Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn 2012, Canada's federal government announced cuts to refugee health coverage. Evidence suggesting that the cuts represent a social policy failure has since been accumulating, including the 2014 Federal Court ruling ordering their reversal. This explanatory case study uncovers the problem definition process that led policy development by applying coding methods to governmental publications, transcripts of parliamentary proceedings and internal governmental correspondence obtained under the Access to Information Act. The systematic analysis identifies avoidable gaps that occurred and proposes an avenue for strengthening future federal social policy processes so as to avoid negative outcomes such as those that resulted here.

Abstract Background As public opinion is an important part of the health equity policy agenda, it is important to assess public opinion around potential policy interventions to address health inequities. We report on public opinion in Ontario about health equity interventions that address the social determinants of health. We also examine Ontarians' support and predictors for targeted health equity interventions versus universal interventions. Methods We surveyed 2,006 adult Ontarians through a telephone survey using random digit dialing. Descriptive statistics assessed Ontarians' support for various health equity solutions, and a multinomial logistic regression model was built to examine predictors of this support across specific targeted and broader health equity interventions focused on nutrition, welfare, and housing. Results There appears to be mixed opinions among Ontarians regarding the importance of addressing health inequities and related solutions. Nevertheless, Ontarians were willing to support a wide range of interventions to address health inequities. The three most supported interventions were more subsidized nutritious food for children (89%), encouraging more volunteers in the community (89%), and more healthcare treatment programs (85%). Respondents who attributed health inequities to the plight of the poor were generally more likely to support both targeted and broader health equity interventions, than neither type. Political affiliation was a strong predictor of support with expected patterns, with left-leaning voters more likely to support both targeted and broader health equity interventions, and right-leaning voters less likely to support both types of interventions. Conclusions Findings indicate that the Ontario public is more supportive of targeted health equity interventions, but that attributions of inequities and political affiliation are important predictors of support. The Ontario public may be accepting of messaging around health inequities and the social determinants of health depending on how the message is framed (e.g., plight of the poor vs. privilege of the rich). These findings may be instructive for advocates looking to raise awareness of health inequities.

Abstract Background Health in All Policies (HiAP) is a form of intersectoral action that aims to include the promotion of health in government initiatives across sectors. To date, there has been little study of economic considerations within the implementation of HiAP. Methods As part of an ongoing program of research on the implementation of HiAP around the world, we examined how economic considerations influence the implementation of HiAP. By economic considerations we mean the cost and financial gain (or loss) of implementing a HiAP process or structure within government, or the cost and financial gain (or loss) of the policies that emerge from such a HiAP process or structure. We examined three jurisdictions: Sweden, Quebec and South Australia. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 12 to 14 key informants in each jurisdiction. Two investigators separately coded transcripts to identify relevant statements. Results Initial readings of transcripts led to the development of a coding framework for statements related to economic considerations. First, economic evaluations of HiAP are viewed as important for prompting HiAP and many forms of economic evaluation were considered. However, economic evaluations were often absent, informal, or incomplete. Second, funding for HiAP initiatives is important, but is less important than a high-level commitment to intersectoral collaboration. Furthermore, having multiple sources of funding of HiAP can be beneficial, if it increases participation across government, but can also be disadvantageous, if it exposes underlying tensions. Third, HiAP can also highlight the challenge of achieving both economic and social objectives. Conclusions Our results are useful for elaborating propositions for use in realist multiple explanatory case studies. First, we propose that economic considerations are currently used primarily as a method by health sectors to promote and legitimize HiAP to non-health sectors with the goal of securing resources for HiAP. Second, allocating resources and making funding decisions regarding HiAP are inherently political acts that reflect tensions within government sectors. This study contributes important insights into how intersectoral action works, how economic evaluations of HiAP might be structured, and how economic considerations can be used to both promote HiAP and to present barriers to implementation.

Health in All Policies (HiAP) is becoming increasingly popular as a governmental strategy to improve population health by coordinating action across health and non-health sectors. A variety of intersectoral initiatives may be used in HiAP that frame health determinants as the bridge between policies and health outcomes. The purpose of this glossary is to present concepts and terms useful in understanding the implementation of HiAP as a cross-sectoral policy. The concepts presented here were applied and elaborated over the course of case studies of HiAP in multiple jurisdictions, which used key informant interviews and the systematic review of literature to study the implementation of specific HiAP initiatives.

Health inequities are systemic, avoidable, and unjust differences in health between populations. These differences are often determined by social and structural factors, such as income and social status, employment and working conditions, or race/racism, which are referred to as the social determinants of health (SDOH). According to public opinion, health is considered to be largely determined by the choices and behaviours of individuals. However, evidence suggests that social and structural factors are the key determinants of health. There is likely a lack of public understanding of the role that social and structural factors play in determining health and producing health inequities. Public opinion and priorities can drive governmental action, so the aim of this work was to determine the most impactful way to increase knowledge and awareness about the social determinants of health (SDOH) and health inequities in the province of Ontario, Canada. A study to test the effectiveness of four different messaging styles about health inequities and the SDOH was conducted with a sample of 805 adult residents of Ontario. Findings show that messages highlighting the challenges faced by those experiencing the negative effects of the SDOH, while still acknowledging individual responsibility for health, were the most effective for eliciting an empathetic response from Ontarians. These findings can be used to inform public awareness campaigns focused on changing the current public narrative about the SDOH toward a more empathetic response, with the goal of increasing political will to enact policies to address health inequities in Ontario.