Search

This paper reports on an approach to practice development in breastfeeding as part of a national programme of work to address inequalities in maternal and child nutrition. The production and dissemination of evidence and guidelines is necessary but not sufficient on its own to effect change in practice, particularly when dealing with complex public health issues. In the case of breastfeeding, review evidence and national guidance have shown that multifaceted changes are essential if policy aspirations are to be realized. The objectives of the programme described here were to (1) inform and enable practice development in breastfeeding in low-income areas; (2) evaluate the impact of approaches used; and (3) develop robust approaches and appropriate material for use nationally. A conceptual framework was established, and a six-stage process is outlined. The recruitment of four sentinel sites across whole health economies, involving professionals and the voluntary sector, was an essential component of the programme. The strength of the model is that it provides a structured, cross-sectoral approach to practice development in public health. A key challenge is to identify whose responsibility it is to resource practice development when a number of disciplines and sectors are involved. This question needs to be addressed if public health guidance is to be of sustained benefit.

In the past decade, numerous ethical frameworks have been developed to support public health decision‐making in challenging areas. Before the COVID‐19 pandemic began, members of the authorship team were involved in research programmes, in which the development of ethical frameworks was planned, to guide (a) the use of new technologies for emerging infectious disease surveillance; and (b) the allocation of scarce supplies of pandemic influenza vaccine. However, as the pandemic evolved, significant practical challenges emerged that led to our questioning the value of these frameworks. We now believe that a normative instrument, such as a framework, cannot adequately or reliably provide the ethical guidance that needs to be incorporated into public health decision‐making during natural disasters or infectious disease emergencies. Recently it has been suggested that there are potentially more dynamic, flexible, and effective ways to navigate decisions involving complex considerations entailed in policies and practices during a public health emergency. In this paper, we first outline the key functions of a public health ethics framework, before describing why we believe it would not be fit for purpose during a crisis. We end by considering whether proposed alternative methods to promote ethical public health decision‐making goals have the potential to meet these objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsMany studies have explored the impact of message strategies to build support for policies that advance racial equity, but few studies examine the effects of richer stories of lived experience and detailed accounts of the ways racism is embedded in policy design and implementation.Longer messages framed to emphasize social and structural causes of racial inequity hold significant potential to enhance support for policies to advance racial equity.There is an urgent need to develop, test, and disseminate communication interventions that center perspectives from historically marginalized people and promote policy advocacy, community mobilization, and collective action to advance racial equity. Context: Long‐standing racial inequities in health and well‐being are shaped by racialized public policies that perpetuate disadvantage among Black, Brown, Indigenous, and people of color. Strategic messaging can accelerate public and policymaker support for public policies that advance population health. We lack a comprehensive understanding of lessons learned from work on policy messaging to advance racial equity and the gaps in knowledge it reveals. Methods: A scoping review of peer‐reviewed studies from communication, psychology, political science, sociology, public health, and health policy that have tested how various message strategies influence support and mobilization for racial equity policy domains across a wide variety of social systems. We used keyword database searches, author bibliographic searches, and reviews of reference lists from relevant sources to compile 55 peer‐reviewed papers with 80 studies that used experiments to test the effects of one or more message strategies in shaping support for racial equity–related policies, as well as the cognitive/emotional factors that predict their support. Findings: Most studies report on the short‐term effects of very short message manipulations. Although many of these studies find evidence that reference to race or use of racial cues tend to undermine support for racial equity–related policies, the accumulated body of evidence has generally not explored the effects of richer, more nuanced stories of lived experience and/or detailed historical and contemporary accounts of the ways racism is embedded in public policy design and implementation. A few well‐designed studies offer evidence that longer‐form messages framed to emphasize social and structural causes of racial inequity can enhance support for policies to advance racial equity, though many questions require further research. Conclusions: We conclude by laying out a research agenda to fill numerous wide gaps in the evidentiary base related to building support for racial equity policy across sectors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of new effective but expensive medical treatments leads to discussions about whether and how such treatments should be funded in solidarity‐based healthcare systems. Solidarity is often seen as an elusive concept; it appears to be used to refer to different sets of concerns, and its interrelations with the concept of justice are not well understood. This paper provides a conceptual analysis of the concept of solidarity as it is used in discussions on the allocation of healthcare resources and the funding of expensive treatments. It contributes to the clarification of the concept of solidarity by identifying in the literature and discussing four uses of the concept: (1) assisting patients in need, (2) upholding the solidarity‐based healthcare system, (3) willingness to contribute and (4) promoting equality. It distinguishes normative and descriptive uses of the concept and outlines the overlap and differences between solidarity and justice. Our analysis shows that the various uses of the concept of solidarity point to different, even conflicting, ethical stances on whether and how access to effective, expensive treatments should be provided. We conclude that the concept of solidarity has a role to play in discussions on the accessibility and funding of newly approved medical treatments. It requires, for instance, that healthcare policies promote and maintain both societal willingness to contribute to the care of others and the value of providing care to vulnerable patients through public funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increasing healthcare costs need to be contained in order to maintain equality of access to care for all EU citizens. A cross‐disciplinary consortium of experts was supported by the EU FP7 research programme, to produce a roadmap on cost containment, while maintaining or improving the quality of healthcare. The roadmap comprises two drivers: person‐centred care and health promotion; five critical enablers also need to be addressed: information technology, quality measures, infrastructure, incentive systems, and contracting strategies. Method: In order to develop and test the roadmap, a COST Action project was initiated: COST−CARES, with 28 participating countries. This paper provides an overview of evidence about the effects of each of the identified enablers. Intersections between the drivers and the enablers are identified as critical for the success of future cost containment, in tandem with maintained or improved quality in healthcare. This will require further exploration through testing. Conclusion: Cost containment of future healthcare, with maintained or improved quality, needs to be addressed through a concerted approach of testing key factors. We propose a framework for test lab design based on these drivers and enablers in different European countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context In 2004, the English Public Health White Paper Choosing Health introduced 'health trainers' as new members of the National Health Service (NHS) workforce. Health trainers would offer one-to-one peer-support to anyone who wished to adopt and maintain a healthier lifestyle. Choosing Health implicitly envisaged health trainers working in community settings in order to engage 'hard-to-reach' individuals and other groups who often have the poorest health but who engage the least with traditional health promotion and other NHS services. Methods During longitudinal case studies of 6 local health trainer services, we conducted in-depth interviews with key stakeholders and analyzed service activity data. Findings Rather than an unproblematic and stable implementation of community-focused services according to the vision in Choosing Health, we observed substantial shifts in the case studies' configuration and delivery as the services embedded themselves in the local NHS systems. To explain these observations, we drew on a recently proposed conceptual framework to examine and understand the adoption and diffusion of innovations in health care systems. Conclusions The health trainer services have become more 'medicalized' over time, and in doing so, the original theory underpinning the program has been threatened. The paradox is that policymakers and practitioners recognize the need to have a different service model for traditional NHS services if they want hard-to-reach populations to engage in preventive actions as a first step to redress health inequalities. The long-term sustainability of any new service model, however, depends on its aligning with the established medical system's (ie, the NHS's) characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context In a time of economic austerity, one of the most daunting questions is who decides on healthcare rationing? In the current study, we sought to examine if the public can in fact provide meaningful information regarding healthcare policy issues. Based on theories of public policy, this paper tries to find out if patients behave akin to 'responsible citizens' and can provide differentiated expectations between three healthcare dimensions. Methods One thousand two-hundred eleven individuals participated in a telephone interview. Participants were asked two series of questions, one regarding their views on the primary care, prevention and promotion practices they experience with their healthcare provider and one regarding the importance of these practices to them. We calculated a difference score representing the gap in each healthcare dimension. Findings In all three healthcare dimensions, the mean gap is in the positive side of the axis indicating that the public does not receive what it expects to receive, or in policy terms there is 'a responsiveness deficit'. The mean gap in relation to primary care is significantly lower than the mean gap in both preventive care and health promotion. Conclusions The public can provide meaningful information even in areas of endless demand and can provide an addition point of view to be considered by policy makers in complicated healthcare rationing decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Respect for autonomy is problematic in relation to public health programmes such as vaccination, as the success of such programmes depends on widespread compliance. European countries have different policies for dealing with objectors to vaccination programmes. In some countries compliance is compulsory, while in others objectors are exempted or allowed to enter the programme under specific conditions. In this paper I argue that the objectors should not be treated as a homogenous group as is done in the above-mentioned policies. Objectors have different arguments for not participating in vaccination programmes. Considering the value of respect for autonomy, some but not all of these arguments need to be accommodated by authorities. The concept of ‘narrative autonomy’ provides criteria to distinguish between tenable and untenable claims to the right to refuse vaccination. Narrative autonomy understands autonomy as essentially linked to identity, as this provides the moral framework with which we assess our first-order preferences. The above-mentioned concept of autonomy is derived from the concept of narrative identity as described by Marya Schechtman. She suggests that the application of the Articulation Constraint and the Reality Constraint enables us to establish the validity of personal narratives. Additionally, form and content features of identity, as proposed by Anthony Laden, will be used as criteria to establish the compatibility of the defectors’ arguments with shared scientific and political values. Such compatibility is essential to accommodate respect for autonomy in the context of public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]