Gender and health promotion: A multisectoral policy approach

Women and men are different as regards their biology, the roles and responsibilities that society assigns to them and their position in the family and community. These factors have a great influence on causes, consequences and management of diseases and ill-health and on the efficacy of health promotion policies and programmes. This is confirmed by evidence on male–female differences in cause-specific mortality and morbidity and exposure to risk factors. Health promoting interventions aimed at ensuring safe and supportive environments, healthy living conditions and lifestyles, community involvement and participation, access to essential facilities and to social and health services need to address these differences between women and men, boys and girls in an equitable manner in order to be effective. The aim of this paper is to (i) demonstrate that health promotion policies that take women's and men's differential biological and social vulnerability to health risks and the unequal power relationships between the sexes into account are more likely to be successful and effective compared to policies that are not concerned with such differences, and (ii) discuss what is required to build a multisectoral policy response to gender inequities in health through health promotion and disease prevention. The requirements discussed in the paper include i) the establishment of joint commitment for policy within society through setting objectives related to gender equality and equity in health as well as health promotion, ii) an assessment and analysis of gender inequalities affecting health and determinants of health, iii) the actions needed to tackle the main determinants of those inequalities and iv) documentation and dissemination of effective and gender sensitive policy interventions to promote health. In the discussion of these key policy elements, we use illustrative examples of good practices from different countries around the world.

The sustainability of health promotion interventions for different levels of social organization

In health promotion, enthusiasm for sustainability has frequently overshadowed critical reflection with regard to whether this aim is warranted, let alone feasible. Consequently, the not insubstantial body of literature on sustainability in health promotion is not particularly helpful to decision makers. In this paper we seek to provide some guidance for the development of sustainability for health promotion interventions, arguing that it is necessary to be able to differentiate between (i) levels of social organization which are the focus of change, (ii) the programmes and agencies which are the means employed to achieve change, and (iii) the outcomes or effects that are achieved. Furthermore, funding allocations need to be congruent with programme characteristics if one is serious about achieving sustainability.

Health promotion and evaluation - a programmatic approach

Health promotion has evolved significantly in the past twenty years. Its emphasis has shifted from relatively simple monocausal models focused on behavioural risk factors to a greater emphasis on broader social determinants of health. Single method, single risk factor interventions have increasingly been replaced with multiformat, multiple risk factor interventions and extended campaigns, with whole-of-govemment implications. Health promotion structures have developed from ad hoc single shot activity to large dedicated agencies with continuing responsibilities and a wide ambit.

The development of health promotion research and evaluation has followed these trends. The early epidemiology studies linked behavioural risks such as smoking, diet and physical activity with systemic conditions such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. A raft of small and large scale intervention studies aimed at demonstrating that these behavioural risk factors could be modified and that modification would lead to improved health outcomes followed with mixed results.

More recent evidence suggests that behavioural risks are not the onIy social factors that influence health outcomes. There is now strong evidence that social determinants such as income, education and employment have highly significant direct effects on health outcomes, which are not mediated by behavioural risks, and that behavioural risks are also correlated with these broader determinants.

Health promotion now operates in a variety of ways at different scales and different levels of the health system (and the wider social system). The goals of health promotion, and the measures that assess whether a project, campaign, or general strategy has met its goals, differ accordingly.

Arguably, where local, state and federal governments begin to coordinate their efforts systematically across settings, intervention strategies, health action areas and population groups, health promotion becomes more
programmatic, sustainable and effective. A programmatic approach also integrates knowledge generation, the development of health promotion capacity, practice and evaluation together.

However, programmatic approaches to health promotion are comparatively new. Only recently have governments begun to develop and resource
comprehensive and sustained health promotion programs that address a range of health issues using multiple intervention strategies. The scope of a more programmatic approach and its functions and purposes is still developing.

Although evaluation has a key role to play in this respect, the development of programmatic strategies for health promotion has generally outpaced evaluation theory and practice. While we now have reasonable technologies for measurement of behavioural risks and individual attitudinal and cognitive influences on them, strategies to evaluate organisational and community interventions are still emerging.

Similarly, while new approaches to evaluate small scale community and organisational interventions have been developed, comprehensive models to monitor and evaluate health promotion programs and strategies across multiple intervention sites over extended periods have not yet emerged. Nor have we resolved the methodological problems of teasing out the relative contribution of different intervention strategies to observed change in health outcomes.

More programmatic approaches to health promotion require a more programmatic approach to health promotion evaluation. This paper represents an issues based examination of the evidence base for a more programmatic health promotion and the evaluation issues that arise

Prevalence of health promotion policies in sports clubs in Victoria, Australia

In recent years, some health agencies offered sponsorship to sporting associations to promote healthy environments by encouraging clubs to develop health-related policies. However, the extent to which these sponsorship contracts reach their stated aims is of concern. This study aimed to quantify levels of policy development and practice in sports clubs for each of five key health areas, namely smoke-free facilities, sun protection, healthy catering, responsible serving of alcohol and sports injury prevention. Representatives from 932 Victorian sports clubs were contacted by telephone with 640 clubs (69%) participating in the survey. Results suggested that the establishment of written policies on the key health areas by sports clubs varied widely by affiliated sport and health area: 70% of all clubs with bar facilities had written policies on responsible serving of alcohol, ranging from 58% of tennis clubs to 100% of diving and surfing clubs. In contrast, approximately one-third of sports clubs had a smoke-free policy, with 36% of tennis, 28% of country football and 28% of men's cricket clubs having policy. Moreover, 34% of clubs overall had established sun protection policy, whereas clubs competing outside during summer months, [diving (86%) and life-saving (81%)] were most likely to have a written sun protection policy. Injury prevention policies were established in 30% of sports clubs, and were most common among football (56%), diving (43%) and life-saving (41%). This study suggests that policy development for health promotion can be achieved in sports clubs when it is well supported by health agencies and consideration is given to the appropriateness of the specific behaviours to be encouraged for a given sport. Communication between associations and clubs needs to be monitored by health agencies to ensure support and resources for policy development to reach the club level.

Action research in health promotion

Objectives This article aims to define what is action research and where it fits in with health promotion practice, through drawing upon associated literature and personal action research experience. It also seeks to investigate the possible reasons why it is that health promotion researchers have not readily taken on the processes of action research strategies.

Rationale The place of action research in health promotion programmes is an important yet relatively unacknowledged and understated activity. It has proven to be very popular with other professional groups, such as in the education, management and social sciences. In terms of health service activity, it is widely established in the fields of nursing and mental health and is beginning to establish itself in medicine. While there are a few health promotion examples to draw upon, they tend to be isolated, dated and often lie outside of the mainstream literature. It is suggested that this continuing state of affairs denies many health promotion researchers a valuable resource for managing effective change in practice.

Conclusion The authors suggest that action research is both a valid and
important research method for health promotion researchers, who are advised to further consider its merits in future studies. This article draws attention to the National Health Service (NHS) South West Regional Office-commissioned Our Healthier Nation: Improving the Competence of the Workforce in Health Promotion participatory action research project, as a means of promoting and validating action research strategy. The authors were all actively involved in this project.

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.