Abstract
OBJECTIVE—It is generally accepted that a wide range of factors determine the health of a population, many of which are beyond the remit of the Ministry of Health. The aim of intersectoral health policy is to influence these factors. Success depends on a multi-stage process. This paper aims to provide support for the first stage of this process in the form of a quick scan for appraising the feasibility of intersectoral health policy. DESIGN—The content of the quick scan for intersectoral health policy was derived from a literature review. To determine the usefulness of this quick scan, the study looked at two examples in the policy sectors of education and safety. MAIN RESULTS—The quick scan distinguishes between three factors: (1) the availability of evidence, (2) the degree of support, and (3) the availability of tools for implementation. The quick scan made it possible to review the two policy sectors systematically in a relatively short time and to obtain sufficient information for priority setting in intersectoral health policy. The examples in this paper suggest that intersectoral health policy for community safety is more feasible than intersectoral policy for psychosocial problems in secondary education. However, specific information is required for a more precise assessment of feasibility. CONCLUSIONS—There are many ways of improving health through intersectoral health policy. The proposed quick scan may provide systematic support for setting priorities before developing policies of this kind. Keywords: intersectoral health policy; priority setting
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (120.7 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Durlak J. A., Wells A. M. Evaluation of indicated preventive intervention (secondary prevention) mental health programs for children and adolescents. Am J Community Psychol. 1998 Oct;26(5):775–802. doi: 10.1023/a:1022162015815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Durlak J. A., Wells A. M. Primary prevention mental health programs for children and adolescents: a meta-analytic review. Am J Community Psychol. 1997 Apr;25(2):115–152. doi: 10.1023/a:1024654026646. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gunning-Schepers L. J., Barendregt J. J. Timeless epidemiology or history cannot be ignored. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992 Apr;45(4):365–372. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90037-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lerer L. B. Health impact assessment. Health Policy Plan. 1999 Jun;14(2):198–203. doi: 10.1093/heapol/14.2.198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lock K. Health impact assessment. BMJ. 2000 May 20;320(7246):1395–1398. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7246.1395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Milio N. Priorities and strategies for promoting community-based prevention policies. J Public Health Manag Pract. 1998 May;4(3):14–28. doi: 10.1097/00124784-199805000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Plamping D., Gordon P., Pratt J. Practical partnerships for health and local authorities. BMJ. 2000 Jun 24;320(7251):1723–1725. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7251.1723. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ratner P. A., Green L. W., Frankish C. J., Chomik T., Larsen C. Setting the stage for health impact assessment. J Public Health Policy. 1997;18(1):67–79. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Scott-Samuel A. Health impact assessment--theory into practice. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998 Nov;52(11):704–705. doi: 10.1136/jech.52.11.704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Van Herten L. M., Gunning-Shepers L. J. Targets as a tool in health policy. Part II: Guidelines for application. Health Policy. 2000 Aug;53(1):13–23. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(00)00082-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]