Creating change in government to address the social determinants of health: How can efforts be improved?

Background The evidence base for the impact of social determinants of health has been strengthened considerably in the last decade. Increasingly, the public health field is using this as a foundation for arguments and actions to change government policies. The Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach, alongside recommendations from the 2010 Marmot Review into health inequalities in the UK (which we refer to as the ‘Fairness Agenda’), go beyond advocating for the redesign of individual policies, to shaping the government structures and processes that facilitate the implementation of these policies. In doing so, public health is drawing on recent trends in public policy towards ‘joined up government’, where greater integration is sought between government departments, agencies and actors outside of government. Methods In this paper we provide a meta-synthesis of the empirical public policy research into joined up government, drawing out characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives. We use this thematic synthesis as a basis for comparing and contrasting emerging public health interventions concerned with joined-up action across government. Results We find that HiAP and the Fairness Agenda exhibit some of the characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives, however they also utilise ‘change instruments’ that have been found to be ineffective. Moreover, we find that – like many joined up initiatives – there is room for improvement in the alignment between the goals of the interventions and their design. Conclusion Drawing on public policy studies, we recommend a number of strategies to increase the efficacy of current interventions. More broadly, we argue that up-stream interventions need to be ‘fit-for-purpose’, and cannot be easily replicated from one context to the next.

Sedentary behaviour and health: Mapping environmental and social contexts to underpin chronic disease prevention

The time that children and adults spend sedentary–put simply, doing too much sitting as distinct from doing too little physical activity—has recently been proposed as a population-wide, ubiquitous influence on health outcomes. It has been argued that sedentary time is likely to be additional to the risks associated with insufficient moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. New evidence identifies relationships of too much sitting with overweight and obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, some cancers and other adverse health outcomes. There is a need for a broader base of evidence on the likely health benefits of changing the relevant sedentary behaviours, particularly gathering evidence on underlying mechanisms and dose–response relationships. However, as remains the case for physical activity, there is a research agenda to be pursued in order to identify the potentially modifiable environmental and social determinants of sedentary behaviour. Such evidence is required so as to understand what might need to be changed in order to influence sedentary behaviours and to work towards population-wide impacts on prolonged sitting time. In this context, the research agenda needs to focus particularly on what can inform broad, evidence-based environmental and policy initiatives. We consider what has been learned from research on relationships of environmental and social attributes and physical activity; provide an overview of recent-emerging evidence on relationships of environmental attributes with sedentary behaviour; argue for the importance of conducting international comparative studies and addressing life-stage issues and socioeconomic inequalities and we propose a conceptual model within which this research agenda may be addressed.