? Answering this question means looking at the conditions of health policy. For health policy it is required that a definition be given of health problems and "causing" conditions. There should further be available intervention possibilities of a preventive and intersectoral character and also preventive strategies. It is stated that there is enough standardized information on mental health problems and experience with community-based research to let mental health participate in drawing up a community diagnosis. It also appears possible to construct an ecological health status model for mental health. Research on the factors in this model shows a shift in focus from risk populations to risk situations, e.g. unemployment, industrial disability, divorce and isolation. Further it is recognized that the search for causal factors is substituted by that for precipitating factors. Social-demographic factors, taken alone, are not precipitating factors. What matters is the combination of an underdeveloped coping mechanism, little social support, and prolonged stressful conditions or sudden stressful events.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

AIDS, policy analysis, and the electorate: the role of schools of public health.

Current debates concerning appropriate policy to combat the epidemic of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) have raised critical questions regarding the role that schools of public health and individual public health professionals should play, if any, in AIDS-related policy analysis and social advocacy. In the summer of 1986, the School of Public Health at the University of California at Berkeley initiated a telegram sent by the Deans of all 23 schools of public health to protest US Department of Justice AIDS policy and, in the subsequent fall, the school expanded its public educational role in an unprecedented manner by initiating and issuing, with California's other three schools of public health, a policy analysis of Proposition 64, the LaRouche AIDS Quarantine Initiative. That analysis exposed the proposition's fallacious claims regarding casual transmission of AIDS and served to educate the electorate on the likely public health impact of this deleterious legislation. Based on these experiences, and in light of ongoing national controversy regarding AIDS, we believe schools of public health have an important role to play in policy analysis, and individual public health professionals have a role to play in social advocacy.     

Putting equity in health back onto the social policy agenda: experience from South Africa

Over the past decade, international health policy debates have been dominated by efficiency considerations. There has been a recent resurgence of interest in health equity, including consideration of the notions of vertical equity and procedural justice. This paper explores the possible application of these notions within the context of South Africa, a country in which inequities in income and social service distribution between 'racial' groups were systematically promoted and entrenched during four decades of minority rule, guided by apartheid and related policies. With the transition to a democratic government in 1994, equity gained prominence on the South African social policy agenda. Health equity has been awarded a particularly high priority, not least of all because the health sector is seen as vehicle for achieving rapid equity gains. In addition, many of the other equity-promoting social sector policies (such as improved access to housing and water and sanitation services) have been motivated on the basis of their potential health equity gains. The South African experience since 1994 provides useful insights into factors which may facilitate or constrain health equity progress. In particular, the constitutional entitlement to health and civil society action to maintain health equity's place on the social policy agenda are seen as important facilitating factors. Certain health sector programmes have also been developed which are intended preferentially to benefit those who have been historically dis-advantaged, and which thus support vertical equity goals. However, there have been no efforts to promote cross-subsidisation between the private and public health sectors, and initial efforts to promote coherency in social policies (through the Reconstruction and Development Programme) appear not to have been sustained. In addition, macro-economic policies (particularly the highly ambitious budget deficit reduction targets of the government) are likely to undermine some of the equity-promoting social policy initiatives. Most importantly, the potential inter-relationship of vertical equity and procedural justice goals has not been adequately recognised. As a result, and despite policy rhetoric, this paper concludes that health equity goals are critically dependent on the central involvement of the dis-advantaged in decision-making about who should receive priority, what services should be delivered and how equity-promoting initiatives should be implemented.     

Limited good and limited vision: multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and global health policy

Almost a third of the world's population is infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the organism that causes tuberculosis disease. Most of those infected never fall ill, but individuals who do can recover if they have access to effective therapies. This paper discusses certain ethical and ethnographic issues raised by cases in which patients are infected with M. tuberculosis strains resistant to at least the two most powerful drugs on which therapy is usually based. In most poor countries, people with such multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) were, until very recently, considered "untreatable." In addition to being consigned to a permanent state of ill health, they were also at risk of transmitting their resistant strain to others. In this paper we discuss the logic of "cost-effectiveness," which international health policy-makers utilized to make the case that treatment of MDR-TB is not feasible in resource poor settings. These analyses, which have held sway in public health policy for many years, are flawed, we argue, because they ignore and conceal the social determinants of access to health services and often rely on assumptions rather than evidence. We propose that policies based solely on analyses of cost-effectiveness of specific interventions for individual settings can be short-sighted and, because they do not pay sufficient attention to the social, political, economic, epidemiological and pathophysiological factors influencing the production of health, will ultimately hinder progress toward effective global TB control.     

Gender and health promotion: a multisectoral policy approach

Women and men are different as regards their biology, the roles and responsibilities that society assigns to them and their position in the family and community. These factors have a great influence on causes, consequences and management of diseases and ill-health and on the efficacy of health promotion policies and programmes. This is confirmed by evidence on male-female differences in cause-specific mortality and morbidity and exposure to risk factors. Health promoting interventions aimed at ensuring safe and supportive environments, healthy living conditions and lifestyles, community involvement and participation, access to essential facilities and to social and health services need to address these differences between women and men, boys and girls in an equitable manner in order to be effective. The aim of this paper is to (i) demonstrate that health promotion policies that take women's and men's differential biological and social vulnerability to health risks and the unequal power relationships between the sexes into account are more likely to be successful and effective compared to policies that are not concerned with such differences, and (ii) discuss what is required to build a multisectoral policy response to gender inequities in health through health promotion and disease prevention. The requirements discussed in the paper include i) the establishment of joint commitment for policy within society through setting objectives related to gender equality and equity in health as well as health promotion, ii) an assessment and analysis of gender inequalities affecting health and determinants of health, iii) the actions needed to tackle the main determinants of those inequalities and iv) documentation and dissemination of effective and gender sensitive policy interventions to promote health. In the discussion of these key policy elements, we use illustrative examples of good practices from different countries around the world.     

Maintaining population health in a period of welfare state decline: political economy as the missing dimension in health promotion theory and practice

There is increasing recognition in the health promotion and population health fields that the primary determinants of health lay outside the health care and behavioural risk arenas. Many of these factors involve public policy decisions made by governments that influence the distribution of income, degree of social security, and quality and availability of education, food, and housing, among others. These non-medical and non-lifestyle factors have come to be known as the social determinants of health. In many nations--and this is especially the case in North America--recent policy decisions are undermining these social determinants of health. A political economy analysis of the forces supporting as well as threatening the welfare state is offered as a means of both understanding these policy decisions and advancing the health promotion and population health agendas. The building blocks of social democracies--the political systems that seem most amenable to securing the social determinants of health--are identified as key to promoting health. Health promoters and population health researchers need to "get political" and recognize the importance of political and social action in support of health.     

Crossing borders: a critical review of the role of the European Court of Justice in EU health policy

Over the last two decades, the European Union (EU) has steadily increased its involvement in the health policies of its member states, with considerable support from the European Court of Justice (ECJ). However, much of the literature examining the Court's role has focused upon the intersection between internal market law and the health services sector; the majority of studies have failed to examine the potential role for the Court in public health policy. Observers such as Greer have seen the development of healthcare as a clear case of neofunctional spillover, a view supported but qualified by Wasserfallen and others, who present a more detailed account of the mechanics of the process. Alternative analyses have focused upon the new modes of governance, soft law and other factors - this article reviews the current state of research in the field and the extent to which it should concern health policy actors and non-specialists in EU policy alike. It concludes that the Court has played and continues to play a crucial role in the development of EU public health policy, as well as in health services and broader social policy, where its influence has already been well documented.     

What determines health? To where should we shift resources? : Attitudes towards the determinants of health among multiple stakeholder groups in Prince Edward Island, Canada

The population health perspective has become significant in academic and policy discourse. The purpose of this paper is to assess its significance among health care practitioners and administrators as well as the general public. Respondents in Prince Edward Island, Canada were asked to rank the broad determinants of health and comment on to where resources should be shifted to improve the health of the population. Important variations are noted between the groups with family physicians and front-line staff being similar in perceptions to the general public on most determinants than other groups. The paper concludes with discussion on the relevance of the findings for population health research and health policy.     

Writing social determinants into and out of cancer control: An assessment of policy practice

A large literature concurs that social determinants of health (SDH) are demonstrable, important, and insufficiently attended to in policy and practice. A resulting priority for research should be to determine how the social determinants of health can best be addressed. In this paper we support the more effective transfer of social determinants research into policy by: (1) describing a qualitative analysis of thirty-two cancer control policy documents from six English-speaking OECD countries and two transnational organizations, demonstrating great variability in the treatment of social determinants in these policies; (2) critiquing these various policy practices in relation to their likely impact on social determinants of health; and (3) advancing a tool that policy writers can use to assess the way in which social determinants of health have been addressed in their work. In the sample of policy documents, the distinction between structural and intermediate determinants, population-based and targeted interventions, and their respective relationships to equity were not always clear. The authors identified four approaches to social determinants (acknowledging SDH, auditing SDH, stating aims regarding SDH and setting out actions on SDH), and five ways of writing about the relationship between social determinants and cancer risk. These five discourses implied, respectively: that group membership was intrinsically risky; that not enough was known about SDH; that risk arose from choices made by individuals; that groups were constrained by circumstance; or that structural change was necessary. Socio-cultural factors were generally presented negatively, though New Zealand policies modeled a possible alternative. Based on their empirical work, the authors propose a matrix and a set of questions to guide the development and assessment of health policy.     

Racial/ethnic health disparities among children with special health care needs in Boston,Massachusetts

BackgroundLittle is known about the factors that contribute to racial/ethnic disparities among children with special health care needs (CSHCN).ObjectiveTo quantify the contributions of determinants of racial/ethnic disparities in health and health care among CSHCN in Boston, Massachusetts.MethodsA sample of 326 Black, Latino, and white CSHCN was drawn from the Boston Survey of Children's Health, a city-wide representative sample of children. The study implemented Oaxaca–Blinder-style decomposition techniques to examine the relative contributions of health resources and child-, family-, and neighborhood-level factors to disparities in four outcomes: health status, barriers to medical care, oral health status, and utilization of preventive dental care.ResultsWhite CSHCN had a greater likelihood of having very good/excellent health and oral health and were less likely to experience barriers to care than Black CSHCN. Compositional differences on predictors explained 63%, 98%, and 80% of these gradients, respectively. Group variation in household income, family structure, neighborhood support, and exposure to adverse childhood experiences accounted for significant portions of the Black–white gaps in health and access. White CSHCN were also more likely to have very good/excellent health and oral health compared to Latino CSHCN. Differences on predictors accounted for about 86% and 80% of these gaps, respectively. Household income, adverse childhood experiences, and household language emerged as significant determinants of Latino–white disparities.ConclusionsRacial/ethnic health disparities among CSHCN are explained by relatively few determinants. Several of the contributing factors that emerged from the analysis and could be targeted by public health and policy interventions.     

Evolution of the determinants of health,health policy,and health information systems in Canada

The history of health determinants in Canada influenced both the direction of data gathering about population health and government policies designed to improve health. Two competing movements marked these changes. The idea of health promotion grew out of the 1974 Lalonde report, which recognized that determinants of health went beyond traditional public health and medical care, and argued for the importance of socioeconomic factors. Research on health inequalities was led by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research in the 1980s, which produced evidence of health inequalities along socioeconomic lines and argued for policy efforts in early child development. Both movements have shaped current information gathering and the policies that have come to be labeled "population health."