Healthy people 1980-2020: raising the ante decennially or just the name from public health education to health promotion to social determinants?

1University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Health Education &amp Behavior (Impact Factor: 1.54). 12/2011; 38(6):558-62. DOI: 10.1177/1090198111429153
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We offer here an interpretation of the history of the
Healthy People initiative showing that the outcomes remain
largely the same, with appropriate decennial adjustment of
the proliferating numerical targets and increased delineation
of objectives for special populations. But the strategies by
which those outcomes are to be pursued and achieved are
increasingly akin to what our contemporaries in schools of
public health and other graduate programs in the 1960s and
1970s were being taught public health education or community
health education was supposed to do: namely to address
not only the individual but also social determinants of health
through processes of community mobilization and policy
advocacy. The added value we were prepared to bring to the
field of public health was a focus on populations and communities
with an ecological perspective (Green, Potvin, &
Richard, 1996), their organization and mobilization for
social change, building capacity, enabling action, and emphasizing

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sports clubs have a long and traditional history in many countries, yet they remain underdeveloped and underutilized settings for health promotion. Leisure time settings, in general, have been in minor role among settings-based health promotion initiatives. Current health concerns in western countries, such as sedentary lifestyles and obesity, have aroused a need to expand health promotion to include also settings with greater potential to reach and engage children and adolescents in more vigorous activity. To develop these alternative, most often non-institutional, settings to the level of the established ones, it is important to review what has been done, what has been accepted and what is known from research, theory and practice to have contributed to health. Given that settings approaches have been implemented with diverse scope and without close cooperation between different initiatives, the first aim of this paper is, on the basis of a review of commonly used theories and practices, to propose a mutual definition for the settings approach to health promotion. The second is to examine the applicability of the theoretical basis to youth sports club settings. Sports clubs are used as a reflective setting when reviewing the traditional ones.
    Health Promotion International 06/2013; 29(3). DOI:10.1093/heapro/dat046 · 1.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Efforts to change policies and the environments in which people live, work, and play have gained increasing attention over the past several decades. Yet health promotion frameworks that illustrate the complex processes that produce health-enhancing structural changes are limited. Building on the experiences of health educators, community activists, and community-based researchers described in this supplement and elsewhere, as well as several political, social, and behavioral science theories, we propose a new framework to organize our thinking about producing policy, environmental, and other structural changes. We build on the social ecological model, a framework widely employed in public health research and practice, by turning it inside out, placing health-related and other social policies and environments at the center, and conceptualizing the ways in which individuals, their social networks, and organized groups produce a community context that fosters healthy policy and environmental development. We conclude by describing how health promotion practitioners and researchers can foster structural change by (1) conveying the health and social relevance of policy and environmental change initiatives, (2) building partnerships to support them, and (3) promoting more equitable distributions of the resources necessary for people to meet their daily needs, control their lives, and freely participate in the public sphere. © 2015 Society for Public Health Education.
    Health Education &amp Behavior 04/2015; 42(1 Suppl):8S-14S. DOI:10.1177/1090198115575098 · 1.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Increasingly, funders expect that public health researchers will include policy contributions as outcomes. Lack of agreement as to what constitutes a policy contribution of research provides little conceptual or implementation guidance to researchers who lack policy training, as well as to evaluators called on to assess "good" policy contribution. This study applies a previously developed policy framework to explore potential policy contributions from research conducted by 20 principal investigators of Salud America!, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's (RWJF) Research Network to Prevent Obesity Among Latino Children. The literature-driven "Policy Contribution Spectra" served as the conceptual framework to jointly develop 20 cases of potential policy contribution. Data collection included document reviews and interviews. Data analysis included within- and cross-case analyses, member checking, data triangulation, and expert reviews. Plotting all 20 projects on the Policy Contribution Spectra showed projects have the potential to contribute to policy across intervention types (e.g., needs assessment or applied research); levels (e.g., local or state); timing (e.g., before or after policy enactment); and outcomes (e.g., process action or health benefits). Potential policy contributions on the Spectra framework were shown as multidirectional; multilayered (e.g., simultaneous state and local action); and multidimensional (e.g., multiple strategies aimed at multiple stakeholders). The Policy Contribution Spectra adds a useful policy lens to existing public health practice by enabling researchers, funders, advocates, and evaluators to visualize, reframe, discuss, and communicate with policymakers and the public to resolve important public health issues.
    American journal of preventive medicine 03/2013; 44(3 Suppl 3):S282-9. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.11.025 · 4.28 Impact Factor


Available from
Jun 2, 2014