Healthy Public Policy in Canada: A Survey of Ontario Health Professionals

“Healthy public policy” has become a catchphrase of the “new” health promotion. The concept, however, remains vague and lacking in practice. A survey of Ontario public health workers was conducted in June 1988, using the World Health Organization's Second Health Promotion Conference Declaration on Healthy Public Policy as a source of policy statements and action areas. Results are constrained by a low response rate (22.5%, N = 180), but indicate a high degree of support for healthy public policy concepts by senior level public health workers. Social environment policy issues (notably child poverty and unaffordable housing) are highest ranked priority issues, although physical environment (pollution) ranked most important when respondents were asked to choose a single issue. Lifestyle health issues are relatively low-ranked, although they remain priorities for action by respondents and their employers. The Canadian and Ontario Public Health Associations are thought to have the best analyses of healthy public policies, but are not seen as prominent policy actors. Government and media are considered weakest in their analysis of healthy public policy. Respondents' comments indicate a willingness to strengthen their role, and that of their health associations, in advocacy for healthy public policies.

Download Full-text

The Effect of COVID-19 Illness on Pregnant Patients With Rheumatic Disease: Early Reassuring Data

The Journal of Rheumatology ◽

10.3899/jrheum.211050 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. jrheum.211050

Author(s):

Lisa R. Sammaritano

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Risk Factors ◽

Health Workers ◽

Healthcare Providers ◽

World Health ◽

Novel Therapies ◽

Serious Illness ◽

The World ◽

Public Health Workers ◽

Health Organization

As of September 20, 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported 228,206,384 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with over 4.5 million deaths worldwide.1 International responses by healthcare providers (HCPs), medical and pharmacologic researchers, and public health workers identified risk factors for serious illness and developed novel therapies and vaccines in real time, even as new variants emerge.

Download Full-text

Healthy Public Policy

Public Health ◽

10.1093/obo/9780199756797-0196 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Patrick Harris ◽

Marilyn Wise

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Public Policy ◽

Environmental Conditions ◽

Public Policies ◽

Public Health Practice ◽

Health Sector ◽

Well Being ◽

Good Health ◽

Healthy Public Policy ◽

The Social

Healthy public policy (HPP) became an important idea in the 1980s. The concept can be traced primarily to Nancy Milio, who produced a now hard-to-find book, Promoting Health through Public Policy (Philadelphia: Davis, 1981), and was subsequently cemented in the WHO’s Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion as a strategy to use in promoting, protecting, and maintaining the health of populations. HPP is not, however, a modern phenomenon. Historically HPP was embedded in the 16th-century Poor Laws and passed through to 19th- and early-20th-century public health activity and legislation. Across this history is the recognition that improving public health requires addressing the social and economic (and environmental) conditions created by public policy. It follows, as explained by many, that public health practice is inherently political. This bibliography introduces the large literature that falls under the broad pantheon of HPP. Definitions, as this bibliography will show, do matter. Central is the often underrealized truth that “healthy public policy” fundamentally concerns how public policy influences the health of populations. This, in turn, necessitates that HPP practice is interdisciplinary. For knowledge, this means much of the theory and evidence underpinning HPP is to be found in other disciplines that have public policy at their core, political science being the most obvious (public administration another). It is through HPP that societies in general and public health researchers and practitioners in particular seek to create social and economic and environmental conditions for whole populations. Attention thus moves “upstream” to policies and institutions rather than “downstream” to behaviors or health services. Not all healthy public policy is generated with the intention to influence population health directly. Nor are all public policies that impact on the health of populations generated by the health sector, although many are. A core goal of HPP is reducing inequities in health. These inequities are what the 2008 WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health named as a “toxic mix of poor social policies, unfair economic arrangements and bad politics.” Just as policy actors are responsible for policies that have created inequalities, so too are they responsible for developing and implementing policies in that overcome the unfair and unjust distribution of the resources necessary for good health and well-being. Public policies are formed through “contests for power” between the various actors involved in policy-making in part because they are value-laden. The choices actors make are influenced by powerful structures and ideas that are not always explicit. HPP, therefore, can never be “atheoretical” just as it cannot be divorced from a normative position (what is believed “should” happen) concerned with changing political conditions for the betterment of the health of the population in general and disadvantaged in particular. In recent years there has been some confusion (see Oxford Bibliographies article Health in All Policies) whether HiAP replaces HPP as a concept and method. This article errs on the side of history by suggesting HiAP, with intersectoral action, is one recent strategy to achieve HPP.

Download Full-text

The National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy in times of COVID-19: Building skills to “Build Back Better”

Canada Communicable Disease Report ◽

10.14745/ccdr.v47i04a08 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 47 (04) ◽

pp. 232-236

Author(s):

Olivier Bellefleur ◽

Marianne Jacques

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Public Policy ◽

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ◽

Public Policies ◽

Knowledge Synthesis ◽

Healthy Public Policy ◽

Future Work

This article, the second in a series on the six National Collaborating Centres for Public Health, focuses on the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy (NCCHPP), a centre of expertise, and knowledge synthesis and sharing that supports public health actors in Canada in their efforts to develop and promote healthy public policy. The article briefly describes the NCCHPP’s mandate and programming, noting some of the resources that are particularly relevant in the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) context. It then discusses how the NCCHPP’s programming has been adapted to meet the changing needs of public health actors throughout the pandemic. These needs have been strongly tied to decisions aimed at containing the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and mitigating its immediate impacts in various societal sectors since the beginning of the crisis. Needs have also gradually emerged related to how public health is expected to help inform the development of public policies that will allow us to “build back better” societies as we recover from the pandemic. The article concludes by discussing the orientation of the NCCHPP’s future work as we emerge from the COVID-19 crisis.

Download Full-text

Policy Critique: The Philippine's Magna Carta of Public Health Workers

PsycEXTRA Dataset ◽

10.1037/e570102013-002 ◽

2013 ◽

Author(s):

Carl Abelardo T. Antonio

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Health Workers ◽

Magna Carta ◽

Public Health Workers

Download Full-text

Working conditions and health status of 6,317 front line public health workers across five provinces in China during the COVID-19 epidemic: a cross-sectional study

BMC Public Health ◽

10.1186/s12889-020-10146-0 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Jinghua Li ◽

Jingdong Xu ◽

Huan Zhou ◽

Hua You ◽

Xiaohui Wang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Mental Health ◽

Health Status ◽

Health Outcomes ◽

Working Conditions ◽

Health Workers ◽

Front Line ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Self Rated Health ◽

Public Health Workers

ABSTRACT Background Public health workers at the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) and primary health care institutes (PHIs) were among the main workers who implemented prevention, control, and containment measures. However, their efforts and health status have not been well documented. We aimed to investigate the working conditions and health status of front line public health workers in China during the COVID-19 epidemic. Methods Between 18 February and 1 March 2020, we conducted an online cross-sectional survey of 2,313 CDC workers and 4,004 PHI workers in five provinces across China experiencing different scales of COVID-19 epidemic. We surveyed all participants about their work conditions, roles, burdens, perceptions, mental health, and self-rated health using a self-constructed questionnaire and standardised measurements (i.e., Patient Health Questionnaire and General Anxiety Disorder scale). To examine the independent associations between working conditions and health outcomes, we used multivariate regression models controlling for potential confounders. Results The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and poor self-rated health was 21.3, 19.0, and 9.8%, respectively, among public health workers (27.1, 20.6, and 15.0% among CDC workers and 17.5, 17.9, and 6.8% among PHI workers). The majority (71.6%) made immense efforts in both field and non-field work. Nearly 20.0% have worked all night for more than 3 days, and 45.3% had worked throughout the Chinese New Year holiday. Three risk factors and two protective factors were found to be independently associated with all three health outcomes in our final multivariate models: working all night for >3 days (multivariate odds ratio [ORm]=1.67~1.75, p<0.001), concerns about infection at work (ORm=1.46~1.89, p<0.001), perceived troubles at work (ORm=1.10~1.28, p<0.001), initiating COVID-19 prevention work after January 23 (ORm=0.78~0.82, p=0.002~0.008), and ability to persist for > 1 month at the current work intensity (ORm=0.44~0.55, p<0.001). Conclusions Chinese public health workers made immense efforts and personal sacrifices to control the COVID-19 epidemic and faced the risk of mental health problems. Efforts are needed to improve the working conditions and health status of public health workers and thus maintain their morale and effectiveness during the fight against COVID-19.

Download Full-text