Multi-sectoral health promotion and public health : the role of evidence

Background Evidence-informed health promotion and public health is an emerging and ever-changing theme in research and practice. A collaborative approach to gathering and applying evidence is crucial to implementing effective multi-sectoral health promotion and public health interventions for improved population outcomes. This paper presents an argument for the development of multi-sector evidence and discusses both facilitators and challenges to this process.

Methods Sector-specific contacts familiar with decision-making processes were selected from referrals gained through academic, government and non-government networks and interviewed (in-person or via telephone) as part of a small scale study to scope the use of evidence within non-health sectors where decisions are likely to impact on public health.

Results The views gathered are preliminary, and this analysis would benefit from more extensive consultation. Nonetheless, information gathered from the interviews and literature search provide valuable insights into evidence-related decision-making paradigms which demonstrate similarities with, and differences from, those found in the health sector.

Conclusions Decisions in health promotion and public may benefit from consideration of the ways in which disciplines and sectors can work together to inform policy and practice.

Using critical ethnography to explore issues in health promotion

In this article, the author outlines the need for a critical research method in the field of health promotion to explore the determinants of health. These determinants, including healthy child development, employment and working conditions, and education, for example, underlie many of the health issues that individuals experience. They are, in turn, influenced by nebulous factors such as patterns of inequality, and cultural norms, which are difficult to research using conventional methodologies. The author provides an overview of critical ethnography as a method for health promotion research. She describes specific data collection and analysis techniques, with the addition of critical discourse analysis to add scope to ethnographic findings. She concludes with an overview of the congruence between critical ethnography and health promotion research, including a discussion of the differences between critical ethnography and participatory action research.

Who gets what : politics, evidence, and health promotion

Science journal, starting with its July 2005 issue, presents its readers with 125 questions and problems yet to be resolved by the scientific community. These range from the deceptively simple (‘what is the structure of water?’), the obvious (‘what triggers puberty?’ or ‘what are the roots of human culture?’), to the amazingly esoteric (‘do mathematically interesting zero-value solutions of the Riemann zeta function all have the form of a+bi?’).

Quantitative evaluation in health promotion : evaluation with confidence

Over the past 10 years or so, confidence intervals have become increasingly recognised in program evaluation and quantitative health measurement generally as the preferred way of reporting the accuracy of statistical estimates. Statisticians have found that the more traditional ways of reporting results - using P-values and hypothesis tests - are often very difficult to interpret and can be misleading. This is particularly the case when sample sizes are small and results are 'negative' (ie P>0.05); in these cases, a confidence interval can communicate much more information about the sample and, by inference, about the population. Despite this trend among statisticians and health promotion evaluators towards the use of confidence intervals, it is surprisingly difficult to find succinct and reasonably simple methods to actually compute a confidence interval. This is particularly the case for proportions or percentages. Much of the data which are analysed in health promotion are binary or categorical, rather than the quantities and continuous variables often found in laboratories or other branches of science, so there is a need for health promotion evaluators to be able to present confidence intervals for percentages or proportions. However, the most popular statistical analysis computer package among health promotion professionals, SPSS does not have a routine to compute a simple confidence interval for a proportion! To address this shortcoming, I present in this paper some fairly simple strategies for computing confidence intervals for population percentages, both manually and using the right computer software.

Knowledge synthesis, translation and exchange in public health and health promotion: the role of a Cochrane review group

The Cochrane Collaboration is an international non-profit organisation that aims to produce high quality systematic reviews of the effectiveness of health interventions. This work is conducted by 51 Review Groups that span a  range of topics (e.g. pregnancy and childbirth, HIV/AIDS). The role of Fields within the Collaboration has been to actively engage relevant stakeholders internationally to improve the quality and relevance of reviews. Since the inception in 1996 of the Cochrane Public Health and Health Promotion Field, the Cochrane Collaboration has begun to embrace reviews related to public health and health promotion and is adapting to the changing needs of end-users. The introduction of a Cochrane health promotion and public health review group will help ensure that reviews will be oriented towards building evidence for equity and reducing inequalities and best meet the needs of decision-makers, practitioners and consumers. Our role as a Field has led to us working with a range of partners including reviewers,  researchers, practitioners and consumers. Knowledge synthesis, translation and exchange (KST&E) has emerged as an issue in need of further  exploration for practice to influence decision-makers and for policy to  influence practitioners. 2007 will be an exciting year for evidence-informed Health Promotion and Public Health (HPPH) both within the Cochrane Collaboration and for our partners in policy, practice and research.

Baseline assessment of organizational capacity for health promotion within regional health authorities in Alberta, Canada

This paper provides a baseline profile of organizational capacity for (heart) health promotion in Alberta's regional health authorities (RHAs); and examines differences in perceived organizational health promotion capacity specific to modifiable risk factors across three levels of staff and across capacity levels. Baseline data were collected from a purposive sample of 144 board members, senior/middle managers and service providers from 17 RHAs participating in a five-year time-series repeated survey design assessing RHA capacity for (heart) health promotion. Results indicate low levels of capacity to take health promotion action on the broader determinants of health and risk conditions like poverty and social support. In contrast, capacity for health promotion action specific to physiological and behavioural risk factors is considerably higher. Organizational "will" to do health promotion is noticeably more present than is both infrastructure and leadership. Both position held within an organization as well as overall level of organizational capacity appear to influence perceptions of organizational capacity. Overall, results suggest that organizational "will", while necessary, is inadequate on its own for health promotion implementation to occur, especially in regard to addressing the broader determinants of health. A combination of low infrastructure and limited leadership may help explain a lack of health promotion action.