Global Equity Gauge Alliance: reflections on early experiences

The paper traces the evolution and working of the Global Equity Gauge Alliance (GEGA) and its efforts to promote health equity. GEGA places health equity squarely within a larger framework of social justice, linking findings on socioeconomic and health inequalities with differentials in power, wealth, and prestige in society. The Alliance's 11 country-level partners, called Equity Gauges, share a common action-based vision and framework called the Equity Gauge Strategy. An Equity Gauge seeks to reduce health inequities through three broad spheres of action, referred to as the 'pillars' of the Equity Gauge Strategy, which define a set of interconnected and overlapping actions. Measuring and tracking the inequalities and interpreting their ethical import are pursued through the Assessment and Monitoring pillar. This information provides an evidence base that can be used in strategic ways for influencing policy-makers through actions in the Advocacy pillar and for supporting grassroots groups and civil society through actions in the Community Empowerment pillar. The paper provides examples of strategies for promoting pro-equity policy and social change and reviews experiences and lessons, both in terms of technical success of interventions and in relation to the conceptual development and refinement of the Equity Gauge Strategy and overall direction of the Alliance. To become most effective in furthering health equity at both national and global levels, the Alliance must now reach out to and involve a wider range of organizations, groups, and actors at both national and international levels. Sustainability of this promising experiment depends, in part, on adequate resources but also on the ability to attract and develop talented leadership.     

Building a regional health equity movement: the grantmaking model of a local health department

The Boston Public Health Commission's Center for Health Equity and Social Justice provides grant funding, training, and technical assistance to 15 organizations and coalitions across New England to develop, implement, and evaluate community-based policy and systems change strategies that address social determinants of health and reduce racial and ethnic health inequities. This article describes Boston Public Health Commission's health equity framework, theory of change regarding the elimination of racial and ethnic health inequities, and current grantmaking model. To conclude, the authors evaluate the grant model and offer lessons learned from providing multiyear regional grants to promote health equity.     

Globalisation and global health governance: Implications for public health

Abstract Globalisation is a defining economic and social trend of the past several decades. Globalisation affects health directly and indirectly and creates economic and health disparities within and across countries. The political response to address these disparities, exemplified by the Millennium Development Goals, has put pressure on the global community to redress massive inequities in health and other determinants of human capability across countries. This, in turn, has accelerated a transformation in the architecture of global health governance. The entrance of new actors, such as private foundations and multi-stakeholder initiatives, contributed to a doubling of funds for global health between 2000 and 2010. Today the governance of public health is in flux, with diminished leadership from multilateral institutions, such as the WHO, and poor coherence in policy and programming that undermines the potential for sustainable health gains. These trends pose new challenges and opportunities for global public health, which is centrally concerned with identifying and addressing threats to the health of vulnerable populations worldwide.     

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.     

A Path Forward: Mental Health and the U.S. Pandemic Response

The COVID-19 pandemic presents a crisis of mental health in the United States (U.S.) alongside a crisis of infectious disease. Racial inequities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality have brought health equity to the forefront of public health policy, exacerbating prior inequities in mental health care access and outcomes. This Commentary asserts that policymakers and advocates must prioritize mental health when responding to the pandemic. While the pandemic is an emergency of unprecedented scale, the authors argue that it also is an opportunity to implement broad-based mental health policy reforms in the U.S. that build on the successes of the Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. Guided by innovative state and local policies to promote population-level mental health, we outline a series of empirically grounded strategies for federal and state policymakers to promote mental health equity in the wake of COVID-19.

     

Health, human development, and governance in Latin America and the Caribbean at the beginning of the 21st century]

The issue of the reciprocal relationship between health and development has recently taken on greater importance in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), given the persistence of extreme poverty and the political and social difficulties due to macroeconomic imbalances and crises of governance. This piece reviews concepts of sustainable human development, social determinants of health in general and of health inequities in particular (gender, ethnic group, income level), and the relationship between health and economic growth in the medium term and the long term. An analysis is made of how persistent poverty in countries of LAC relates to disparities in health conditions, access to health services, and health care financing, as well as to such health determinants as nutrition and environmental sanitation. Health inequities most strongly affect the most excluded and vulnerable sectors of the population. In the face of this situation, the author stresses that putting a priority on health inequities is vital to safeguarding the governability and the social and political stability of countries in LAC in the next decade.     

Urban HEART Detroit: a Tool To Better Understand and Address Health Equity Gaps in the City

The Urban Health Equity Assessment Response Tool (Urban HEART) combines statistical evidence and community knowledge to address urban health inequities. This paper describes the process of adopting and implementing this tool for Detroit, Michigan, the first city in the USA to use it. The six steps of Urban HEART were implemented by the Healthy Environments Partnership, a community-based participatory research partnership made up of community-based organizations, health service providers, and researchers based in academic institutions. Local indicators and benchmarks were identified and criteria established to prioritize a response plan. We examine how principles of CBPR influenced this process, including the development of a collaborative and equitable process that offered learning opportunities and capacity building among all partners. For the health equity matrix, 15 indicators were chosen within the Urban HEART five policy domains: physical environment and infrastructure, social and human development, economics, governance, and population health. Partners defined the criteria and ranked them for use in assessing and prioritizing health equity gaps. Subsequently, partners generated a series of potential actions for indicators prioritized in this process. Engagement of community partners contributed to benchmark selection and modification, and provided opportunities for dialog and co-learning throughout the process. Application of a CBPR approach provided a foundation for engagement of partners in the Urban HEART process of identifying health equity gaps. This approach offered multiple opportunities for discussion that shaped interpretation and development of strategies to address identified issues to achieve health equity.     

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)     

Promoting Health Equity in Cities Through Evidence-Based Action

The impact of the urban setting on health and, in particular, health inequities has been widely documented. However, only a few countries have examined their inter- or intra-city health inequalities, and few do so regularly. Information that shows the gaps between cities or within the same city is a crucial requirement to trigger appropriate local actions to promote health equity. To generate relevant evidence and take appropriate actions to tackle health inequities, local authorities need a variety of tools. In order to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of health systems performance, these tools should: (1) adopt a multi-sectoral approach; (2) link evidence to actions; (3) be simple and user-friendly; and (4) be operationally feasible and sustainable. In this paper we have illustrated the use of one such tool, The World Health Organization’s Urban HEART, which guides users through a process to identify health inequities, focusing on health determinants and then developing actions based on the evidence generated. In a time of increasing financial constraints, there is a pressing need to allocate scarce resources more efficiently. Tools are needed to guide policy makers in their planning process to identify best-practice interventions that promote health equity in their cities.     

Social determinants of health and local government: understanding and uptake of ideas in two Australian states

Objective: To examine the awareness and perceptions of local government staff about the social determinants of health (SDoH) and health inequity and use of these ideas to shape policy and practice. Methods: 96 staff at 17 councils in South Australia or New South Wales responded to questions in a pilot online survey concerning: sources of knowledge about, familiarity with the evidence on, attitudes towards, and uses of ideas about the social determinants of health. Eight of 68 SA councils and 16 of 152 NSW councils were randomly selected stratified by state and metropolitan status. Differences between states and metropolitan/non‐metropolitan status were explored. Results: The majority of respondents (88.4%) reported some familiarity with ideas about the broad determinants of health and 90% agreed that the impact of policy action on health determinants should be considered in all major government policy and planning initiatives. Research articles, government/professional reports, and professional contacts were rated as important sources of knowledge about the social determinants of health. Conclusion: Resources need to be dedicated to systematic research on practical implementation of interventions on social determinants of health inequities and towards providing staff with more practical information about interventions and tools to evaluate those interventions. Implications: The findings suggest there is support for action addressing the social determinants of health in local government. The findings extend similar research regarding SDoH and government in NZ and Canada to Australian local government.     

Evidence on how to practice intersectoral collaboration for health equity: a scoping review

The persistence of health inequities is reflected in repeated calls for intersectoral collaboration on the social determinants of health, specifically through public policy action. Yet, how to do intersectoral collaboration specifically for policy action toward health equity is articulated rather scarcely in the scientific literature. With this scoping review, we intended to generate insight into current peer-reviewed literature to identify gaps about evidence-based approaches to practices of intersectoral collaboration for health equity-oriented policy action. Seven search engines were used: Proquest, Web of Science, CINAHL, Pubmed, Sociological Abstracts, Project Muse and ERIC. Social determinants of health, including public policy and intersectoral collaboration, are related concepts for the health equity agenda and were used as a conceptual framework to map selected literature. Out of 227 articles, our review identified 64 articles describing intersectoral collaboration specifically in relation to public policy. Of those articles with a policy topic, 10 had a focus on broad public policy areas, while 51 publications articulated specific policies relevant to the determinants of health and only three articles examined effective practices of intersectoral collaboration in public policy through phenomenology, literature review and case study research. The majority of policy-focused publications described that collaboration was used as a strategy to address intersectoral public policy issues, but failed to report how the process of collaboration unfolded. Perhaps it is time to re-direct the gaze onto collaborative teams to generate evidence of effective intersectoral collaboration practices in public policy.     

关于健康社会决定因素研究的博士及博士后人才培养案例

全球特别是中低收入国家的健康及健康不公平问题日益严峻,这些国家缺乏健康社会决定因素研究能力,无法有效地参与国家和国际卫生政策的改革,实现健康公平。面对这一问题和挑战,中低收入国家亟需进行医学教育的创新和改革,培养一批从事健康社会决定因素研究的人才。在此背景下,“加强亚洲地区健康社会决定因素研究能力（Asian Regional Capacity Development for Research on Social Determinants of Health,ARCADE-RS-DH）暠应运而生。该项目通过国际化强强合作,应用混合教学模式,培养一批在健康社会决定因素研究领域学有所长的博士和博士后人才,以提高中低收入国家在健康社会决定因素领域的研究能力,力图解决当前的健康不公平问题。对该项目的研究背景、定位和实施、教学创新等方面作了简要概述。     

Damned if you do, damned if you don't: subgroup analysis and equity

The final report from the WHO Commission on the social determinants of health recently noted: 'For policy, however important an ethical imperative, values alone are insufficient. There needs to be evidence on what can be done and what is likely to work in practice to improve health and reduce health inequities.' This is challenging, because understanding how to reduce health inequities between the poorest and better-off members of society may require a greater use of subgroup analysis to explore the differential effects of public health interventions. However, while this may produce evidence that is more policy relevant, the requisite subgroup analyses are often seen as tantamount to statistical malpractice. This paper considers some of the methodological problems with subgroup analysis, and its applicability to considerations of equity, using both clinical and public health examples. Finally, it suggests how policy needs for information on subgroups can be met while maintaining rigour.     

Child health inequities in developing countries: differences across urban and rural areas

Background

The reduction of health inequalities is a focus of many national and international health organisations. The need for pragmatic evidence-based approaches has led to the development of a number of evidence-based equity initiatives. This paper describes a new program that focuses upon evidence- based tools, which are useful for policy initiatives that reduce inequities.

Methods

This paper is based on a presentation that was given at the "Regional Consultation on Policy Tools: Equity in Population Health Reports," held in Toronto, Canada in June 2002.

Results

Five assessment tools were presented. 1. A database of systematic reviews on the effects of educational, legal, social, and health interventions to reduce unfair inequalities is being established through the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations. 2 Decision aids and shared decision making can be facilitated in disadvantaged groups by 'health coaches' to help people become better decision makers, negotiators, and navigators of the health system; a pilot study in Chile has provided proof of this concept. 3. The CIET Cycle: Combining adapted cluster survey techniques with qualitative methods, CIET's population based applications support evidence-based decision making at local and national levels. The CIET map generates maps directly from survey or routine institutional data, to be used as evidence-based decisions aids. Complex data can be displayed attractively, providing an important tool for studying and comparing health indicators among and between different populations. 4. The Ottawa Equity Gauge is applying the Global Equity Gauge Alliance framework to an industrialised country setting. 5 The Needs-Based Health Assessment Toolkit, established to assemble information on which clinical and health policy decisions can be based, is being expanded to ensure a focus on distribution and average health indicators.

Conclusion

Evidence-based planning tools have much to offer the goal of equitable health development.     

Bridging place-based research and action for health

This paper takes a population health planning and policy view of the issues in place and health raised by the research articles in this collection. The planning and policy issues are reducing health inequities and strengthening neighbourhoods. Regardless of the state of the art of place and health research, targeted social investments are being made to support neighbourhood infrastructure and community mobilization for place-based poverty reduction and community well-being in places across Canada. "Vibrant Communities", "Action for Neighbourhood Change" and other priority community initiatives provide an opportunity for intensive neighbourhood-based action research and future dialogue that will further advance theory and action on place and health.     

Editorial – Making men's health policy relevant for the 21st century

The Australian government has stated its intention to develop a National Men's Health Policy (NMHP) in 2009. This policy (we are told) will focus on reducing the barriers men experience in accessing health services, tackling widespread reticence among men to seek treatment, improving male‐friendly health services, and raising awareness of preventable health problems that affect men. The Consultation papers provided to date for this policy refer to the concept of gender equity in somewhat simplistic terms as Saunders and Peerson (2009 in this issue) point out. The achievement of gender equity is fundamentally about overcoming the social inequities that result from hegemonic dominance of men over women and its health consequences. The background papers and final report of the Women and Gender Equity Knowledge Network of the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) as well as the final report of the CSDH itself, are instructive in this regard.     

Health policy and mental health

Health policy can be described as policy directed at the determinantsof health, i.e. biological and environmental factors, lifestyleand the health care system. This type of policy now has become a policy objective in anincreasing number of countries. In this article mental health is placed in the broad contextof this policy. The central question is: can the mental healthfield grasp the opportunity of a growing interest in preventionand health promotion in general, as major objectives of healthpolicy? Or will it stay more or less isolated from the mainstreamof current developments? Answering this question means looking at the conditions of healthpolicy. For health policy it is required that a definition begiven of health problems and "causing" conditions. There shouldfurther be available intervention possibilities of a preventiveand intersecloral character and also preventive strategies. It is stated that there is enough standardized information onmental health problems and experience with community-based researchto let mental health participate in drawing up a community diagnosis.It also appears possible to construct an ecological health statusmodel for mental health. Research on the factors in this modelshows 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 factorsis substituted by that for precipitating factors. Social-demographicfactors, taken alone, are not precipitating factors. What mattersis the combination of an underdeveloped coping mechanism, littlesocial support, and prolonged stressful conditions or suddenstressful events. Our knowledge on the determinants of mentaldisturbances is growing, but for the sake of credibility weneed more detailed data. The practice of mental health preventionshows an emphasis on mental health education which in most casesconsists of a mild form of group therapy. To become a partnerin the topical health policy debate mental health should also(again) stress the socio-economic factors, as for example isdone in the "Healthy Cities" project. Voluntary organizationscan play an important role in this respect. The conclusion is that mental health prevention has enough knowledgeand skills to take part in the health policy development. Itis hoped that the mental health field takes more initiativeto become a partner in that development.     

Introduction of health impact assessment and healthy cities as a tool for tackling health inequality]

In order to reduce the health inequalities within a society changes need to be made in broad health determinants and their distribution in the population. It has been expected that the Health impact assessment(HIA) and Healthy Cities can provide opportunities and useful means for changing social policy and environment related with the broad health determinants in developed countries. HIA is any combination of procedures or methods by which a proposed 4P(policy, plan, program, project) may be judged as to the effects it may have on the health of a population. Healthy city is one that is continually creating and improving those physical and social environments and expanding those community resources which enable people to mutually support each other in performing all the functions of life and in developing to their maximum potential. In Korea, social and academic interest regarding the HIA and Healthy Cities has been growing recently but the need of HIA and Healthy Cities in the perspective of reducing health inequality was not introduced adequately. So we reviewed the basic concepts and methods of the HIA and Healthy Cities, and its possible contribution to reducing health inequalities. We concluded that though the concepts and methods of the HIA and Healthy Cities are relatively new and still in need of improvement, they will be useful in approaching the issue of health inequality in Korea.     

Out of our inner city backyards: re-scaling urban environmental health inequity assessment

In this paper, we report the results of a three-year research project (2008-2011) that aimed to identify urban environmental health inequities using a photography-mediated qualitative approach adapted for comparative neighbourhood-level assessment. The project took place in Vancouver, Toronto, and Winnipeg, Canada and involved a total of 49 inner city community researchers who compared environmental health conditions in numerous neighbourhoods across each city. Using the social determinants of health as a guiding framework, community researchers observed a wide range of differences in health-influencing private and public spaces, including sanitation services, housing, parks and gardens, art displays, and community services. The comparative process enabled community researchers to articulate in five distinct ways how such observable conditions represented system level inequities. The findings inform efforts to shift environmental health intervention from constricted action within derelict urban districts to more coordinated mobilization for health equity in the city.