Health Equity Through Intersectoral Action: An Analysis of 18 Country Case Studies
World Health Organization (WHO) and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) – 2008
Available online PDF [52p.] at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/2008/hetia18-esgai18/pdf/hetia18-esgai18-eng.pdf
“….The vision of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health, launched by the World Health Organization (2005-2008), is “a world in which all people have the freedom to lead lives they have reason to value”. The complexities of the social, political, economic and environmental factors that influence health and inequalities in health, and the fact that most of these determinants lie outside of the exclusive jurisdiction of the health sector, requires the health sector to act in collaboration with other sectors of government and society in order to more effectively address those factors that influence health and well-being.
Recognition of the intersectoral dimensions of the determinants of health has stimulated international efforts on systematic learning about how the action of different sectors can positively influence health and health equity.
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) have supported the development of this collaborative work by jointly commissioning a set of 18 case studies from high, middle, and low income countries. The case studies outline diverse experiences of action across sectors with positive impacts for health and health equity.
This paper, part of a joint multi-phase initiative of PHAC and the Secretariat to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health, provides an analysis of key learnings from those 18 case studies. The case studies analyzed here represent a broad array of initiatives that ranged from relatively small-scale programs that used a community development approach with a marginalized group in one city, to broad, policy-focused initiatives from national governments. Socio-political, economic and cultural contexts are important in each of the case studies reviewed, creating the landscape within which intersectoral action was initiated and carried out.
The plethora of approaches reflects the different contexts in which initiatives arose, the specific priorities that they addressed and the resources that were made available to them. …”
“…..The analysis of the 18 case studies followed a qualitative approach using content analysis. Key themes present in each of the case studies were identified and organized in groups. A number of questions guided the analysis and theme identification. These questions, many of which were identified through the previous
phases of this initiative, included:
a) What are some of the ways that each country’s sociopolitical, economic and decision-making contexts have an effect on how intersectoral efforts were conceptualized, planned, implemented and evaluated?
b) What kinds of models or frameworks for organizing intersectoral action exist, and what contextual elements make the emergence of different models more likely?;
c) What are examples of machinery, processes and tools that have been effective in implementing intersectoral action in the case studies?;
d) How has the demand for intersectoral action been built in the case studies?;
e) How have other sectors been motivated to buy in to the notion of social determinants, and take action towards them?;
f) What has been the most useful role for the health sector?;
g) What benefit/detriment has the setting of targets demonstrated on successful intersectoral action?;
h) What attributes of intersectoral action are important for sustainability and scaling up?;
i) What are some particularly innovative practices that countries used to overcome challenges to intersectoral action for health?, and
j) What questions still remain? What further work still needs to be done to better understand those factors and processes that will best support intersectoral action?
To assist in the analysis, the research questions above were included in a template (see Appendix C). Members of the research team used the template to guide their reflection and analysis of each of the 18 case studies. The team then had a series of meetings to pull together common themes….”
Content
1 Introduction
2 Methodology.
3 Key General Categories of Intersectoral Action for Health and the Importance of Context.
3.1 Framing of the Issue – Primary Goals of Intersectoral Action.
3.2 Intersectoral Action at Different Levels of Decision-Making
3.2.1 Regional/Provincial and National Initiatives
3.2.2 Local-Level Initiatives.
3.2.3 Crisis-Oriented Initiatives.
3.2.4 Working Across and Between Sectors
4 Key Mechanisms and Tools to Support Intersectoral Action for Health and Health Equity
4.1 Building the Case for Intersectoral Work
4.2 Engaging Other Sectors.
4.3 The Role of Civil Society, Multi-laterals and Public Participation
4.4 Building on Working Together – Developing Effective Partnerships.
4.5 Models and Frameworks Used to Organize Intersectoral Work
4.6 Structures to Organize Planning and Implementation.
4.7 Monitoring Process and Outcomes of Intersectoral Work.
4.8 Ensuring Sustainability of Intersectoral Efforts.
5 The Role of the Health Sector.
6 Innovative Practices.
7 Discussion: Summary of Key Findings and Questions that Remain
8 Conclusion.
9 References
10 Appendix A: TOR for the development of country case studies on intersectoral action for health (IAH).
11 Appendix B: Brief Summaries of Case studies.
12 Appendix C: Template Used for Analysis of Case studies
13 Appendix D: Models Used by
This case study synthesis is a product of a larger collaborative undertaking of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), and was contracted and funded by PHAC. Case studies, apart from the Canadian study, were contracted for by WHO, with the exception of those produced ad honorem (
The drafting of this report benefited from editorial guidance of a project “editorial committee”, whose members consisted of Robert Geneau, Candace Smith, Mana Herel, Heather Fraser, and Sharon Peake from the Public Health Agency of Canada, and Orielle Solar and Nicole Valentine from the World Health Organization.
This team consulted several times with the main writing team to provide comments on the content and structure of the report. In addition, helpful comments were received from several of the case study authors.
Project teams:
PHAC:
Sharon Peake (lead: July 2007-April 2008)
Gerry Gallagher (lead: November 2006-June 2007)
Robert Geneau
Candace Smith
Mana Herel
Heather Fraser
WHO:
Nicole Valentine (lead)
Orielle Solar
Lexi Bambas
Initial draft written by:
Victoria Barr, MHSc
Steve Pedersen, MPH
Mike Pennock, MASc
Irv Rootman, PhD
Public Health Association of BC
* * * *
This message from the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO/WHO, is part of an effort to disseminate
information Related to: Equity; Health inequality; Socioeconomic inequality in health; Socioeconomic
health differentials; Gender; Violence; Poverty; Health Economics; Health Legislation; Ethnicity; Ethics;
Information Technology - Virtual libraries; Research & Science issues. [DD/ KMS Area]
“Materials provided in this electronic list are provided "as is". Unless expressly stated otherwise, the findings
and interpretations included in the Materials are those of the authors and not necessarily of The Pan American
Health Organization PAHO/WHO or its country members”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAHO/WHO Website
Equity List - Archives - Join/remove: http://listserv.paho.org/Archives/equidad.html
IMPORTANT: This transmission is for use by the intended recipient and it may contain privileged, proprietary or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this transmission to the intended recipient, you may not disclose, copy or distribute this transmission or take any action in reliance on it. If you received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by email to infosec@paho.org, and please dispose of and delete this transmission. Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment