Technical ReportPDF Available

Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making.



This policy brief has been developed in response to the increasing awareness among policy-makers and the public health community of the important relationship between culture and health. By exploring the three key public health areas of nutrition, migration and environment, the policy brief demonstrates how cultural awareness is central to understanding health and well-being and to developing more effective and equitable health policies. Consequently, it argues that public health policy-making has much to gain from applying research from the health-related humanities and social sciences.
Policy brief, No. 1
Cultural Contexts of Health and Well-being
Principal author and editor
A. David Napier
Michael Depledge, Michael Knipper,
Rebecca Lovell, Eduard Ponarin,
Emilia Sanabria, Felicity Thomas
Culture matters:
using a cultural
contexts of health
approach to enhance
The World Health Organization was established in 1948 as the
specialized agency of the United Nations serving as the directing and
coordinating authority for international health maers and public
health. One of WHO’s constitutional functions is to provide objective
and reliable information and advice in the field of human health. It
fulfils this responsibility in part through its publications programmes,
seeking to help countries make policies that benefit public health and
address their most pressing public health concerns.
The WHO Regional Office for Europe is one of six regional offices
throughout the world, each with its own programme geared to the
particular health problems of the countries it serves. The European
Region embraces nearly 900 million people living in an area stretching
from the Arctic Ocean in the north and the Mediterranean Sea in the
south and from the Atlantic Ocean in the west to the Pacific Ocean
in the east. The European programme of WHO supports all countries
in the Region in developing and sustaining their own health policies,
systems and programmes; preventing and overcoming threats to
health; preparing for future health challenges; and advocating and
implementing public health activities.
To ensure the widest possible availability of authoritative information
and guidance on health maers, WHO secures broad international
distribution of its publications and encourages their translation and
adaptation. By helping to promote and protect health and prevent
and control disease, WHO’s books contribute to achieving the
Organization’s principal objective – the aainment by all people
of the highest possible level of health.
Cultural Contexts of Health and Well-being
Policy brief, No. 1 Culture matters:
using a cultural
contexts of health
approach to enhance
Principal author and editor
A. David Napier
Michael Depledge, Michael Knipper,
Rebecca Lovell, Eduard Ponarin,
Emilia Sanabria, Felicity Thomas
All rights reserved. The Regional Office for Europe of the
World Health Organization welcomes requests for permission
to reproduce or translate its publications, in part or in full.
The designations employed and the presentation of the
material in this publication do not imply the expression of
any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health
Organization concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Doed lines on
maps represent approximate border lines for which there may
not yet be full agreement.
The mention of specific companies or of certain
manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are
endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization
in preference to others of a similar nature that are not
mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names
of proprietary products are distinguished by initial
capital leers.
All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World
Health Organization to verify the information contained in
this publication. However, the published material is being
distributed without warranty of any kind, either express or
implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of
the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World
Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its
use. The views expressed by authors, editors, or expert
groups do not necessarily represent the decisions or the
stated policy of the World Health Organization.
Address r equests about publications of the WHO Regiona l Office for Europe to:
Publications, WHO Regional Office for Europe, UN City, Marmorvej 51, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
Alternatively, complete an online request form for documentation, health information, or for per mission to quote or translate,
on the Regional Office website (hp://ww
This policy brief has been developed in response to the increasing awareness among policy-makers and the public health community
of the important relationship between culture and health. By exploring the three key public health areas of nutrition, migration
and environment, the policy brief demonstrates how cultural awareness is central to understanding health and well-being and to
developing more effective and equitable health policies. Consequently, it argues that public health policy-making has much to gain
from applying research from the health-related humanities and social sciences.
© World Health Organization 2017
Art- direction an d layout: Freigh t Design.
ISBN 978 92 890 5233 7
Policy brief, No. 1
Cultural Contexts of Health and Well-being
Culture matters:
using a cultural
contexts of health
approach to enhance
Principal author and editor
A. David Napier
Michael Depledge, Michael Knipper,
Rebecca Lovell, Eduard Ponarin,
Emilia Sanabria, Felicity Thomas
This policy brief was developed through the WHO Regional Office for Europe. The cultural contexts of health team of the Division of
Information, Evidence, Research and Innovation, including Claudia Stein (Director), Nils Fietje (Research Officer) and Signe Nipper
Nielsen (Consultant), was responsible for and coordinated its development.
The WHO Regional Office for Europe wishes in particular to thank the principal author and editor and the si x co-authors for
their valuable contributions. In addition, members of the WHO expert group on the cultural contexts of health and well-being
and a number of commentators contributed substantially to shaping and enriching the polic y brief with their comments and expertise.
The authors and the WHO Regional Office for Europe therefore thank the members of the expert group on the cultural contexts of
health and well-being as well as the following commentators: Mabel Gracia Arnaiz (Associate Professor, Department of Anthropolog y,
Philosophy and Social Work, Rovira i Virgili University, Spain), Hakan Ertin (Associate Professor, Department of History of Medicine
and Ethics, Istanbul University, Turkey), Loe Holm (Professor, Sociolog y of Food, Department of Food and Resource Economics,
University of Copenhagen, Denmark), Robin A . Kearns (Professor of Geography, School of Environment, University of Auckland, New
Zealand), Agnieszka Maj (Assistant Professor, Department of Social Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW, Poland), Ilkka
Pietilä (Senior Research Fellow, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tampere, Finland), Suvi Salmenniemi (A ssociate Professor
of Sociology, Department of Social Research, University of Turku, Finland), Baktygul Tulebaeva (PhD candidate, Research Assistant,
Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany), and Catharine Ward Thompson (Professor
of Landscape Architecture, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom). Thanks also to Jessica Frances Marais, who provided sk ilful
content and language editing. The Wellcome Trust generously funded the policy brief.
Principal author and editor
A. David Napier (Professor of Medical Anthropolog y, Department of Anthropolog y, University College London, United Kingdom)
Michael Depledge (Professor of Environment and Human health, European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University
of Exeter Medical School, United Kingdom)
Michael Knipper (Associate Professor, Institute of the History of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Justus Liebig University, Germany)
Rebecca Lovell (Research Fellow, Biodiversity and Health, European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of
Exeter Medical School, United Kingdom)
Eduard Ponarin (Professor and Director, Laboratory for Comparative Social Research, National Research University, Higher School
of Economics, Russian Federation)
Emilia Sanabria (Lecturer in Social Anthropology, Department of Social Sciences, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, France)
Felicity Thomas (Senior Research Fellow, University of Exeter Medical School, and Co-Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre
on Culture and Health, University of Exeter, United Kingdom)
Executive summary ........................................................................................................ viii
Background ............................................................................................................ viii
Policy options ........................................................................................................... xi
References ............................................................................................................................. xiii
Section I: Understanding culture, health and well-being ............................... 1
What is culture? ......................................................................................................... 1
Expanding the evidence base on the cultural
contexts of health and well-being ...................................................................2
Policy options ............................................................................................................. 3
Section II. Key themes ........................................................................................................ 6
1) Nutrition, culture and health ....................................................................... 6
2) Environment, culture and health .............................................................12
3) Migration, culture and health .................................................................... 19
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 26
References ................................................................................................................................ 27
In the WHO European Region, the roll-out of the policy framework
Health 2020 effectively reintroduced well-being as a central concern
for WHO, re-engaging public health with the full complexity of
subjective, lived experience and opening the door to a more systematic
engagement with the cultural contexts of health and well-being. This
shi was reinforced by the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, which provides an additional mandate for seeking to
understand and address cultural contexts. Like Health 2020, the 2030
Agenda asserts that tackling some of the most pressing global problems
– health inequities included – requires people-centred, whole-of-society
approaches as well as multidisciplinary and multisectoral partnerships.
It calls for a new evidence base that affirms the relevance of cultural
contexts of health and well-being to policy development.
This policy brief, developed through the WHO Regional Office for
Europe together with its expert group on the cultural contexts
of health and well-being, forms part of a larger project aimed at
promoting a culturally grounded approach to enrich policies related to
health and well-being. The project on the cultural contexts of health
and well-being argues that incorporating cultural awareness into
policy-making is critical to the development of adaptive, equitable and
sustainable health care systems, and to making general improvements
in many areas of population health and well-being.
Recognizing that population health and well-being are to a large degree
influenced by policies and actions external to health care systems, this
policy brief also advocates for a health-in-all-policies approach, and an
enhanced understanding of how policies in non-health domains can
foster or constrain a culture for health and well-being.
To these ends, it presents a robust definition of culture and outlines
key options for health policy-makers to consider. Among them is the
strong recommendation that policy-makers critically examine their
own shared values and priorities related to health and well-being,
and how these influence daily practices and decision-making. This
involves reevaluating assumptions about what constitutes evidence,
and supporting strategies that integrate the complexities of lived
experience into an expanded evidence base. Such strategies include
efforts to more fully recognize and include findings from the health-
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
related humanities and social sciences, and from broader public health
and health services research.
While culture is highly applicable to a broad range of issues both within
and outside the health sector, this brief explores three key areas where
shared conventional beliefs, practices and values can have profound
impacts on health and well-being: nutrition, where giving and receiving
nourishment is deeply social; the environment, where spaces are
diversely understood and shared; and migration, where conventional
understandings of health and well-being converge or diverge in
multicultural contexts.
Addressing the ways in which values are embodied and lived out in
these and other areas can have a significant impact on health and well-
being outcomes. With this in mind, the policy brief encourages policy-
makers to engage critically and creatively with the material presented
here, and to adopt an inclusive approach to improving health and well-
being policies by taking cultural contexts into account.
Policy brief, no. 1 vii
Executive Summary
In 2015, upon acknowledging the importance of culture to health and
well-being, the WHO Regional Office for Europe convened its first
expert group on the cultural contexts of health and well-being (1). This
came as a response to a growing body of evidence demonstrating that
the best medical care in the world remains limited if its provision does
not align with the priorities and perceived needs of those it seeks to
serve. Indeed, the authors of the 2014 Lancet Commission on Culture
and Health argued that “the systematic neglect of culture in health
and health care is the single biggest barrier to the advancement of the
highest standard of health worldwide” (2).
The Regional Office’s new focus on culture is reflected in the two
strategic frameworks that underpin the project on the cultural
contexts of health and well-being: the European policy framework
Health 2020 (3) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (4).
With the adoption of Health 2020, WHO’s strategic emphasis shied
towards a values base that emphasizes a life-course perspective,
multisectoral and interdisciplinary engagement, and a people-centred,
whole-of-society approach to health and well-being. The 2030 Agenda
and its Sustainable Development Goals reinforce this values base,
and call for alternative ways of empowering and giving voice to
marginalized groups. In this quest, narrative and qualitative research
as well as culture-centred approaches from the humanities and social
sciences have much to offer.
In 2001, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural
Organization defined culture as “the set of distinctive spiritual,
material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social
group … [which] encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles,
ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs” (5). This
definition highlights the fact that culture comprises not only the
physical artefacts around which group identity emerges, but also the
conventions that frame our sense of reality. While shared and coherent,
culture is not a static set of beliefs and practices, but rather an ever-
emerging array of collective values, ethics, assumptions and ideals.
Other cultures are as dynamic as our own.
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
Though the shared values of cultural contexts are complex,
understanding them is critical to health and well-being policy
development for several reasons.
First, an awareness of cultural contexts shows people the relative nature
of values we oen assume to be universal. In examining them we
challenge ourselves to assess what we take for granted, and to rethink
our inductive assumptions about what will make us all healthier.
Second, an awareness of cultural contexts allows us to beer
understand the compounding influences of diverse but interrelated
determinants, such as socioeconomic status, environmental conditions,
age, gender, religion, sexual orientation and level of education (6). While
alienation and marginalization are key upstream determinants for any
number of illnesses and vulnerabilities, cultural understanding can be
a source of health resilience in a rapidly changing world.
Third, because pathways of care are built upon a foundation of shared
values, an awareness of cultural contexts offers new models of care
that take into account more than just biology and medicine.
Fourth, because diverging value systems, health beliefs and views
about sharing can either promote or limit the equal distribution of
health resources, an awareness of cultural contexts is critical to
health equity.
Our experiences of health and well-being are fundamentally influenced
by the cultural contexts from which we make meaning. These
frameworks inform the beliefs and actions of policy-makers and health
care practitioners as much as the people they serve. For this reason,
policy-makers must seek not only to understand the values they
aribute to others, but also to critically examine their own cultures
– their perceptions, daily practices and processes of decision-making –
and their effects on people who may or may not share the same values
and priorities.
Cultivating this self-awareness involves recognizing that all forms
of knowledge and practice – including scientific and medical –
are influenced by culture. This calls for a careful examination of
assumptions about appropriate data collection and analysis methods,
and about what constitutes evidence. Many researchers point out that
Policy brief, no. 1 xi
an historical bias towards quantitative studies in public health has
resulted in an evidence base that, while offering much in the way of
figures and statistics, provides less insight into localized, subjective
experiences of well-being and illness, or perceived health risks and
related human behaviours.
It is clear that randomized control trials based on a limited set of
variables cannot yield a nuanced understanding of how risk factors
are compounded in daily life (7). Furthermore, no degree of research –
quantitative or qualitative – can adequately reflect the diversity and
complexity of human societies and inform truly equitable policies when
vulnerable groups face barriers to participation. Critical resources may
be wasted when funnelled into reductive or inadvertently exclusionary
studies, and into the limited policies and programmes that they inform.
There are, therefore, ethical, epistemological and economic imperatives
for considering the cultural contexts of health and well-being.
With these imperatives in mind, the Regional Office’s expert group
urges policy-makers to engage with an expanded evidence base
that incorporates mixed-methods research from the health-related
humanities and social sciences. Such integrated work will contribute to
a health evidence base grounded in people’s lived experience.
With a heightened awareness of both the strengths and weaknesses of
different kinds of research techniques and data, and a determination to
support new forms of evidence, policy-makers will be beer positioned
to foster individual and community resilience in the face of emerging
health challenges.
To this end, this policy brief sets out to do three things:
1. to make the case for aending to the cultural contexts of health
and well-being;
2. to offer specific suggestions to help policy-makers understand
and incorporate the cultural contexts of health and well-being
into effective working practice; and
3. to provide examples of how cultural awareness can improve
understanding of the drivers of health and well-being in three
key domains: nutrition, the environment and migration.
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
Policy options and key themes
Section I of this policy brief examines the concept of culture, explores
its interconnections with health and well-being, and identifies the
pressing need for a new focus on integrated research methods. It
presents the following eight policy options for consideration by all
policy-makers working on issues related to the cultural contexts
of health and well-being. While these options can be viewed as
progressive steps, they are by nature iterative and interdependent.
1. Promote an understanding of the interrelationship between
culture and health.
2. Develop clear opportunities and guidance for policy-makers to
explore and reflect upon their own cultural conventions and
how these influence perception and decision-making.
3. Support an expanded evidence base that includes research
from the humanities and social sciences, with a focus on mixed-
methods research on the social and cultural drivers of health
and well-being.
4. Incorporate subjective definitions, experiences and
measurements into health and well-being policy development
in order to beer identify and address the needs of diverse
groups and to beer interpret quantitative information.
5. Identify ethical dilemmas that may arise when systems of
value related to health and health care diverge.
6. Support the development of instruments that increase
knowledge of the importance of culture to health and well-
being, and measures for evaluating the cultural competency of
services and policies.
7. Increase capacity for working intersectorally by introducing
well-being and culture as central elements of a health-in-all-
policies approach.
8. Share good practices.
Policy brief, no. 1 xi
Section II of this policy brief demonstrates how cultural contexts
impact health and well-being in both positive and negative ways within
three key areas.
1. Nutrition: effective policy-making on nutrition means
understanding how cultural contexts impact food choices that
lead to beer or worse outcomes, and how food practices can
reinforce or destabilize health and well-being, social trust, and
community resilience.
2. The environment: effective policy-making on the environment
means investigating how relationships to our surroundings
are culturally mediated, how this impacts health and well-
being, and how to ensure equitable access to health-promoting
natural spaces.
3. Migration: effective policy-making on migration and health
means examining how culture mediates both caregiving and
care receiving in cross-cultural and multicultural contexts, and
addressing the urgent need for culturally sensitive assessments
of health and well-being as well as relevant approaches to
health care delivery.
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
1. Beyond bias: exploring the cultural contexts of health and
well-being measurement. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office
for Europe; 2016 (hp://
file/0008/284903/Cultural-contexts-health.pdf, accessed
13 February 2017).
2. Napier AD, Ancarno C, Butler B, Calabrese J, Chater A,
Chaerjee H et al. Culture and health. Lancet 2014;384:1607–39.
3. Health 2020: the European policy for health and well-being
[website]. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2015
accessed 13 February 2017).
4. The Sustainable Development Agenda [website].
New York: United Nations; 2017 hp://
sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/, accessed
13 February 2017).
5. UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity [website].
Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization; 2001 (hp://
accessed 13 February 2017).
6. Social determinants of health [website]. Copenhagen: WHO
Regional Office for Europe; 2017 (hp://
accessed 13 February 2017).
7. Adams V, Burke NJ, Whitmarsh I. Slow research: thoughts for
a movement in global health. Med Anthropol. 2014;33(3):179–97.
Policy brief, no. 1 xiii
Policy brief, no. 1 1
Section I: Understanding culture, health
and well-being
What is culture?
In 2001, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) defined culture as “the set of distinctive
spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or
a social group … [which] encompasses, in addition to art and literature,
lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs”
(1). This definition stresses that culture is not limited to national, racial,
ethnic or religious affiliation – it is comprised of overt beliefs and
practices as well as the subtle and taken-for-granted conventions that
frame our sense of reality, define what is normal and abnormal, and
give our lives a sense of direction and purpose (2).
Culture, in other words, is something all humans have and depend
upon for making meaning. It sets the diverse and shiing parameters
within which decisions and actions unfold in the context of families,
communities, workplaces, peer groups and environments. The creative
practice of culture in daily life influences how we perceive ourselves,
one another and our place in the natural world – and yet culture itself
can be remarkably difficult to see.
Precisely because culture concerns more than what we acknowledge
explicitly, recognizing it involves the difficult work of scrutinizing
assumptions, questioning perceived truths and appreciating how
shared group values can, for beer or worse, sharply diverge: for beer
when difference helps us creatively to adjust our assumptions; for
worse when difference leads to misunderstanding and conflict.
Organizations, educational institutions and professions also develop
cultures and microcultures that display particular paerns of thought
and practice (35). Without concerted efforts to explore, understand
and challenge the interplay of overt and covert beliefs at work within
organizational cultures, counterproductive biases and behaviours
can persist. Many public health professionals recognize that failing to
consider the cultural contexts of their professional actions can impede
their ability to improve working practices, and to identify productive
innovations and scale them up. This has weakened the capacity of
"Culture is not limited to
national, racial, ethnic or
religious affiliation – it is
comprised of overt beliefs
and practices as well as
the subtle and taken-for-
granted conventions that
frame our sense of reality."
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
public health systems to respond effectively to the health needs of
diverse populations, and subsequently sparked a renewed interest in
developing a culturally informed approach to health and well-being.
The European policy framework Health 2020 emerged within this
context of increased cultural awareness (6). Recognizing the relevance
of shared values for well-being, it explicitly calls for new well-being
measurements that account for the effects of culturally mediated
experiences of illness and health. Developing these measurements
involves understanding, validating and actively supporting the ways
in which diverse and interrelated cultural practices can enhance
solidarity and resilience. As outlined in Sustainable Development Goal
17, it also involves working across diverse cultural sectors, professional
groups and domains of policy expertise (7). This requires nothing short
of a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach – one that
builds on the shared values of individuals to foster new forms of critical
thinking, everyday cooperation and sustained social trust both locally
and globally.
Expanding the evidence base on the cultural contexts of
health and well-being
In traditional health impact assessments, policy-makers use broad
mortality and morbidity data to inform policy recommendations, oen
without a clear understanding of the cultural contexts that influence
individual and societal behaviours. The resulting reports and policies,
though based on carefully compiled statistical evidence, can be out of
step with people’s subjectively defined experiences and perceived needs,
as well as what is feasible at the level of policy.
In response to this frequent disconnect between evidence, social
need and health policy, Member States in the culturally diverse WHO
European Region agreed on a framework of indicators for measuring
and reporting on both objective and subjective health and well-
being. However, these measurements are principally built on indices
that, while useful in assessing levels of perceived satisfaction and
happiness in a given population, fall short of illuminating the shared
meanings and values on which well-being is based. In the absence of
a clear understanding of the cultural contexts that influence both the
questionnaires and participants’ responses to them, assessing what such
measures actually mean becomes difficult and at times conjectural (8).
Policy brief, no. 1 3
In addition, vulnerable populations oen lack opportunities to
become involved in well-being studies or feel reluctant to do so,
particularly when their situation leaves them feeling alienated or when
daily survival is a pressing concern. When this is the case, tools for
measuring well-being can unintentionally reinforce power imbalances
that deny certain groups a voice in the decision-making processes that
affect their lives.
Such biases in data collection are particularly evident in transitional
or otherwise unstable social seings, such as those impacted by food
scarcity, climate change, economic hardship, large-scale migration and/
or unanticipated human conflict. Under these pressures, vulnerabilities
and inequalities can intensify in ways that are not amenable to
traditional methods of data collection; without an evidence base that
can shape an appropriate inquiry into local forms of suffering, numbers
can be as deceptive as they are informative.
In order to produce relevant and adaptive health policies and
programmes, policy-makers must examine how communities, as
cultures of practice, adjust to diverse and complex stressors. Here,
measuring inequality becomes impossible without a close assessment
of vulnerability and resilience as they emerge locally. This being the
case, qualitative research strategies provide the best frameworks
for informing the interpretation of quantitative data, controlling for
unconscious biases, and assessing the appropriateness of measurement
instruments as well as assistance efforts. In this light, it is clear that
innovative and adaptive mixed-methods research is essential to
advancing human health and well-being (9,10).
Policy options
To support the development of balanced and integrated data
collection and analysis, the following eight policy options are offered
for consideration by policy-makers. While they can be viewed as
progressive steps, they are by nature iterative and interdependent.
1. Promote an understanding of the interrelationship between
culture and health. This requires a definition of culture that
resists conflation with race or ethnicity, and underscores that
all thought and behaviour is informed by cultures of value
and practice.
"It is clear that innovative
and adaptive mixed-
methods research is
essential to advancing
human health and
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
2. Develop clear opportunities and guidance for policy-makers to
explore and reflect upon their own cultural conventions and
how these influence perception and decision-making. These
could include a range of self-evaluative workshops, diversity
education training programmes and other activities that build
heightened self-awareness and enhanced communication skills
regarding shared practices and perceptions.
3. Support an expanded evidence base that includes research
from the humanities and social sciences, with a focus on
mixed-methods research on the social and cultural drivers of
health and well-being. This requires the inclusion of diverse
voices, the development of methods for asserting the place of
lived experience as recognized and valued evidence, and the
integration of qualitative findings into quantitative data sets.
4. Incorporate subjective definitions, experiences and
measurements into health and well-being policy development
in order to beer identify and address the needs of diverse
groups and to beer interpret quantitative information.
This requires the development of new vulnerability and
resilience assessment strategies, and could involve the use of
interactive communication platforms to facilitate ongoing
exchanges among researchers, individuals and communities
related to perceptions of health, well-being, illness and
treatment practices.
5. Identify ethical dilemmas that may arise when systems of
value related to health and health care diverge. This requires
the creation of inclusive public seings (for example, open
policy forums and policy-driven web-based discussions) in
which those with a lesser voice can directly inform policy-
makers about obstacles to adherence and prevention, and/or
the training of new professionals to assess, understand and
represent the health needs of culturally diverse communities.
6. Support the development of instruments that increase
knowledge of the importance of culture to health and well-
being, and measures for evaluating the cultural competency
of services and policies. Such instruments could include
cultural competency toolkits, training workshops, knowledge
translation platforms and other support mechanisms. Such
Policy brief, no. 1 5
initiatives should be evaluated both quantitatively (using
appropriate indicators) and qualitatively (for example, using
narrative methods).
7. Increase capacity for working intersectorally by introducing
well-being and culture as central elements of a health-in-
all-policies approach. This must be demonstrated through
significant, visible commitment on the part of policy-makers to
a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach.
8. Share good practices. A culturally grounded approach to health
and well-being benefits from a multiplicity of perspectives, and
from new seings in which good practices can be shared. As
communities experiment with new strategies and practices,
it will be critical to document and disseminate successful
innovations that are replicable and scalable.
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
Section II. Key themes
1) Nutrition, culture and health
Understanding food as culture
In 2014, UNESCO included the Mediterranean diet on its 2013
Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
The list describes this diet as “a set of skills, knowledge, rituals, symbols
and traditions concerning crops, harvesting, fishing, animal husbandry,
conservation, processing, cooking, and particularly the sharing and
consumption of food(11). In making this designation, and in asserting
that this diet “emphasizes values of hospitality, neighbourliness,
intercultural dialogue and creativity, and a way of life guided by
respect for diversity” (11), UNESCO acknowledges that eating with
others forms the basis of cultural identity and community cohesion
throughout the Mediterranean basin.
While the concept of a homogenous or pristine Mediterranean diet is
contested, UNESCO’s designation of a whole approach to eating
(rather than merely a particular dish) as a form of cultural heritage
affirms that eating is never just about nutrition. The tasks of sourcing
and preparing meals, the ways in which we share them and the
messages they convey are all core aspects of what food is. Eating
effectively roots us within communities of shared tastes, common
habits and collective histories.
Research confirms that the act of receiving food – the first behaviour
through which humans learn to create and sustain relationships with
others – is infused with meaning and symbolism that emerges socially
and culturally (12). As a concrete vehicle for building relationships, the
shared meal has immeasurable sociological significance (13–20). Values
related to hunger, satiety, excess, pleasure, satisfaction and restraint
are all expressed through the experience of imbibing food with others,
and have direct impacts on food choices and health outcomes. As such,
alimentary health, and the aempts of policy-makers to support or
improve it, must be viewed within the framework of culture.
"Alimentary health, and
the aempts of policy-
makers to support or
improve it, must be
viewed within the
framework of culture."
Policy brief, no. 1 7
Moving beyond nutritionism
Customary shared eating practices are altered, distorted and
sometimes lost through processes of migration, urbanization and
globalization. These alterations in traditional food sharing practices
are oen propelled by the demands of modern life, in the face of which
symbolic group meals can disappear or become relegated to periodic
feasts where the consumption of traditional foods may, paradoxically,
be exaggerated. As people shi away from traditional and symbolic
sharing habits, they are more likely to treat the consumption of food
as a basic nutritional necessity. This is evidenced in the increasingly
common practices of eating out and eating alone. It is also reflected in
new understandings of the function of food, and in particular a strong
focus on the biological value of its isolated nutrients – on what we eat
rather than why we eat what we do.
This ideology, known as nutritional reductionism or nutritionism,
bypasses the social meaning of food in favour of measuring nutritional
content and making related recommendations regarding healthy food
intake. This science-oriented shi in the way people assess the value
of food manifests in the norms of counting calories, recommended
daily allowances, macro and micronutrients, assumed health foods,
etc. While understanding nutritional content is important for healthy
eating, this objectification of food not only strips it of its historical
and cultural meaning, but also frequently leads to disagreement
and confusion regarding what constitutes a healthy diet (21–27).
Nutritionists and policy-makers tend to address this with calls for
more research on nutrient intake and new labelling requirements
designed to encourage beer food choices, and yet eating behaviours
do not always follow suit (28).
The nutritionist approach appeals to individuals as rational beings
engaged in free and autonomous decision-making processes,
unconstrained by cultural, economic, environmental or social
factors. Given the deep social and cultural importance of food,
however, an exclusively nutritionist focus is problematic (29). While
many people are acutely aware of nutritional information and
dietary guidelines, daily food choices are powerfully mediated by
economic concerns and food availability as well as family habits,
personal tastes, cultural preferences and beliefs about food safety
(30–32). In other words, health messaging based on biology and
chemistry alone will fail to transform food choices unless following
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
recommended guidelines is feasible or already conventional for
individuals and their families.
Even when nutritional information is fully understood, social factors
may prove more relevant to health than counting calories or servings
of fruits and vegetables. Studies among individuals who participate in
controlled experiments designed to test the health effects of particular
diets, for example, show that, aer programmes end, participants stop
adhering to recommended regimes (33–35). The same holds true for
those who participate in controlled studies on the effects of exercise
programmes: adherence drops sharply once group engagement ends
and the strong influence of shared social meaning and support is
absent (36). Indeed, some evidence points to greater weight gain aer
a year of following a diet in up to 80% of cases (37). These outcomes
point to the powerful impact of shared conventions and social
integration on health.
Value systems and other cultural factors, such as education and
income, also play critical roles in shaping people’s short- and long-term
responses to health messages. Shared values and assumptions can form
barriers when, for example, people perceive that only particular social
groups purchase so-called health foods (38). Thus, a culturally grounded
approach to nutrition is not only necessary for understanding the
various ways in which individual behaviour is influenced in real life; it
can also be a critical lever in dismantling perceived barriers and helping
people to develop a sense of shared identity around health-promoting
choices and behaviours.
The national food guidelines of Brazil’s Ministry of Health offer
an excellent example of a culturally grounded approach (39). The
guidelines are explicitly food-based, rather than nutrient-based, and
enshrine people’s right to access sustainably produced and culturally
appropriate food throughout the life-course. In focusing on valued
healthy foods in addition to nutritional content, the guidelines build
on the acknowledgement that the health benefits of particular diets
stem in large part from the social and cultural seings in which food
is infused with meaning. These contexts of meaning include how food
is grown, raised, gathered, prepared, shared and, ultimately, enjoyed. 1
The Brazilian model clearly promotes the concept that healthy eating
includes much more than caloric input. As with the Mediterranean
diet, conviviality, identity, belonging and memory are also important
ingredients in a truly nourishing meal.
1 Brazilian nutritionists developed the
guidelines with a wide variety of sources,
including anthropology, gastronomy
and political activism. This diversity of
perspectives contributes to the holism of
the guidelines, which speak of both biology
and culture; of food practices rather than
eating habits; of meals rather than food
consumption; even of pleasure.
Policy brief, no. 1 9
While calculations of nutritional content have undoubtedly
contributed to raising public awareness and strengthening
population-level interventions, an exclusively nutritionist approach
that decontextualizes food and food habits obscures the experiential
seings in which we make sense of nutritional advice and consider
altering our behaviours (see Box 1). Nutritionism’s implicit emphasis
on biological functionalism also reinforces social values related to
personal responsibility and the perfectibility of the body, rather than
the myriad ways in which food acts as a medium for caring, social
connectivity and memory (40,41). In doing so, it replaces a culture of
sharing with one of individual action.
Though nutritional advice appears value-neutral, it too is constructed
within the context of a belief system about health self-management.
As an ideology, nutritionism is a cultural phenomenon – a determining
force that has transformed not only the way we experience food, but
also the kind of research that is valued, funded and referred to in policy
decision-making. Seeing nutritionism as a culturally generated ideology
can help to explain why the evidence base for the powerful role of
cultural factors in food-related noncommunicable diseases is still so
weak (2,8,28,33,38), and why policy-makers are just beginning to grasp
the degree to which cultural approaches can change unhealthy habits.
Engaging critically with the food marketplace
In providing a convenient framework for marketing processed foods,
nutritionism has also played a key role in the commodification of
food production and consumption (42). By exploiting and expanding
the ideology of nutritionism, food corporations are able to promote
packaged products using reductive nutrition claims that are not
always verifiable (21–23). As these food brands are aggressively
advertised – particularly to children – traditional food cultures that
have sustained population health in culturally and ecologically
appropriate ways for centuries are rapidly transformed, displaced or
stigmatized as outdated (43 , 44).
At the same time, the rapid industrialization of food systems is
dramatically altering cultural approaches to eating. Food is now
promoted as a privatized commodity, rather than a common public
good (20), and family meals are being replaced with prepackaged, shelf-
stable foods for consumption (and overconsumption) anywhere and at
any time. Fresh and minimally processed foods are harder to source
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
Box 1. Sociocultural aspects of the diabetes epidemic
WHO estimates that 415 million people across the globe currently live with diabetes. 1 To put this number in
perspective, if these people were to form a country, it would be the third-most populated country the world.
What’s more, a single risk factor for diabetes – overweight and obesity – is a reality for about 2.1 billion
people: 30% of the planet’s population. If not reversed, diabetes-related mortality and morbidity are predicted
to crush entire health care systems in the next 15 to 20 years. The cost of this epidemic in terms of both
human suffering and economic burden is devastating.
Most of us think of diabetes as principally a clinical illness, and yet, in some countries, more than 90% of
diabetes mortality and morbidity is socially and culturally mediated either by non-diagnosis or by non-
adherence to treatment. According to the
so-called rule of halves, only half of those
living with diabetes have been diagnosed;
among those who are diagnosed, only
half are treated; among those receiving
treatment, only half are adhering to
recommended regimens; and finally, among
those who adhere, only half are achieving
treatment targets. 2
The rule of halves (illustrated below) is
merely a broad framework against which
performances in various health care
seings can be measured and compared,
but it provides a graphic representation
of how only a very small proportion
of people’s experience of diabetes is
biomedical. It sheds light on the failure of
clinical care to single-handedly address
the diabetes epidemic, and on the critical
importance of nonclinical determinants
for health. The rule of halves reminds us
that, regardless of an individual’s social,
cultural, psychological, environmental
and economic context, medical care alone
cannot manage their illness well.
1 WHO Nonc ommunicable dise ases factshe et [website]. Geneva: Wor ld Health Organ ization; 2015 (http://ww tre/factshe ets/fs355/en/, accessed 10 Februa ry 2017).
2 Hart JT. Rul e of halves: implica tions of increasin g diagnosis and reduc ing dropout for f uture worklo ad and prescribin g costs in primar y care. Br J Gen Prac t. 1992;42(356):116–19.
Policy brief, no. 1 11
and oen more expensive, and the cooking skills required to prepare
them are vanishing. Entire urban neighbourhoods are now classified
as so-called food deserts – areas where affordable and nutritious foods
are no longer accessible without sufficient income and/or access to an
automobile (45).
Industrialization has also had a deep impact on farming cultures
around the world, enticing or pressuring farmers to abandon
ecologically sound growing methods to enter and compete in global
cash-crop economies (46). Such rapid change threatens both biological
and culinary diversity: where local farmers and foragers may once
have provided hundreds, even thousands, of different nutritionally
and culturally significant foods for local and regional communities,
industrial farms now produce only a handful of high-yield, transport-
hardy crops destined for immediate export (47–49).
The implications of these changes for the health and well-being of food
producers themselves are startling. In India, for example, thousands
of suicides are aributed to small-scale farmers’ inability to afford
the continual purchase of patented, genetically modified seeds and
accompanying pesticides on which their incomes, and depleted soils,
have come to depend (50).
Such profound shis demand that policy-makers engage critically
with the industrialized food cultures now being promoted across the
globe, and with the ways in which evidence about what counts as good
food is constructed and promoted (51).
Policy options
In addition to the broad policy options outlined above, the following
five specific policy options for those working in nutrition-related
programmes are put forward.
1. Support research for an evidence base that affirms food and
eating as expressions of culture.
2. Recognize how the cultural contexts of food selection,
preparation and sharing can strengthen community health
and well-being, and consider how these social contexts can be
supported at the level of policy.
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
3. In partnership with communities, identify food promotion
strategies that build on cultural practices that enhance health
and well-being.
4. Ensure that healthy-eating messaging addresses the
experiential contexts in which people make sense of
nutritional advice and change their behaviours.
5. Engage critically and from a variety of perspectives (historical,
social, ethical) with the industrialized food marketplace.
2) Environment, culture and health
Cultural conceptions of the environment
While human health is directly linked to that of the environment
through air, water, sunlight and soil, ideas of nature and the place
of humans within it are deeply influenced by social and cultural
contexts. The same river, for example, may appear to different people
as a pleasant backdrop for conversation and exercise, a sacred site for
prayer or contemplation, a location for lucrative development, a link
to personal memories or shared cultural history, the embodiment of
group or individual identity, a convenient waste disposal site, a wild
landscape to be protected from human influence, or a place to gather
food. Just as a meal is never simply a collection of nutrients, a river
viewed through human eyes is never simply flowing water.
Depending on what is considered normative, we may speak of the
environment using metaphors from economics (“natural capital”),
urban planning (“green space”), biology (“ecosystem”), or systems
of kinship (“mother earth”) and related cosmologies (52). Through
culturally mediated ideologies and linguistic systems, we see and
relate to our environments differently, sharing and expressing
collective values and engaging in seemingly self-evident and logical
decision-making processes and actions. Diverse perceptions of
the environment also shape thoughts about well-being and health
behaviours in profound and oen unconscious ways.
Like all relationships, those between people and environments are
fluid and evolving. This evolution – at times slow and subtle, at others
sudden and dramatic – is prompted by complex and interrelated
Policy brief, no. 1 13
factors such as education; economics; urbanization; industrialization;
migration; inequality resulting from individual greed, political
oppression, or social or armed conflict; and hunger and scarcity
brought on by population growth and related resource depletion.
When critical demands are made upon people and landscapes, overuse
or abuse can lead to broad scale and chronic environmental neglect,
further intensifying pressure on human health and well-being – even
on survival.
Understanding how cultural conceptions of the environment relate
to human health and well-being has never been more critical. While
global narratives of environmental preservation typically focus on
sustainable development and resource management, human cultures
display a wealth of different models of connectedness and, potentially,
stewardship. Many indigenous peoples around the globe, for example,
make a direct, causal link between the well-being of humans and the
earth (see Box 2). Their healing systems oen involve direct appeals to
the natural world for physical and psychospiritual assistance, creating
moral contracts between people and environments that are both
profound and enduring.
Today, despite the recognition of so-called cultural ecosystem
services – defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment as
“the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through
spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation,
and aesthetic experiences” (53) – culturally based strategies for
fostering health-enhancing connections to the environment remain
largely unexplored. So, too, do possibilities for scaling up related
models of environmental caring and stewardship.
Though such ways of perceiving and relating to nature may
not be familiar to or endorsed by the majority of policy-makers,
they are worthy of serious study. Utilitarian, management-based
sustainability frameworks may not represent either the best or the
most successful strategies for ensuring that healthy environments
are preserved for and valued by future generations. Culturally
sensitive explorations of environmental relationships, on the
other hand, may reveal pathways to deeper and more sustainable
bonds between people and the places they live in, and to healthier
communities overall.
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
Box 2. Living well together
The Ashaninka peoples of the Peruvian Amazon believe that if all living beings are not in harmony with
the earth (Aipatsite), humans cannot achieve fulfilment and happiness. The Ashaninka call this form of
harmony “living well together” (kametsa asaiki), a concept that focuses more on the close relationship of
humans to landscapes than on the distinction between nature and those who inhabit it. 1,2
According to the Ashaninka, “real Ashaninka people” (Ashaninka sanori) are incapable of becoming the good
people they want to be unless their actions are in harmony with nature. Because the earth is where human
and other beings interact on a daily basis, people are thought to be incapable of growing healthy food,
finding new medicines or building sustainable houses and communities unless they respect its many gis.
This entails deciding when to stay away from the deepest forests out of respect for the spirits (maninkari)
who they believe lead the souls of the dead to the aerlife. These culturally established protocols of respect
and restraint ensure that certain forests are protected from depletion and overhunting, which in turn
prevents illness and produces long-term well-being among Ashaninka peoples.
Indeed, many indigenous groups across the globe believe that the world can only avoid catastrophic disruption
if humans breathe harmony into it. For such cultures, there can be no hard and fast separation between
humans and the places they inhabit; there is an absolute obligation to sustain the environment because they
are a part of it, and because they themselves cannot survive without being its responsible caretaker.
These highly responsible beliefs about stewardship and balance, however, are challenged by long-term
social disruption, large-scale extraction of, for example, forests, oil and natural gas, and ongoing cycles
of violence against those who protest such mindless destruction. 3 This begs the question: how might
integrating environmental policies with local cultural values encourage deeper commitments to protection
and stewardship?
1 Sarmie nto Barletti, J P. “It makes me sad w hen they say we are p oor. We are rich!”: of wealth a nd public wealth i n indigenous Amaz onia. In: Santos-G ranero F, editor. Images of p ublic wealth or
the anato my of wellbeing in Ind igenous Amazoni a. Tucson: Universit y of Arizona Pres s; 2015 (139–160).
2 Sarmie nto Barletti, J P. The angr y earth: wellbein g, place, and extr activism in the A mazon. Anthrop ology in Actio n 2015;23(3):43–53.
3 Survival [website]. London: Survival International; 2017 (, accessed 10 February 2017).
Special effort is required to document and learn from diverse cultural
conceptions of the environment, many of which are now threatened
by multiple factors (52). Research methods from the humanities and
social sciences are well equipped to map these ways of seeing and
their potential for informing health- and environment-related policies
and programmes.
Policy brief, no. 1 15
Encouraging cultures of connection to green and blue spaces
Cultural representations of the association between human health
and the environment can be traced back to the earliest societies.
Conceptions of paradise have long been associated with gardens (54),
and temples dedicated to healing were commonly situated on hilltops
overlooking the sea (55). Today, a growing body of evidence aests to
the multifaceted benefits people derive from time spent in or near
natural landscapes (56–58). Research shows that, while protecting,
establishing and maintaining them requires significant planning and
financial commitment, failing to do so may pose an even greater threat
to long-term health and well-being. A low level of exposure to natural
areas, for example, appears to put people at higher risk of poor mental
health, and lack of open spaces is associated with low-activity lifestyles,
poor diets and the sharp rise of noncommunicable diseases (58).
In response to these findings, many policy-makers are placing a
renewed emphasis on people’s connection to so-called green spaces
(urban parks, woodlands and other natural areas) and blue spaces
(shorelines and waterways). The importance of green and blue spaces
to health and well-being is now expressed in the WHO European
Healthy Cities Network (59), the European Landscape Convention
(60) and Natura 2000 (61), as well as many intersectoral research
programmes on urban health (62,63) and country-level health and
well-being agendas. This trend has also influenced health services
in important ways, and many hospitals, mental health institutions
and care homes for the elderly have been built to incorporate the
therapeutic presence of sunlight and fresh air as well as views of trees,
water and open vistas (64– 66).
The social and cultural heritage embodied in landscapes can also
provide a sense of continuity across generations and contribute to
healthy identity construction, which can in turn have a protective
effect on health and well-being. Ethnographic studies of reduced health
inequalities in deindustrialized and relatively deprived coastal areas
of northeast England, for example, suggest that strong cultural and
historical links between community members and their environment
partially explain beer-than-expected health outcomes (67).
Additionally, green and blue spaces can provide important common
spaces in which to foster new relationships. Some research argues,
for example, that strong emotional aachment to them can play an
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
important role in the integration of migrants to urban areas (68–70).
Efforts to link people with health-promoting green and blue spaces in
meaningful ways may also serve to heighten awareness of ecological
degradation and, in turn, strengthen local cultures of sustainability
and environmental stewardship (71).
Not surprisingly, then, loss of familiar environments or alterations to
cherished landscapes can also have a direct effect on experiences of
well-being and contentment. Research has found that communities
tend to resist hydraulic fracking not only because they fear the
immediate health impacts of pollution and contamination; they also
consider the potential for altered or damaged landscapes to be a threat
to their overall sense of well-being (72).
The same holds true for communities subject to the persistent noise
and loss of local wildlife from wind farms (73). The decision to replace
more dangerous nuclear power plants with large-scale wind farms
can have a corrosive effect on well-being when rural communities are
forced to accept the presence of turbines in order to offset government-
subsidized energy use in urban and industrial areas. Laudable efforts
to promote more environmentally friendly forms of power generation
may fail when local cultures are not fully considered.
Yet simply protecting natural areas or providing green and blue
spaces is not enough – they must be maintained in culturally sensitive
contexts that take into account and enhance accessibility, public
safety, and new eating and exercise practices. Diverse, innovative
initiatives to foster these cultures of connection offer new models of
engagement, some of which could be replicable and scalable. For policy-
makers, they represent a critical new evidence base for informing
environment- and health-related planning and decision-making.
Ensuring equity and access
Health-enhancing natural areas are not equally available to everyone
(74), and as communities negotiate different relationships to them,
misunderstanding and conflict over access and use can quickly arise.
In the 19th century, for example, policy-makers’ acknowledgement of
the cultural value of natural environments led to the establishment
of many celebrated parks and conservation areas in Europe and
the United States. Yet, in some areas, a culturally biased approach
involved displacing indigenous communities whose subsistence and
Policy brief, no. 1 17
stewardship practices were perceived as disruptive (75,76). While
privileged social groups were encouraged to take advantage of those
parks for recreation, indigenous people were denied access to the
life-ways that kept their communities and the land in good health for
thousands of years.
Today in the WHO European Region, despite widespread recognition
of the multiple benefits of coastal areas to health, reflected in cultural
practices across countries, many coastal communities feel excluded
from, or are unable to access, these health-promoting blue spaces (77).
This sense of exclusion can arise from a lack of free time for recreation,
or perceptions of these coastlines as places for “others” (for example,
tourists). Research in Glasgow, Scotland, also found that deprived
populations do not always perceive nearby green spaces as available
to them (78,79). Indeed, similar paerns underlie a lack of engagement
with green and blue spaces among ethnic minorities across Europe (80).
Box 3. Perceived barriers to green spaces
In 2014, Copenhagen was named the Green Capital of Europe. Ninety-six per cent of the city’s residents
live within a 15-minute walk to a park or recreation area, and citizens have access to the best network of
urban cycling paths in the world. In addition to being situated within a country that boasts the highest
happiness ratings, strong policy measures support active lifestyles and the city has relatively low levels of
lifestyle diseases. 1
Many cities across the globe have looked to Copenhagen for sustainable models of urban development.
Much of the success of Copenhagen’s health and environmental policies has been linked to the endorsement
of a culture in which healthy and sustainable lifestyles are highly valued.
However, recent anthropological research shows that these norms and values are not universal among
residents of Copenhagen. Women from low-income communities, for example, may associate certain healthy
and sustainable activities with a particular lifestyle that they feel is difficult to achieve. These residents are
less likely to benefit from the celebrated green spaces within their city.
The lesson from Copenhagen is clear: unless policy-makers strive actively to address issues of social
exclusion, inequalities may persist even in seemingly egalitarian environments.
1 Thomas F. The ro le of natural enviro nments within w omen’s everyday h ealth and wellbei ng in Copenhagen, D enmark. Healt h Place 2015;35:187–95. doi:10.1016/j.healthplac e.2014.11.005.
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
Furthermore, even when natural landscapes or green and blue spaces
are available, their health-giving aspects may be depleted or damaged
by human activities. Sadly, polluted air, water and soil, elevated levels
of radiation and more frequent extreme weather events due to climate
change are now realities for many communities. Different groups
experience these threats more or less, depending on their geographic
location, their socioeconomic freedom, their civil liberties and their
freedom of choice. Disadvantaged groups oen suffer the impacts of
environmental degradation to a greater degree than others (81), as well
as the indignity of seeing their local landscapes eroded (82).
Policy-makers must engage with diverse communities – particularly
those who are marginalized – to gain a beer understanding of
how culturally mediated perceptions of the environment influence
behaviour in positive and negative ways (83). More mixed-methods
research is needed to identify why health- and sustainability-related
policies fail among certain groups, and how more adaptive and
inclusive ones can be developed (84).
Policy options
In addition to the broad policy options outlined above, the following
four specific policy options to all those working on environment- and
health-related programmes are put forward.
1. Investigate how cultural contexts influence perceptions of and
engagement with the environment, and how strong cultural
bonds between people and the places they value enhance
human health and well-being.
2. Develop methodologies that allow for the integration of
complex evidence of cultural value(s) into health- and
environment-related decision-making.
3. Recognize and build on cultural practices that promote
positive engagement with green and blue spaces.
4. Address inequities and perceived barriers that prevent certain
groups from forging meaningful connections with, and thus
benefiting from, green and blue spaces.
Policy brief, no. 1 19
3) Migration, culture and health
Understanding the impacts of migration and marginalization on
health and well-being
Many countries across the globe are in the midst of transformations
brought about by mass migration. As people move in great numbers
from one country to another, distinct values and ways of life can
merge, evolve, clash or coexist. Migrants oen struggle to develop
strategies for organizing everyday life in unknown environments with
unfamiliar rules, social values and customs. Receiving countries can
find their everyday virtues tested when efforts to assist seem to come
at the cost of other responsibilities and obligations. When diverse
systems of value are brought together in such pressurized situations,
serious challenges can quickly arise.
Countries across the WHO European Region diverge significantly
in terms of how they respond to the health needs of migrants.
Some, feeling burdened or overwhelmed, develop strategies of
exclusion, pushing migrants back into bordering states or returning
them to countries of origin. Others, energized by the call to action
and determined to remain open to migrants, focus on equitable
reselement – a process that demands new kinds of policy-informing
evidence that existing health data and traditional research strategies
alone cannot provide.
When migrants transition through countries, the multiple hurdles
they encounter can be different and yet equally great. These are
compounded by a lack of incentive to establish foundations for mutual
understanding when migrants wish to be elsewhere and countries do
not perceive them as locally invested. In such contexts, building trust
may be impossible, and delivering fair and culturally competent health
care is difficult at best.
The unseled nature of migration tells us that the experience
of belonging is a critical factor in the development of competent
care. Longitudinal data, for example, show that when migrants are
distributed across a receiving country but not readily integrated on
equal terms – that is, when they still feel marginalized or excluded –
they tend to seek opportunities for voluntary reselement in more
welcoming and familiar-feeling communities (2). These communities of
choice tend to be areas populated by others from their place of origin
who share their values, and where social services are beer equipped
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
for and accustomed to serving their health and welfare needs in
a culturally sensitive manner.
Such paerns of secondary, internal migration may provide enhanced
security and well-being for migrants in the short term. Yet, they
may also have adverse consequences in the longer term, as when
a receiving country’s wider population perceives cultural differences
negatively, or when migrants and their children find that isolation
from broad society becomes a key barrier to leading meaningful
lives. Indeed, when migrants feel isolated, the health consequences
are significant: they oen present late for clinical care; they tend to
present with already-chronic conditions, rather than conditions that
can be effectively treated or reversed; and they are likely to present
at emergency facilities rather than more affordable, primary-care
seings focused on prevention (85).
Finally, data suggest that migrants who are not well integrated
(those who are both unemployed and undereducated) experience
disproportionately high levels of certain noncommunicable diseases.
In Denmark, for example, where health care registration is mandatory,
rates for certain noncommunicable diseases are still as much as nine
times higher for marginalized, late-presenting migrants as for health-
educated citizens of European descent (86).
The implications of increased illness and suffering for migrants,
as well as the financial burden created by their reliance on costly
emergency care, create both ethical and economic imperatives for
ensuring that migrants feel safe, respected and understood within the
health care systems of their host countries. For policy-makers focused
on migrant care, there is clearly an urgent need to prioritize a cultural
understanding of migrant populations – one that goes beyond a focus
on equality of access to address the deeper challenge of ensuring
equity in health care systems.
Moving beyond stereotypes
When markers such as nationality or religion, or physical signs such
as skin colour, are thought to indicate difference, people can quickly
conflate cultural identity with place of origin or ancestry. Here,
unexamined assumptions about perceived difference can determine
whether an encounter with an individual or group is experienced
"For policy-makers focused
on migrant care, there
is clearly an urgent need
to prioritize a cultural
understanding of migrant
Policy brief, no. 1 21
as a threat, or as an opportunity for learning and exchange (87). In
pressurized situations where people in positions of authority lack
cultural sensitivity training, poor decisions and misunderstandings
based on stereotypes become more common (88–90). Over time,
stereotypes embedded within health care systems can limit or
undermine quality, efficiency and efficacy of care (91,92).
Research shows that effective health care systems must move beyond
assumptions about cultural difference to address the fluid nature
of culture and the array of contributing and intersecting factors
(socioeconomic status, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender,
education, profession, etc.) that put groups at risk of health inequalities
(93–95). This is especially important in the context of migration,
as cultural orientations, identities and value systems may suffer
considerable changes throughout the migration process.
To significantly improve health services for migrants, policy-makers
must examine how reductive cultural stereotyping hinders practical
understanding of illness and suffering (96,97). In the process, they
must remain sensitive to migrants’ actual living conditions, day-to-day
experiences and concerns about critical issues such as legal status
(see Box 4).
Focusing on equity
Ensuring equity in health care is not just about increasing service
provision and access. Policy-makers must recognize that a one-size-
fits-all approach to care can lead to discrimination against those
whose needs remain unrecognized or differ significantly from those
of long-time residents (98) (See Box 5). In spite of the recent, large-scale
influx of migrants to Germany from the war-torn Middle East, for
instance, no systematic, country-wide psychological care for post-
traumatic stress is available to migrants until their long process of
gaining residency is complete.
When migrant needs appear extreme to those unfamiliar with the
fear and suffering that cause refugees to flee their homes, anxiety
over resources can increase. This is especially true among long-time
inhabitants who may already feel neglected by society. In such cases,
experiences of tension and distrust can have serious adverse effects
on health and well-being.
"To significantly
improve health services
for migrants, policy-
makers must examine
how reductive cultural
stereotyping hinders
practical understanding
of illness and suffering."
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
Box 4. Cultural stereotyping in medical practice
A 10-year-old girl from a Lebanese family living in Germany was admied to the hospital with diffuse
stomach pain of unclear origin. Diagnostic tests did not reveal an organic cause for her complaints. Among
physicians and nurses, a discussion evolved about culturally specific perceptions and expressions of pain.
Some alleged that patients from the Mediterranean area “are known for their tendency to present with
diffuse complaints” and an inappropriate “exaggeration” of pain. 1 In countries such as Belgium, Switzerland
and Germany, health professionals use the term “Mediterranean syndrome” to describe what is elsewhere
referred to as “culture-bound syndrome”. 2,3
During a conversation with the girl and her mother, a medical student learned about the living conditions
and social background of the patient and her family. The girl had been born in Germany. Her parents were
political refugees, but had been waiting for a definite decision about their asylum status for over 10 years.
The student also heard about their constricted living space in a collective accommodation centre, and the
adolescent brothers who disturbed the girl’s sleep. The girl explained that she had no retreat or quiet space
for study, and that she suffered sleep deprivation and fear about her future. She also had problems in school,
where teachers would repeatedly warn her to work more accurately and to make more of an effort. “The
thing is that I know that,” she said. Classmates would bully her and shout: “You are not even supposed to be
here.” “But I was born here,” the girl explained.
In advanced German, the mother described the gruelling insecurity, the guilt she felt towards the children
and the fear about the uncertain future of the family. The girl’s father, who had grown up in a wealthy
family and received a university education, was caring for the family as a poorly paid, “unskilled” worker.
As a result of this conversation, the physicians contacted a social worker known for her expertise in migration
issues and migration laws to work towards a beer living situation for the family as well as educational support
for the girl. What was initially assumed to be a culturally specific presentation of pain was discovered to be
a somatization of severe social problems linked to the prolonged asylum process of the child and her family.
1 Strauss L . Gefangen im nirg endwo – die geschic hte der kleinen pa tientin Malak und ih rer bauchschmer zen [Trapped in no-m an’s-land – the stor y of the litt le patient Malak and h er stomach
pain]. In: In weiß – 2 . Giessen: Instit ut für Geschicht e der Medizin; 2013 (26–35) (in Ge rman).
2 Ernst G. T he myth of the “M editerranean s yndrome”: do immig rants feel di erent pain? In Ethn Healt h 2000;5(2):121–6. doi:10.1080/713667444.
3 Van Moaer t M, Vereecken A. S omatization of ps ychiatric illne ss in Mediterran ean migrants in Bel gium. Cult Med Ps ychiatry 1989;13(3):297–313.
Policy brief, no. 1 23
Box 5. “We do this in a different way than you do.
A 16-year-old boy from a Muslim family with Turkish background living in Germany was diagnosed with
osteosarcoma, a severe bone cancer with no options for curative care. The physicians’ intention to inform
the boy of his condition was met with strong opposition by the family. They explained that, according to
their religion and culture, the patient must not receive this information. For the team of health professionals
in the paediatric oncology department, this was an unbearable situation; telling the truth to a nearly adult
patient and respecting the individual’s right to know were essential elements of the health professionals’
ethos. The family’s staunch resistance to informing the patient about his diagnosis and imminent death
was thus perceived as “unacceptable”, and yet all aempts by the physicians and other members of the
professional team, including nurses and social workers, to convince the family were rejected. Tension and
distrust between health professionals and the family grew. 1
In an effort to mediate the conflict, a medical anthropologist asked physicians and other informants of
Turkish Muslim background for their opinion on this case. A Turkish physician, who had worked in Germany
for more than 20 years, replied with absolute clarity: “We do this in a different way than you do,” he said. The
physician went on to describe the surprising opinion that the family was “right”, that patients should not get
to know the hard truth directly.
Moreover, he drew a clear line between the “Turkish” and the “German” way to tell the truth: “German
physicians inform the patients directly, with no compassion or sensibility, cold and tough. I have seen
German physicians traumatizing patients and making them feel hopeless. We are used to doing it in
a different way: the patient has to know the truth, but we communicate this in a more sensitive way,
supporting and caring for him, with religious counselling. For us, supporting and taking care of the ill
and the dying individual is most important.
Aer sharing and discussing this perception with the health professionals, the task of truth disclosure was
commissioned to a local Turkish paediatrician. The tension between staff and family decreased considerably.
A few weeks later, the boy was discharged from the hospital to palliative care at home.
1 Knipper, M. Vorsicht Kultur! Ethnologische Perspektiven auf Medizin, Migration und ethnisch-kulturelle Vielfalt [Caution, culture! Ethnological perspectives on medicine, migration and ethnic-
cultura l diversity]. In: Co ors M, Grützm ann T, Peters T, editors. In terkulturali tät und Ethik. De r Umgang mit Fremdh eit in Medizin und Et hik [Intercultura lism and ethics. D ealing with other ness in
medicin e and ethics]. Göt tingen: Edition Ru precht; 2014 (52–69) (in Ge rman).
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
It is clear that viewing care in purely clinical terms leaves health
systems ill-equipped to understand the psychological, social and
cultural drivers of illness and health – not only within migrant
groups, but also within local subpopulations who define themselves
as disadvantaged. The economic and social costs of this systemic
oversight can be startlingly high.
Responding effectively to the needs of diverse patients involves
aligning caregiving practices with how care is understood and
experienced by those receiving it. Yet it also involves developing
contexts for social trust and belonging for all members of a community;
everyone must feel they can trust the social contracts made formally
as citizens and informally as community members.
This trust is critical to the creation of a culture for health and well-
being, and for the development of compassionate, effective and
economically viable health care systems for all. To foster it, health
policy-makers and caregivers must reflect critically on their own
perceptions and assumptions, and actively seek to understand the
intersectoral nature of culture, migration, health and well-being.
Additionally, they must ensure that positive changes receive support
at systemic and organizational levels.
Policy options
In addition to the broad policy options outlined above, the following
five specific policy options for enhancing migrant health and well-
being are put forward.
1. Implement diversity training across all levels and professions
of health care systems (with a particular focus on leadership
and management staff ) to endorse both the ethical and the
economic imperatives for promoting culturally sensitive
health care.
2. Increase awareness of unconscious stereotyping and of how
cultural practices and related assumptions about others can
lead to the marginalization of perceived outsiders.
3. Create programmes that educate and empower migrants
to address their health needs preventively and proactively
Policy brief, no. 1 25
by becoming involved in creating fully realized lives for
4. Support innovative mixed-methods research designed to build
a new evidence base on health vulnerabilities that includes
assessments of subjectively defined needs.
5. Develop inclusive strategies for building social trust and
a culture for health and well-being.
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
As outlined in Health 2020 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, incorporating cultural awareness into policy-making
and policy implementation is critical to the development of adaptive,
equitable and sustainable health care for all. Doing so requires that
policy-makers cultivate a nuanced understanding of what culture is,
and strengthen their capacity to identify biases and knowledge gaps
that may interfere with effective working practice.
This also entails a conscious effort to engage with mixed-methods
research from the health-related humanities and social sciences.
Policy-makers must recognize and integrate the extensive body
of existing knowledge into their decision-making processes, and
also support the creation of new evidence. An expanded evidence
base, enriched by subjective accounts of personal experience, will
offer a more robust set of tools for improving health and well-being
equitably, as well as a framework for further illuminating the working
assumptions of policy-makers, providers and the general public.
The broad areas of nutrition, the environment and migration offer
important opportunities for meaningful research and engagement
at the level of culture, but this is just the beginning.
As communities and countries experiment with culturally grounded
approaches to fostering health and well-being, it will be essential to
share these broadly. The Regional Office’s expert group on the cultural
contexts of health and well-being urges policy-makers and other health
professionals to share their learning experiences and good practices
openly. A multiplicity of voices is crucial to the work ahead.
"An expanded evidence
base, enriched by
subjective accounts of
personal experience, will
offer a more robust set of
tools for improving health
and well-being equitably,
as well as a framework for
further illuminating the
working assumptions of
policy-makers, providers
and the general public."
Policy brief, no. 1 27
1. UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity [website].
Paris: UNESCO; 2001 (hp://
accessed 13 February 2017).
2. Napier AD, Ancarno C, Butler B, Calabrese J, Chater A,
Chaerjee H et al. Culture and health. Lancet 2014;384:1607–39.
3. Adams V, editor. Metrics: what counts in global health. Durham:
Duke University Press; 2016.
4. Biehl J, Petryna A. When people come first: critical studies in
global health. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2013.
5. Brives C, Le Marcis F, Sanabria E. What’s in a context? Tenses
and tensions in evidence-based medicine. Med Anthropol.
2016;35(5):369–76. doi:10.1080/01459740.2016.1160089.
6. Health 2020: the European policy for health and well-being
[website]. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2015
accessed 13 February 2017).
7. Sustainable Development Goal 17 [website]. New York: United
Nations; 2017 (hps://,
accessed 13 February 2017).
8. Nussbaum MC. Who is the happy warrior? Philosophy poses
questions to psychology. J Legal Stud. 2008;37(S2):S81–113.
9. Napier AD. The rapid assessment of vulnerable populations:
a “barefoot” manual. London: UCL Press; 2013 (hp://www.ucl., accessed 13 February 2017).
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
10. Adams V, Burke NJ, Whitmarsh I. Slow research: thoughts for
a movement in global health. Med Anthropol. 2014;33(3):179–97.
11. Mediterranean diet [website]. Paris: UNESCO; 2014 (hp://,
accessed 13 February 2017).
12. Coleman L, editor. Food: ethnographic encounters. London:
Bloomsbury Academic; 2011.
13. Goody J. Cooking, cuisine and class. A study in comparative
sociology. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press; 1982.
14. Kraemer FB, Gracia Arnaiz M. Feed or nourish in a “popular
restaurant” in Spain: reflections on commensality. Demetra
2015;10(3):455–66. doi:10.12957/demetra.2015.16173.
15. Mintz S. Food and its relationship to concepts of power. In:
McMichael P (editor). Food and agrarian orders in the world-
economy. London: Praeger; 1995 (3–13).
16. Fischler C. L’homnivore. Paris: Odile Jacob; 1990 (in French).
17. Rier M, Frisbe D. Sociology of the meal. In: Simmel on culture:
selected writings. London: Sage Publications; 2000:1306.
18. DeVault ML. Feeding the family. The social organization of
caring as gendered work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press;
19. Murco A. “It’s a pleasure to cook for him”: food, mealtimes
and gender in some South Wales households. In: Garmanikow
E, Morgan D, Purvis J, Taylorson D, editors. The public and the
private. London: Heinemann Educational Books; 1983 (78–90).
20. Fischler C. Commensality, society and culture. Social Science
Information 2011;50(3–4):528–48. doi:10.1177/0539018411413963.
21. Scrinis G. On the ideology of nutritionism. Gastronomica
2008;8(1):39–48. doi:10.1525/gfc.2008.8.1.39.
Policy brief, no. 1 29
22. Scrinis G. Nutritionism: the science and politics of dietary
advice. New York: Columbia University Press; 2013.
23. Scrinis G. Reformulation, fortification and functionalization:
Big Food corporations’ nutritional engineering and marketing
strategies. The Journal of Peasant Studies 2015;43(1):17–37. doi:10.
24. Yates-Doerr E. The opacity of reduction, nutritional black-
boxing and the meanings of nourishment. Food, Culture and
Society 2012:15(2)293–313. doi:10.2752/175174412x13233545145381.
25. Sanabria E. Circulating ignorance: complexity and agnogenesis
in the obesity “epidemic”. Cultural Anthropology 2016;31(1)131–58.
26. Bouman LI, te Molder H, Koelen MM, van Woerkum CMJ. I
eat healthfully but I am not a freak. Consumers’ everyday
life perspective on healthy eating. Appetite 2009;53(3):3908.
27. Crawford RA. A cultural account of “health”: control, release,
and the social body. In: McKinlay JB, editor. Issues in the
political economy of health care. New York: Tavistock
Publications; 1984.
28. Sanabria E, Yates-Doerr E. Alimentary uncertainties: from
contested evidence to policy. Biosocieties 2015;10(2):117–24.
29. Fischer E, Benson P. Broccoli and Desire. Palo Alto: Stanford
University Press; 2006.
30. Marges B, Martinez J, Saba A, Holm L, Kearney M, Moles A.
Definitions of “healthy” eating: a pan-EU survey of consumer
aitudes to food, nutrition and health. Eur J Clin Nutr.
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
31. Holm L. Mad og sundhed i hverdagen [Food and health
in everyday life]. In: Holm L, Kristensen ST, editors. Mad,
mennesker og måltider – samfundsvidenskabelige perspektiver
[Food, people and meals – perspectives from social sciences].
Copenhagen: Munksgaard; 2012:301–16 (in Danish).
32. Sanabria E. Sensorial pedagogies, hungry fat cells and
the limits of nutritional health education. Biosocieties
2015;10(2):125–42. doi:10.1057/biosoc.2015.5.
33. Holm L. Cultural and social acceptability of a healthy diet. Eur J
Clinl Nutr. 1993;47(8)592–9.
34. Micheelsen A, Havn L, Poulsen SK, Larsen TM, Holm L. The
acceptability of the New Nordic Diet by participants in a
controlled six-month dietary intervention. Food Quality and
Preference 2014;36:20–6. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.02.003.
35. Nielsen A, Korzen S, Holm L. Inverting the food pyramid?
Social and cultural acceptability of Walter Wille’s dietary
recommendations among people with weight concerns.
Appetite 2008;51(1):178–86. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2008.02.011.
36. Knowler WC, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Christophi CA, Hoffman
HJ, Brenneman AT et al. 10-year follow-up of diabetes incidence
and weight loss in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes
Study. Lancet 2009;374(9702):1677–86. doi:10.1016/S0140-
37. Risques sanitaires liés aux pratiques alimentaires
d’amaigrissement [Health risks related to weight-loss dietary
practices]. Maisons-Alfort: Agence Nationale de Sécurité
Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail;
2010 (in French).
38. Warde A. Consumption, food and taste. London: Sage
Publications; 1997.
39. Dietary guidelines for the Brazilian population. Brazília:
Ministry of Health of Brazil; 2015 (hp://
accessed 13 February 2017).
Policy brief, no. 1 31
40. Caplan P. Food, health and identity: approaches from the social
sciences. London and New York: Routledge; 1997.
41. Counihan C, Van Esterik P, editors. Food and culture: a reader.
Third edition. New York: Routledge; 2012.
42. Stuckler D, Nestle M. Big Food, food systems, and global health.
PLOS Med. 2012;9(6)e1001242. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001242.
43. Patel RC. Food sovereignty: power, gender, and the right to food.
PLOS Med. 2012;9(6)e1001223. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001223.
44. Monteiro CA, Cannon G. The impact of transnational “Big
Food” companies on the south: a view from Brazil. PLOS Med.
2012;9(7):e1001252. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001252.
45. Guthman J. Weighing in: obesity, food justice and the limits
of capitalism. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of
California Press: 2012.
46. Pra J. The rationality of rural life: economic and cultural
change in Tuscany. Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers; 1994.
47. Rayner J, Hawkes C, Lang T, Bello W. Trade liberalization and
the diet transition: a public health response. Health Promotion
International 2007;21(S1):67–74. doi:10.1093/heapro/dal053.
48. Igumbor EU, Sanders D, Puoane TR, Tsolekile L, Schwarz C,
Purdy C et al. ‘‘Big Food,’’ the consumer food environment,
health, and the policy response in South Africa. PLOS Med.
2012;9(7):e1001253. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001253.
49. The world we want 2015. Hunger, food security, and nutrition in
the post-2015 development agenda. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations; 2013 (hp://
Post_2015_Eng.pdf, accessed 20 February 2017).
50. Vasavi AR. Shadow space: suicides and the predicament of rural
India. Gurgaon: Three Essays Collective; 2012.
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
51. Yates-Doerr E. The weight of obesity: hunger and global health
in postwar Guatemala. Berkeley: University of California
Press; 2015.
52. Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N et
al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework – connecting nature
and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
2015;14:1–16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.
53. World Resources Institute. Millennium ecosystem assessment.
Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington:
Island Press; 2005 (hp://
documents/document.356.aspx.pdf, accessed 13 February 2017).
54. Ward Thompson C. Linking landscape and health: the recurring
theme. Landscape and Urban Planning 2011;99(3–4):187–95.
55. Steinberg E. Healing spaces: the science of place and well-being.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2009.
56. Maxwell S, Lovell R. Evidence statement on the links between
natural environments and human health. London: Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; 2015.
57. Horwitz P, Kretsch C, Jenkins A, Rahim AB, Burls A, Campbell
K et al. Contribution of biodiversity and green spaces to mental
and physical fitness, and cultural dimensions of health. In:
Connecting global priorities: biodiversity and human health.
Geneva: World Health Organization, Convention on Biological
Diversity; 2015 (200–19).
58. Urban green spaces and health. Copenhagen: WHO Regional
Office for Europe; 2016 (hp://
evidence.pdf?ua=1, accessed 13 February 2017).
59. Healthy cities. Promoting health and equity – evidence for
local policy and practice. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office
for Europe; 2014 (hp://
file/0007 /262492/Healthy-Cities-promoting-health-and-equity.
pdf, accessed 13 February 2017).
Policy brief, no. 1 33
60. European Landscape Convention of the Council of Europe
[website]. Strasbourg: Council of Europe; 2017 (hp://www.coe.
int/en/web/landscape/home, accessed 13 February 2017).
61. Natura 2000 [website]. Brussels: European Commission; 2016
en.htm, accessed 13 February 2017).
62. Cities Changing Diabetes [website]. Bagsvaerd: Cities Changing
Diabetes; 2016 (hp://,
accessed 13 February 2017).
63. Built Environment and Health [website]. Princeton: Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation; 2017 (hp://
accessed 13 February 2017).
64. Beauchemin KM, Hays P. Sunny hospital rooms expedite
recovery from severe and refractory depressions. J Affect
Disord. 1996;40(1–2):49–51.
65. Zeisel J, Silverstein NM, Hyde J, Levkoff S, Lawton MP, Holmes
W. Environmental correlates to behavioral health outcomes in
Alzheimer’s special care units. Gerontologist 2003;43(5):697–711.
66. Devlin A, Arneill AB. Health care environments and patient
outcomes: a review of the literature. Environment and Behavior
2003;35:665–94. doi:10.1177/0013916503255102.
67. Cairns-Nagi JM, Bambra C. Defying the odds: a mixed-methods
study of health resilience in deprived areas of England. Soc Sci
Med. 2013;91(0):229–37. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.03.014.
68. Jay M, Schraml U. Understanding the role of urban forests for
migrants – uses, perception and integrative potential. Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening 2009;8(4):283–94. doi:10.1016/j.
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
69. Völker S, Kistemann T. "I'm always entirely happy when I'm
here!" Urban blue enhancing human health and well-being in
Cologne and Düsseldorf, Germany. Soc Sci Med. 2013;78:113–24.
70. Völker S, Kistemann T. Developing the urban blue: comparative
health responses to blue and green urban open spaces in
Germany. Health and Place 2015;35:196–205. doi:10.1016/j.
71. The Natural Change Project: catalysing leadership for
sustainability. Edinburgh: World Wildlife Federation Scotland;
2011 (hp://
pdf, accessed 26 August 2016).
72. Kovats S, Depledge MH, Haines A, Fleming L, Wilkinson P,
Shonkoff SB, Scovronick N. The health implications of fracking.
Lancet 2014;383(9919):757–8. doi:10.1016 S0140-6736(13)62158-3.
73. Nissenbaum, MA, Aramini JJ, Hanning CD. Effects of industrial
turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise Health 2012:14(60):237–
43. doi:10.4103/1463-1741.102961.
74. Ernstson H. The social production of ecosystem services: a
framework for studying environmental justice and ecological
complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landscape and Urban
Planning 2013;109(1):7–17. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.005.
75. Survival [website]. London: Survival International; 2017 (hp://, accessed 13
February 2017).
76. Wilson K. Therapeutic landscapes and First Nations peoples:
an exploration of culture, health and place. Health Place
77. Bell SL, Phoenix C, Lovell R, Wheeler B. Seeking everyday
wellbeing: the coast as a therapeutic landscape. Soc Sci Med.
2015;142:56–67. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.011.
Policy brief, no. 1 35
78. Macintyre S, Macdonald L, Ellaway A. Lack of agreement
between measured and self-reported distance from public
green parks in Glasgow, Scotland. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act.
2008;5(1):26. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-26.
79. Thomas F. The role of natural environments within women’s
everyday health and wellbeing in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Health Place 2015;35:187–95. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.11.005.
80. Braubach M. Benefits of environmental inequality assessments
for action. J Epidemiol and Community Health 2013;67(8):625–8.
81. Pearce, JR. Richardson EA, Mitchell RJ, Shor NK.
Environmental justice and health: the implications of the socio-
spatial distribution of multiple environmental deprivation for
health inequalities in the United Kingdom. Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers 2010;35(4):522–39.
82. Monitor of engagement with the natural environment: the
national survey on people and the natural environment.
Annual report from the 2013–2014 survey (NECR122). Sheffield:
Natural England; 2014 (hp://
uk/publication/5331309618528256, accessed 13 February 2017).
83. kinen K, Tyrväinen L. Teenage experiences of public green
spaces in suburban Helsinki. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
2008;7(4):277–89. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2008.07.003.
84. Leppo K, Ollila E, Peña S, Wismar M, Cook S, editors. Health
in all policies: seizing opportunities, implementing policies.
Helsinki: Ministry of Social Affairs and Health; 2013 (hp://
in-All-Policies-final.pdf?ua=1, accessed 13 February 2017).
85. Llácer A, Amo JD, García-Fulgueiras A, Ibáñez-Rojo V, García-
Pino R, Jarrín I et al. Discrimination and mental health in
Ecuadorian immigrants in Spain. J Epidemiol Community
Health 2009;63(9):766–72. doi:10.1136/jech.2008.085530.
Culture matters: using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making
86. Diderichsen F, Anderson I, Manual C, Nybo Anderson A-M, Bach
E, Baadsgaard M et al. Health inequality – determinants and
policies. Scand J Publ Health 2012;40(Suppl8):12–105.
87. Quaranta I. Anthropology, health care and the transformation
of experience. In: Napier AD, Hobart A, Muller R, editors.
Culture and wellbeing: new pathologies and emerging
challenges. Canon Pyon: Sean Kingston Publishing; 2017
(in press).
88. Green G,Davison C, Bradby H, Krause K, Mejías FM, Alex G.
Pathways to care: how superdiversity shapes the need for
navigational assistance. Sociol Health Illn. 2014;36(8):1205–19.
89. Hannah SD. Clinical care in environments of hyperdiversity:
race, culture and ethnicity in a post pentad world. In:
Delvecchio Good MJ, Willen SS, Hannah SD, Vickery K, Park
LT, editors. Shaering culture: American medicine responds
to cultural diversity. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2011
90. Green G, Bradby H, Chan A, Lee M. "We are not completely
Westernised": dual medical systems and pathways to health
care among Chinese migrant women in England. Soc Sci Med.
2006;62:1498–1509. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.08.014.
91. Mladovsky P, Ingleby D, McKee M, Recehl B. Good practices
in migrant health: the European experience. Clin Med.
92. Thomas F, Aggleton P, Anderson J. “Experts”, “partners” and
“fools”: exploring agency in HIV treatment seeking among
African migrants in London. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(5):736–43.
93. Clark R, Anderson NB, Clark VR, Williams DR. Racism as
a stressor for African Americans. A biopsychosocial model.
Am Psychol. 1999;54:805–16.
94. Meyer IH. Minority stress and mental health in gay men.
J Health Soc Behav. 1995;36:38–56.
Policy brief, no. 1 37
95. Meyer IH. Prejudice as stress: conceptual and measurement
problems. Am J Publ Health 2003;93:2625.
96. Kleinman, A, Benson P. Anthropology in the clinic: the
problem of cultural competency and how to fix it. PLOS Med.
2006;3(10)294. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030294.
97. Durieux-Paillard S, Eytan A. Du syndrome méditerranéen à la
balkanisation des diagnostics: l'art difficile de la neutralité en
médecine [Mediterranean syndrome and the balkanization of
diagnostics: the difficult art of neutrality in medicine]. Rev Med
Suisse 2007;3(113):1413–14 (in French).
98. Ingleby D. Introduction. In: Ingleby D, Chiarenza A, Deville W,
Kotsioni I, editors. Inequalities in health care for migrants and
ethnic minorities (COST series on health and diversity – vol 2).
Antwerp: Garant; 2012 (9–27).
The WHO Regional Office for Europe
The World Health Organization (WHO)
is a specialized agency of the United
Nations created in 1948 with the primary
responsibility for international health
maers and public health. The WHO
Regional Office for Europe is one of six
regional offices throughout the world,
each with its own programme geared
to the particular health conditions of
the countries it serves.
Member States
Bosnia and
Czech Republic
Kyr g y zsta n
Republic of
San Marino
Taji kstan
The former
of Macedonia
Tur key
United Kingdom
World Health Organization
Regional Office for Europe
UN City, Marmorvej 51, Scherfigsvej,
DK-2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
Tel: +45 39 17 17 17
Fax: +45 39 17 18 18
Website: 9789289 052337 >
ISBN 9789289052337
... As part of the water framework directive (WFD), which aims to improve the ecological and chemical quality of European waters, ammonium, oxidised nitrogen compounds, and phosphorus concentrations are monitored in rivers and streams (European Commission-EC, 2000). Several studies have identified strong correlations between ammonium, its oxidised derivatives (nitrites and nitrates) and phosphates with faecal indicator bacteria [25,26]. Generally, the nutrients do not have faecal origins, but they can provide a signal of faecal pollution and its origin, such as human or zoonotic from inland within the catchment, and this can help to assess the water quality from faecal pollution. ...
... The ammonium (N-NH 4 + ) was the most representative nutrient of domestic sewage outflow rather than the other chemical parameters that included different origins, such as inorganic and organic and as dissolved or particulate [45]. Several studies identified strong correlations between ammonium with faecal indicator bacteria [26,43]. The strong correlation between ammonium and faecal bacteria in the sampling waters in Arzilla River and seawater (Table 1 and Figure S3) can provide a theoretical basis for controlling pathogen pollution through ammonium monitoring in the river. ...
Full-text available
More than 80% of wastewaters are discharged into rivers or seas, with a negative impact on water quality along the coast due to the presence of potential pathogens of faecal origin. Escherichia coli and enterococci are important indicators to assess, monitor, and predict microbial water quality in natural ecosystems. During rainfall events, the amount of wastewater delivered to rivers and coastal systems is increased dramatically. This study implements measures capable of monitoring the pathways of wastewater discharge to rivers and the transport of faecal bacteria to the coastal area during and following extreme rainfall events. Spatio-temporal variability of faecal microorganisms and their relationship with environmental variables and sewage outflow in an area located in the western Adriatic coast (Fano, Italy) was monitored. The daily monitoring during the rainy events was carried out for two summer seasons, for a total of five sampling periods. These results highlight that faecal microbial contaminations were related to rainy events with a high flow of wastewater, with recovery times for the microbiological indicators varying between 24 and 72 h and influenced by a dynamic dispersion. The positive correlation between ammonium and faecal bacteria at the Arzilla River and the consequences in seawater can provide a theoretical basis for controlling ammonium levels in rivers as a proxy to monitor the potential risk of bathing waters pathogen pollution.
... The staple crop in Pakpoon is the coconut, also a staple in other countries [42]. Most party dishes cooked for celebrations in Pakpoon use high-kilojoule coconut milk, which is grown locally, similar to different places around the world where staple crops contribute to obesogenic environments [43]. ...
Full-text available
Objective This study aimed to describe the social determinants of health influencing obesity in the aged in a community context and based on the perspectives of various stakeholders. Methods This was qualitative content analysis study using data from the focus group, individual in-depth interview, and observation. The study population was domiciled in Pakpoon Village, Mung District, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, a tight-knit settlement typical of most retirement communities. Data were collected through two focus group discussions, direct observation, and in-depth interviews with 19 participants. Respondents represented key community groups: local nurses and public health officers, elderly residents, family caregivers (family members), and village health volunteers. Results The participants shared similar perspectives about the social determinants of health influencing obesity in the aged, which spanned three themes. These were: 1) neighborhood food environment (easy access to unhealthy food, no choice to recruit healthy food); 2) social networks influencing obesity (family affects food choices and prohibitions on exercise; belief, and socially imposed body image perceptions contributing to obesity in the aged); and 3) knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs behind lifestyle choices that cause obesity in the elderly (lack of awareness, personal attitudes, job and familial duties as barriers to engaging in physical activities; over-consumption behaviors lead to obesity in older people). Conclusion These three themes were the root causes of obesity in the elderly in Pakpoon's retirement community. This finding suggests that policymakers and nurses can create healthy environments, both to treat and prevent obesity, by raising awareness in younger generations, providing aging the provision of healthy food choices for older adults, encouraging health care professionals to share knowledge, and by modifying the attitudes and beliefs of both caregivers and older adults.
... There is also no doubt that the same situation-for example, pregnancy-in the same cultural and economic context can make one person happy and trigger defeat in someone else. These and other similar paradoxes, such as the level of economic development (Ares et al., 2015;Dalziel et al., 2018;Muir et al., 2017;Patel et al., 2015), cultural and religious context (Anthony & Sterkens, 2020;Cochrane et al., 2018;Cummins, 2018;Hoverd & Sibley, 2013;Napier et al., 2017;Wagani & Colucci, 2018), or individual predisposition (Burns & Machin, 2013;Culbertson et al., 2010;Goldman & Kernis, 2002;Li et al., 2014), are explained differently in different disciplines. However, there is no doubt that individual aspirations are crucial in determining whether a person feels happy or not, no matter what circumstances they live in. ...
The article contributes to the discussion on the relationship between wellbeing (WB) and subjective wellbeing (SWB). Our aim is to develop a method for measuring SWB by creating a moving matrix scale that will be a reference point in different communities' research on SWB. To do so, we analyzed the relationship between objective WB‐SWB indicators in 146 countries and other political entities where studies on self‐reported life satisfaction (SRLS) were conducted between 2005 and 2017. SRLS values were compared with the values of several of the most frequently accepted objective WB indicators. Additionally, we analyzed variables showing the level of advancement within the process of globalization. The results confirmed that a comparative scale is crucial in determining SWB. Therefore, in many societies, there is a growing awareness of the gap between one's own quality of life and that of others. There is a strong link between HDI and SRLS on a global scale, as well as in the subgroups of high and medium developed countries; this link is missing in poorly developed countries. The disconnection between objective and subjectively perceived change in the situation—that is, the improvement in living standards—does not translate into increased life satisfaction.
... The UNESCO recognises Mexican culinary traditions as world heritage that families in Mexico maintain despite the increase in consumption of processed food out of the home (Lachat et al., 2012). We have addressed that these typical eating preparations include the food groups of the eatwell plate and that in adequate proportions could promote a healthy weight (Laguna Camacho, 2017;Napier et al., 2017;Serrano-Plata et al., 2019). However, up to now there has been no examination if recommending a typical mexican diet reduces weight. ...
Full-text available
The official dietetic guidelines for weight loss include the practice of “healthy eating”. However, such recommendations rarely take into account the cultural context. The aim of the present study was to measure the effect of recommending a traditional homemade diet (exemplified by typical meals consumed in Mexico) vs. recommending an iso-caloric healthy diet (represented by the eatwell plate) on the weight of Mexican women with overweight or obesity. Initially 159 women were randomly assigned to the homemade diet or the healthy diet and 30 women completed the intervention. The effect on weight of the recommended diet at 4, 8 and 12 weeks was determined by one-way analysis of variance and by random regression model. Participants on average reduced weight significantly throughout the intervention without statistical difference between the homemade diet and the healthy diet. This finding supports an anti-obesity strategy of recommending traditional diets in culturally recognised terms.
... La UNESCO (2010) reconoce las tradiciones culinarias mexicanas como patrimonio mundial que las familias en México mantienen pese al aumento en consumo de alimentos procesados fuera del hogar (Lachat et al., 2012). Hemos llamado la atención a que estas preparaciones alimentarias típicas mexicanas incluyen los grupos de alimentos del plato del bien comer y que en las proporciones adecuadas podrían promover un peso saludable (Laguna Camacho, 2017;Napier et al., 2017;Serrano-Plata et al., 2019). Sin embargo, hasta ahora no se ha examinado si recomendar una dieta típica mexicana reduce peso. ...
Full-text available
Las guías dietéticas oficiales para bajar peso incluyen la práctica de una “alimentación saludable”, sin embargo, tales recomendaciones no siempre comprenden el contexto cultural. El objetivo de este estudio fue medir el efecto de recomendar una dieta descrita como casera (ejemplificada por preparaciones de comidas típicas consumidas en México) vs. recomendar una dieta isocalórica descrita como saludable (representada por el plato del bien comer) en el peso de mujeres mexicanas con sobrepeso u obesidad. Inicialmente fueron asignadas al azar 159 mujeres a la dieta casera o la dieta saludable y 30 mujeres completaron la intervención. El efecto sobre el peso de la dieta recomendada a 4, 8 y 12 semanas se determinó por análisis de varianza unifactorial y por modelo de regresión aleatorio. Las participantes en promedio bajaron significativamente de peso durante la intervención sin diferencia estadística significativa entre la dieta casera y la dieta saludable. Este hallazgo apoya la estrategia contra la obesidad de recomendar dietas tradicionales en términos reconocidos culturalmente.
... Interest in culturally appropriate care for refugees and asylum-seekers in highincome countries has also been rising (Knipper, Seeleman, and Essink 2010), recognising that immigrants are especially vulnerable to inequalities in access to healthcare. Special emphasis has been put on training healthcare workers in transcultural skills in these settings (Ekblad 2004;Coker 2004;Napier et al. 2017;Knipper, Akinci, and Soydan 2010). Much less consideration has been given to this kind of approach for refugee populations in spaces geographically and culturally closer to their home country. ...
Full-text available
Despite a surge in initiatives to integrate foreign-trained physicians into local health systems and a drive to learn from localised humanitarian initiatives under the COVID-19 pandemic, we still know little about the on-the-ground strategies developed by refugee doctors to meet the needs of refugee patients. In Lebanon, displaced Syrian health professionals have mounted informal, local responses to care for displaced Syrian patients. Drawing on ethnographic work shadowing these healthcare providers across their medical and non-medical activities, we explore how clinical encounters characterised by shared histories of displacement can inform humanitarian medicine. Our findings shed light on the creation of breathing spaces in crises. In particular, our study reveals how displaced healthcare workers cope with uncertainty, documents how displaced healthcare workers expand the category of ‘appropriate care’ to take into account the economic and safety challenges faced by patients, and locates the category of ‘informality’ within a complex landscape of myriad actors in Lebanon. This research article shows that refugee-to-refugee healthcare is not restricted to improvised clinical encounters between ‘frontliners’ and ‘victims of war’. Rather, it is proactively enacted from the ground up to foster appropriate care relationships in the midst of violent, repeated, and protracted disruptions to systems of care.
Purpose Parent-implemented early communication interventions are commonly delivered to culturally and linguistically diverse families. Although there is evidence from fields such as public health or psychology, there is little guidance regarding what elements to culturally adapt for parent-implemented speech-language pathology interventions. This scoping review addresses this gap by identifying parent-implemented early communication interventions that have been culturally adapted and describing which intervention components were adapted. Definitions of culture, use of adaptation frameworks, and adaptation guidelines, policies, and recommendations are also reported. Method The databases Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase via OVID were searched. Supplementary search methods, including hand-searching of references and a gray literature search, were also conducted. Covidence software was used to deduplicate, collate, and review articles. Population, intervention, study, and cultural adaptation data were extracted and synthesized using the Ecological Validity Framework. Results Twenty-one articles were included from the database and supplementary searches. No studies defined culture, and only three used cultural adaptation models or frameworks to guide adaptation. Studies varied greatly in what they adapted; language adaptations, such as translation, were conducted most frequently, and intervention goals were rarely adapted. Only three studies obtained parent feedback to inform cultural adaptation for future recommendations. Conclusions More clarity in the reporting of cultural adaptation for communication interventions is required. Cultural adaptation frameworks are useful tools to guide adaptation but can be difficult to operationalize. Additional research in this area is necessary to help clinicians provide culturally responsive, parent-implemented communication interventions. Supplemental Material
The rampant spread of COVID-19 has created a catastrophic surge of pandemic pandemonium, with many countries unprepared and under-resourced to address this global public health crisis. At the onset of the pandemic, COVID-19 communication stringently adopted a public health strategy, but there remains an urgency to indigenise global health responses through the lens of glocal knowledge, cultural contexts, and challenges emanating from behavioural change complexities. Two trajectories account for the rise of health communication: the first sets health on the agenda of public health and health promotion, while the second contextualises health communication as a subdiscipline within the field of communication for development and social change. Health communication, embedded within the field of communication for development and social change, allows for a theorisation and critique of public health issues in a South African context through localised cultural contexts and draws impetus to community engagement. This chapter offers a reflective discussion of these theoretical perspectives in the context of the initial phases of the South Africa lockdown. This study adopts a communication for development and social change lens to discuss and critique the initial public health approach of physical distancing in communities during the initial phase of the South African lockdown and how it was localised at community levels. In many cases, deep rural communities have localised their COVID-19 responses, reconstructing and adapting the dominant health messages in marginalised settings, affirming the presence of a glocalised COVID-19 communicative response. This chapter argues that COVID-19 prevention strategies are likely to yield better health outcomes when community voices and dialogue are integrated as part of a comprehensive preventive approach for South African communities.
Full-text available
Background: Engagement frameworks provide the conceptual structure for consumer engagement in healthcare decision making, but the level to which these frameworks support culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) consumer engagement is not known. Objective: This study aimed to investigate how consumer engagement is conceptualised and operationalized and to determine the implications of current consumer engagement frameworks for engagement with CALD consumers. Method: Altheide's document analysis approach was used to guide a systematic search, selection and analytic process. Australian Government health department websites were searched for eligible publicly available engagement frameworks. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Results: Eleven engagement frameworks published between 2007 and 2019 were identified and analysed. Only four frameworks discussed engagement with CALD consumers distinctly. Organisational prerequisites to enhance engagement opportunities and approaches to enable activities of engagement were highlighted to improve CALD consumers' active participation in decision making; however, these largely focused on language, with limited exploration of culturally sensitive services. Conclusion: There is limited discussion of what culturally sensitive services look like and what resources are needed to enhance CALD consumer engagement in high-level decision making. Health services and policy makers can enhance opportunities for engagement with CALD consumers by being flexible in their approach, implementing policies for reimbursement for participation and evaluating and adapting the activities of engagement in collaboration with CALD consumers. Patient/public contribution: This study is part of a wider 'CanEngage' project, which includes a consumer investigator, and is supported by a consumer advisory group. The study was conceived with inputs from the consumer advisory group, which continued to meet regularly with the project team to discuss the methodology and emerging findings.
The body is not only a cultural object in illness or affliction. Bodily experience is also structured through the symbolic category of health. Health, like illness, is a concept grounded in the experiences and concerns of everyday life. While there is not the same urgency to explain health as there is to account for serious illness, thoughts about health easily evoke reflections about the quality of physical, emotional, and social existence. Like illness, it is a category of experience that reveals tacit assumptions about individual and social reality. Talking about health is a way people give expression to our culture’s notions of well-being or quality of life. Health is a ‘key word,’ a generative concept, a value attached to or suggestive of other cardinal values. ‘Health’ provides a means for personal and social evaluation.
This article examines what is said to be un/known about obesity and the ways in which attributions of knowledge or ignorance circulate in the field of public health nutrition. Risks caused by individual behaviors have been an overstated concern in public health. Obesity, like many of today’s complex problems, is determined by myriad nested interactions spanning the political economies of market regulation, modes of agricultural production, the biochemistry of appetite regulation, and changing family structures. Yet public intervention—and the science produced to validate it—remains wedded to a mode of intervening that has limited purchase on the complexity with which it contends. This article draws on scholarship on the social construction of ignorance to argue that the field of evidence in obesity science is fashioned in a way that deflects attention (and responsibility) away from questions of food production and marketing and continues to frame the problem as one of individual responsibility. Rather than discrediting the veracity of evidence produced out of industry-research partnerships that increasingly dominate public health research, this article examines how the field of evidence has been structured by these relations. It argues that the demonstration of causal relations between political and socioeconomic determinants of malnutrition and measurable health indexes is largely impossible, not simply because of the absence of good evidence but because the existing parameters of good science cannot straightforwardly reveal such relations. This, in turn, is due to the configuration of the knowable in terms of whether knowledge can be made operational.
When People Come First critically assesses the expanding field of global health. It brings together an international and interdisciplinary group of scholars to address the medical, social, political, and economic dimensions of the global health enterprise through vivid case studies and bold conceptual work. The book demonstrates the crucial role of ethnography as an empirical lantern in global health, arguing for a more comprehensive, people-centered approach. Topics include the limits of technological quick fixes in disease control, the moral economy of global health science, the unexpected effects of massive treatment rollouts in resource-poor contexts, and how right-to-health activism coalesces with the increased influence of the pharmaceutical industry on health care. The contributors explore the altered landscapes left behind after programs scale up, break down, or move on. We learn that disease is really never just one thing, technology delivery does not equate with care, and biology and technology interact in ways we cannot always predict. The most effective solutions may well be found in people themselves, who consistently exceed the projections of experts and the medical-scientific, political, and humanitarian frameworks in which they are cast. When People Come First sets a new research agenda in global health and social theory and challenges us to rethink the relationships between care, rights, health, and economic futures.
Weighing In takes on the "obesity epidemic," challenging many widely held assumptions about its causes and consequences. Julie Guthman examines fatness and its relationship to health outcomes to ask if our efforts to prevent "obesity" are sensible, efficacious, or ethical. She also focuses the lens of obesity on the broader food system to understand why we produce cheap, over-processed food, as well as why we eat it. Guthman takes issue with the currently touted remedy to obesity-promoting food that is local, organic, and farm fresh. While such fare may be tastier and grown in more ecologically sustainable ways, this approach can also reinforce class and race inequalities and neglect other possible explanations for the rise in obesity, including environmental toxins. Arguing that ours is a political economy of bulimia-one that promotes consumption while also insisting upon thinness-Guthman offers a complex analysis of our entire economic system.
In response to health concerns arising from the consumption of highly processed foods, the world's largest food and beverage manufacturing corporations (i.e. ‘Big Food’) have responded by modifying their existing products and introducing new products with ‘improved’ nutrient profiles. Three distinct strategies used by food corporations to nutritionally engineer and market their products will be identified: the reformulation of foods to reduce levels of harmful food components, the micronutrient fortification of products to address micronutrient deficiencies, and the functionalization of products that claim to provide optimal nutrition and health benefits. These nutritional strategies gain scientific legitimacy by drawing upon the dominant nutritional ideology of ‘nutritionism’, which is characterized by a reductive focus on nutrients as a way of understanding a food's effects on dietary health. Food and beverage corporations promote these nutritional strategies as an important part of their corporate social responsibility agendas, and as evidence that they are addressing the health issues associated with both over-nutrition and under-nutrition. However, these corporations are also using these nutritional strategies to legitimize and grow the markets for their products in the global North and South.
This article explores the process of consolidating technical and historically contingent ideas about nourishment into seemingly straightforward terms such as vitamins and minerals. I study the adoption of scientific principles of abstraction and reduction as a strategy of nutrition education in three Guatemalan highland sites: an elementary school classroom, a rural clinic, and the obesity outpatient center of Guatemala's third-largest public hospital. I show that despite its pretense of simplicity, the reductionism of nutritional black-boxing produces confusion. Moreover, dietary education not dependent upon simplified and fixed rules and standards may be more intelligible to people seeking nourishment in their lives.
Various authors have noted that interethnic group and intraethnic group racism are significant stressors for many African Americans. As such, intergroup and intragroup racism may play a role in the high rates of morbidity and mortality in this population. Yet, although scientific examinations of the effects of stress have proliferated, few researchers have explored the psychological, social, and physiological effects of perceived racism among African Americans. The purpose of this article was to outline a biopsychosocial model for perceived racism as a guide for future research. The first section of this article provides a brief overview of how racism has been conceptualized in the scientific literature. The second section reviews research exploring the existence of intergroup and intragroup racism. A contextual model for systematic studies of the biopsychosocial effects of perceived racism is then presented, along with recommendations for future research.