Influencing international policy

2020 ◽  
pp. 348-357
Author(s):  
Tim Lang ◽  
Martin Caraher
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Policy Action ◽  
Double Burden ◽  
International Policy ◽  
International Policies ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
The World ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

This chapter will help you understand: the relationships between international policy and policy action at multiple levels; why public health practitioners should build an international dimension into their work; how to influence and advance public health internationally, even through local action. The chapter uses examples from the world of food and health policy (on which the authors work) to illustrate the structures and processes of engagement you may encounter. In the policy worlds of both global public health and food, there is a mix of improvement and threats, inequalities alongside progress, fragmentation, and coherence. Similar trends in the global South and developed countries may have underlying drivers at work, resulting in the double burden of disease. It is preferable to ensure that international policies tackle rather than ignore those determinants.

Influencing international policy

2013 ◽  
pp. 308-317
Author(s):  
Tim Lang ◽  
Martin Caraher
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Local Action ◽  
Local Policy ◽  
Policy Action ◽  
International Policy ◽  
International Dimension ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

This chapter will help you understand the relationships between international policy and local policy action, why public health practitioners should build an international dimension into their work, and how you can influence and advance public health internationally, including through local action.

scholarly journals COVID-19: an Immunopathological View

mSphere ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamran Kadkhoda
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Laboratory Medicine ◽  
World Health ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
The World ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

ABSTRACT Since its emergence in December 2019, it took only a couple of months for an outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to be declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). This along with the highly infectious nature of the disease and the associated mortality call for particular attention to the underlying (immuno)pathomechanism(s). The latter will inform case management and vaccine design. Unravelling these mechanisms can assist basic scientists, laboratory medicine practitioners, clinicians, public health practitioners, funding agencies, and health care policymakers in responding to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic.

Barriers and enablers for Indigenous public health practitioners

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Rawson
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Workforce Development ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Public Health Systems ◽  
Barriers And Enablers ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Abstract Indigenous Maori Public Health Practitioners who work in mainstream public health systems experience significant barriers to workplace success and the barriers to positive public health impact in our communities. This is a Kaupapa Maori qualitative study that highlights the barriers and enablers to Maori Senior Public Health practitioners within Mainstream New Zealand Public Health Units. Given there are nearly 400 million Indigenous people worldwide, this is an opportunity to share recommendations from this research study with the global public health community about how to re-orient public health organisations and approaches to effectively address workforce development as well as improve engagement and impact in Indigenous communities. Key messages Indigenous knowledge is undervalued in Mainstream Public Health Systems. Indigenous inequities cannot be truly addressed unless providers re-orient themselves by authentically understanding Indigenous ways of working.

scholarly journals What makes a ‘successful’ collaborative research project between public health practitioners and academics? A mixed-methods review of funding applications submitted to a local intervention evaluation scheme

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter van der Graaf ◽  
Lindsay Blank ◽  
Eleanor Holding ◽  
Elizabeth Goyder
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Evaluation Scheme ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Abstract Background The national Public Health Practice Evaluation Scheme (PHPES) is a response-mode funded evaluation programme operated by the National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR). The scheme enables public health professionals to work in partnership with SPHR researchers to conduct rigorous evaluations of their interventions. Our evaluation reviewed the learning from the first five years of PHPES (2013–2017) and how this was used to implement a revised scheme within the School. Methods We conducted a rapid review of applications and reports from 81 PHPES projects and sampled eight projects (including unfunded) to interview one researcher and one practitioner involved in each sampled project (n = 16) in order to identify factors that influence success of applications and effective delivery and dissemination of evaluations. Findings from the review and interviews were tested in an online survey with practitioners (applicants), researchers (principal investigators [PIs]) and PHPES panel members (n = 19) to explore the relative importance of these factors. Findings from the survey were synthesised and discussed for implications at a national workshop with wider stakeholders, including public members (n = 20). Results Strengths: PHPES provides much needed resources for evaluation which often are not available locally, and produces useful evidence to understand where a programme is not delivering, which can be used to formatively develop interventions. Weaknesses: Objectives of PHPES were too narrowly focused on (cost-)effectiveness of interventions, while practitioners also valued implementation studies and process evaluations. Opportunities: PHPES provided opportunities for novel/promising but less developed ideas. More funded time to develop a protocol and ensure feasibility of the intervention prior to application could increase intervention delivery success rates. Threats: There can be tensions between researchers and practitioners, for example, on the need to show the 'success’ of the intervention, on the use of existing research evidence, and the importance of generalisability of findings and of generating peer-reviewed publications. Conclusions The success of collaborative research projects between public health practitioners (PHP) and researchers can be improved by funders being mindful of tensions related to (1) the scope of collaborations, (2) local versus national impact, and (3) increasing inequalities in access to funding. Our study and comparisons with related funding schemes demonstrate how these tensions can be successfully resolved.

scholarly journals After Action Review of the 2019 measles outbreak in Clark County, Washington, U.S.A

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Stoto ◽  
R Piltch-Loeb ◽  
R Wolfe ◽  
R Albrandt ◽  
A Melnick
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Religious Community ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Mutual Aid ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Clark County ◽  
After Action Review ◽  
Measles Outbreak ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Abstract Issue Clark County experienced a measles outbreak that challenged public health authorities. Description of the practice: We conducted a formal After Action Review with state and local health officials, school officials, and others to identify lessons for public health practitioners facing future outbreaks. Results Following the early identification of measles in a child who had recently arrived from Ukraine, active surveillance identified 71 confirmed cases, most in unvaccinated persons under 18 years of age. 4,138 contacts were traced and public health personnel made daily monitoring calls to 816. 53 potential exposure sites in healthcare facilities, schools and other public places were identified and communicated to the public. As a social distancing measure, unvaccinated students, teachers, and staff were excluded from schools in which exposure had occurred. Ascertaining susceptibility status was challenging. The national anti-vaccination sentiment and a parallel outbreak in a New York religious community created challenges in representing community risk while avoiding stigmatization of a community in which the first reported case was identified. Rather than respond to every false claim on social media, the health department developed talking points about emerging issues and engaged the community in dialogue. Lessons Responding to the measles outbreak required innovative approaches to surveillance and contact tracing, social distancing (school exclusions), and emergency risk communication. The response required extensive coordinated efforts of the county and state health departments, school systems, and many other organizations. Mutual aid enabled an influx of resources but managing the surge of responders proved challenging. Key messages Public health emergencies require effective emergency management practices. Carefully conducted After Action Reviews of health emergencies can help public health practitioners identify challenges and innovative practices.

Characterizing the acceptability of a vaccine for West Nile virus by public health practitioners

Vaccine ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (19) ◽  
pp. 3423-3427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tasha Epp ◽  
Shannon Waldner ◽  
Judith Wright ◽  
Phil Curry ◽  
Hugh G. Townsend ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
West Nile Virus ◽  
West Nile ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Public Health Practitioners
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document