The emergence of the social determinants of health on the policy agenda in Britain: A case study, 1980--2003

Numerous theories have been advanced in the effort to explain how a given policy issue manages to take root in the public sphere and subsequently move forward on the public legislative agenda—or not. This study examined how the social determinants of health (SDOH) came to be part of the legislative policy agenda in Britain from 1980 to 2003. ^ The specific objectives of the research were: (1) to conduct a sociopolitical analysis grounded in alternative agenda-setting theories to identify the factors responsible for moving the social determinants health perspective onto the British policy agenda; and (2) to determine which of the theories and related dimensions best accounted for the emergence of this perspective. ^ A triangulated content and context analysis of British news articles, historical accounts, and research commentaries of the SDOH movement was conducted guided by relevant agenda-setting theories set within a social movement framework to chronicle the emergence of the SDOH as a significant policy issue in Britain. ^ The most influential social movement and agenda setting elements in the emergence of the SDOH in Britain were issue generation tactics, framing efforts, mobilizing structures, and political opportunities grounded in social movement and agenda setting theories. Policy content or the details of the policy had comparatively little impact on the successful emergence of the SDOH. Despite resistance by the government, from 1980 to 1996 interest groups created a political understanding of the SDOH utilizing a framing package encompassing notions of inequality, fairness, and justice. This frame transmitted a powerful idea connected to a core set of British values and beliefs. After 1996, a shift in political opportunities cemented the institutional arrangements needed to sustain an environment conducive to the development and implementation of SDOH policies and programs. ^ This research demonstrates that the U.S. emergence of the SDOH on the policy agenda will depend upon: (1) U.S. ideals and values regarding poverty, inequality, race, health, and health care that will determine issue framing; (2) political opportunities that will emerge—or not—to advance the SDOH policy agenda; and (3) the mobilizing structures that support or oppose the issue. ^

A focused ethnographic study of community social capital

Social capital, a relatively new public health concept, represents the intangible resources embedded in social relationships that facilitate collective action. Current interest in the concept stems from empirical studies linking social capital with health outcomes. However, in order for social capital to function as a meaningful research variable, conceptual development aimed at refining the domains, attributes, and boundaries of the concept are needed. An existing framework of social capital (Uphoff, 2000), developed from studies in India, was selected for congruence with the inductive analysis of pilot data from a community that was unsuccessful at mobilizing collective action. This framework provided the underpinnings for a formal ethnographic research study designed to examine the components of social capital in a community that had successfully mobilized collective action. The specific aim of the ethnographic study was to examine the fittingness of Uphoff's framework in the contrasting American community. A contrasting context was purposefully selected to distinguish essential attributes of social capital from those that were specific to one community. Ethnographic data collection methods included participant observation, formal interviews, and public documents. Data was originally analyzed according to codes developed from Uphoff's theoretical framework. The results from this analysis were only partially satisfactory, indicating that the theoretical framework required refinement. The refinement of the coding system resulted in the emergence of an explanatory theory of social capital that was tested with the data collected from formal fieldwork. Although Uphoff's framework was useful, the refinement of the framework revealed, (1) trust as the dominant attribute of social capital, (2) efficacy of mutually beneficial collective action as the outcome indicator, (3) cognitive and structural domains more appropriately defined as the cultural norms of the community and group, and (4) a definition of social capital as the combination of the cognitive norms of the community and the structural norms of the group that are either constructive or destructive to the development of trust and the efficacy of mutually beneficial collective action. This explanatory framework holds increased pragmatic utility for public health practice and research. ^