Catherine M. Jones

Global Perspectives on Health Promotion Effectiveness

The Global Programme on Health Promotion Effectiveness.- Global Perspectives on Health Promotion Effectiveness.- The Global Programme on Health Promotion Effectiveness (GPHPE).- The IUHPE Blueprint for Direct and Sustained Dialogue in Partnership Initiatives.- The Global Programme on Health Promotion Effectiveness.- Reports from the Field.- Policies for Health.- Strengthening the Evidence Base for Mental Health Promotion.- Effectiveness and Challenges for Promoting Physical Activity Globally.- School Health Promotion.- Health Promotion to Prevent Obesity.- Effective Health Promotion Against Tobacco Use.- Effectiveness of Health Promotion in Preventing Alcohol Related Harm.- Global Areas of Interest that Challenge the Assessment of Health Promotion Effectiveness.- Globalization and Health Promotion.- Urbanization and Health Promotion.- Community Interventions on Social Determinants of Health.- Strengthening Peace-Building Through Health Promotion.- The Role of Governance in Health Promotion Effectiveness.- Global Debates about Effectiveness of Health Promotion.- Evidence and Theory.- Measurement and Effectiveness.- Healthy Settings.- Feasibility for Health Promotion Under Various Decision-Making Contexts.- Evaluating Equity in Health Promotion.- Evaluation of Empowerment and Effectiveness.- Enhancing the Effectiveness and Quality of Health Promotion.

'Communicate to vaccinate' (COMMVAC). building evidence for improving communication about childhood vaccinations in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a programme of research

BackgroundEffective provider-parent communication can improve childhood vaccination uptake and strengthen immunisation services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Building capacity to improve communication strategies has been neglected. Rigorous research exists but is not readily found or applicable to LMICs, making it difficult for policy makers to use it to inform vaccination policies and practice.The aim of this project is to build research knowledge and capacity to use evidence-based strategies for improving communication about childhood vaccinations with parents and communities in LMICs.Methods and designThis project is a mixed methods study with six sub-studies. In sub-study one, we will develop a systematic map of provider-parent communication interventions for childhood vaccinations by screening and extracting data from relevant literature. This map will inform sub-study two, in which we will develop a taxonomy of interventions to improve provider-parent communication around childhood vaccination. In sub-study three, the taxonomy will be populated with trial citations to create an evidence map, which will also identify how evidence is linked to communication barriers regarding vaccination.In the projects fourth sub-study, we will present the interventions map, taxonomy, and evidence map to international stakeholders to identify high-priority topics for systematic reviews of interventions to improve parent-provider communication for childhood vaccination. We will produce systematic reviews of the effects of high-priority interventions in the fifth sub-study. In the sixth and final sub-study of the project, evidence from the systematic reviews will be translated into accessible formats and messages for dissemination to LMICs.DiscussionThis project combines evidence mapping, conceptual and taxonomy development, priority setting, systematic reviews, and knowledge transfer. It will build and share concepts, terms, evidence, and resources to aid the development of communication strategies for effective vaccination programmes in LMICs.

Evidence-based health promotion: an emerging field

There is much debate around the use of evidence in health promotion practice. This article aims to sharpen our understanding of this matter by reviewing and analyzing the 26 case studies presented in this special issue. These case studies suggest that health promotion practitioners are using a wide range of research evidence in interventions for high-risk individuals, entire populations, and vulnerable groups according to all five strategies for action described in the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. In nearly every case, practitioners had to mediate and adapt research evidence for their case. Eight key levers helped practitioners embed research evidence into practice: local and cultural relevance of the evidence, community capacity-building, sustained dialogue from the outset with all stakeholders, established academic-supported partnerships, communication that responds to organizational and political readiness, acknowledgement and awareness of gaps between evidence and practice, advocacy, and adequate earmarked resources. These case studies provide some evidence that there is an evidence-based health promotion, that this evidence base is broad, and that practitioners use different strategies to adapt it for their case.

New frontiers for the sustainable prevention and control of non-communicable diseases (NCDs): a view from sub-Saharan Africa.

Largely overshadowed by infectious disease, the global burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is equally as serious and requires urgent attention. Fostering political will to address this pandemic in low- and middle-income countries where the burden of NCD is accelerating is essential. The World Health Organization urges member states to strengthen efforts to address the burden of NCD. Through facilitated discussions with prominent leaders in sub-Saharan Africa, the American Cancer Society and the International Union of Health Promotion and Education addressed facilitators, barriers and mechanisms for action to support integration of diseases into an NCD framework. Viewpoints on next steps, including gathering information, conducting surveillance and training on advocacy, were identified to emphasize the commitment and resources necessary to succeed against this pandemic.

Rethinking the politics and implementation of health in all policies.

In Europe, successful health policies have contributed to a continued decline in mortality. However, not all parts of Europe have benefited equally and the sustainability of achievements cannot be taken for granted since health policies vary widely even among neighbouring countries. Furthermore, there are a number of remaining public health challenges such as food and alcohol polices. We argue that if we are to make further progress we need to rethink the politics and implementation of Health in All Policies. Commenting on an article analyzing the roll out and early implementation of Israel’s National Programme to Promote Active, Healthy Lifestyles provides an opportunity to thrash out four issues. First, intersectoral structures are key transmission belts for Health in All Policies between ministries and sectors and we need to exploit their specific uses and understand their limitations. Second, our analytical perspective should focus on what it takes to introduce policy change instead of assuming an idealized policy cycle. This includes a reconsideration of interventions which may not be very effective but help to raise the standing of health on the political agenda, thus providing a stronger basis for policy change. Third, we need to better understand variations in context between and within countries, e.g. why do some countries adopt Health in All policies but others don’t, and why is it that in the same country compliance with some health policies is better than with others. Finally, we will need to better understand how a diverse set of actors from other sectors can internalize health as an intrinsic value.

Adapting public policy theory for public health research: A framework to understand the development of national policies on global health

National policies on global health appear as one way that actors from health, development and foreign affairs sectors in a country coordinate state action on global health. Next to a burgeoning literature in which international relations and global governance theories are employed to understand global health policy and global health diplomacy at the international level, little is known about policy processes for global health at the national scale. We propose a framework of the policy process to understand how such policies are developed, and we identify challenges for public health researchers integrating conceptual tools from political science. We developed the framework using a two-step process: 1) reviewing literature to establish criteria for selecting a theoretical framework fit for this purpose, and 2) adapting Real-Datos synthesis framework to integrate a cognitive approach to public policy within a constructivist perspective. Our framework identifies multiple contexts as part of the policy process, focuses on situations where actors work together to make national policy on global health, considers these interactive situations as spaces for observing external influences on policy change and proposes policy design as the output of the process. We suggest that this framework makes three contributions to the conceptualisation of national policy on global health as a research object. First, it emphasizes collective action over decisions of individual policy actors. Second, it conceptualises the policy process as organised interactive spaces for collaboration rather than as stages of a policy cycle. Third, national decision-making spaces are opportunities for transferring ideas and knowledge from different sectors and settings, and represent opportunities to identify international influences on a countrys global health policy. We discuss two sets of challenges for public health researchers using interdisciplinary approaches in policy research.

Promotion de la santé basée sur des données probantes : un domaine émergeant

On débat beaucoup de l’utilisation des données probantes dans la pratique de la promotion de la santé. Cet article vise à affiner la compréhension que nous avons de cette question en examinant et en analysant les 26 études de cas présentées dans ce numéro spécial. Ces études de cas laissent supposer que les praticiens en promotion de la santé utilisent un large éventail de données issues de la recherche dans les interventions destinées à des personnes à risque, à des populations dans leur ensemble et à des groupes vulnérables, en conformité avec les cinq stratégies d’action décrites dans la Charte d’Ottawa pour la Promotion de la Santé. Dans presque tous les cas, les praticiens ont dû faire des compromis et adapter les données scientifiques à leur cas. Huit leviers clés ont aidé les praticiens à intégrer les données issues de la recherche dans la pratique : la pertinence locale et culturelle des données, le développement des capacités au niveau communautaire, un dialogue continu avec l’ensemble des parties prenantes dès le début, des partenariats bien établis et soutenus par le milieu universitaire, une communication qui réponde à l’opportunité politique et organisationnelle, la reconnaissance et la prise de conscience des fossés qui existent entre les données probantes et la pratique, le plaidoyer et enfin, des ressources appropriées et spécifiquement réservées. Ces études de cas apportent la preuve qu’il existe bel et bien une promotion de la santé fondée sur des preuves, que ces preuves sont larges et que les praticiens utilisent différentes stratégies pour les adapter à leur cas.

Where are we headed? The next frontier for the evidence of effectiveness in the European Region

European progress will be reported in August 2005 at the WHO’s 6th Global Conference on Health Promotion in Bangkok, Thailand (For further information contact Chris Brown, Program Manager, Investment for Health & Health Promotion, WHO/European Office for Investment for Health & Health Development, chb@ihd.euro.who.int). In Bangkok, other WHO regions will also contribute data and experience with health promotion capacity mapping. Efforts to improve the quality and Capacity building

How is evidence used for planning, implementation and evaluation of health promotion? A global collection of case studies

Like many other areas in the field of health and public health, health promotion has been influenced by the evidence-based movement. As in other fields competing for resources allocated from public funds, health promotion has embraced the ideal of scientific rationality to legitimize its claim of contributing to the betterment of society (1). Although the Ottawa Charter, and the public health strategies that were designed and implemented under its auspices, constitute a solid foundation for the dual objective of increasing population health and improving equity in health (2), it is no longer sufficient to take these strategic approaches at face value. This, combined with demands from training programmes that push the field towards increased professionalization, makes the anchoring of health promotion into scientific evidence all the more appealing. There is, however, a huge caveat that impedes health promotion’s enthusiastic embrace of the evidence-based movement, and it relates to the very core of the Ottawa Charter that identifies context as a defining principle for the field. Local relevance is paramount for health promotion, and it seems, at first glance, that there might be conflict between this principle of action and the claim to universalism that is often made in the name of scientific evidence (3).

Global Programme on Health Promotion Effectivenes: new perspectives from the frontline

In June 2007, the International Union for Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE) launched the first global publication of its Global Programme on Health Promotion Effectiveness (GPHPE), Global Perspectives on Health Promotion Effectiveness (1). This book is described as a symposium in a book form as it gathers critical thinking on key issues related to a wide array of challenges associated with collecting, synthesizing, assessing and disseminating evidence of effectiveness of health promotion. Fifty-five contributors representing six continents contributed to the debate and discussed the fundamental methodological challenges and considerations for policy and practice. The publication was a welcome addition to the literature. A book review published in the Journal of the American Medical Association referred to it as ‘refreshing’ and noted that: