Suchergebnisse

Part I. Conceptual Introduction -- Chapter 1. Public health political science: The view from public health Anita Kothari -- Chapter 2. Public health political science: The view from political science Scott Greer -- Chapter 3. Political science for, of, and with public health Patrick Fafard, Isaac Weldon and Adèle Cassola -- Part II. Democratising Evidence and Institutionalizing Expertise -- Chapter 4. Mechanisms to bridge the gap between science and politics in evidence-informed policymaking Adèle Cassola, Patrick Fafard and Steven J. Hoffman -- Chapter 5. How policy appetites shape, and are shaped by evidence production and use Kathryn Oliver -- Chapter 6. Democratizing efforts to 'bridge' public health research and policy Kat Smith -- Part III. Reconciling Evidence and Politics in National and Local Policymaking -- Chapter 7. How corporate actors shape and mobilise evidence for policy: The case of e-cigarettes policy in the UK Benjamin R. Hawkins & Kathryn Oliver -- Chapter 8. The politics of pandemics Katherine Fierlbeck, Kevin McNamara, and Maureen MacDonald -- Chapter 9. Council collects the evidence garbage and deposits it into policy landfill Evelyne de Leeuw -- Chapter 10. Sidestepping the stalemate: The strategies of public health actors for circulating evidence into the policy process Carole Clavier, France Gagnon and Blake Poland -- Chapter 11. The politics of evidence-based 'Health in All Policies' Paul Cairney, Emily St Denny and Heather Mitchell -- Chapter 12. Developing a policy framework to reduce social inequities in health: (Moving beyond HiAP) Ditte Heering Holt & Katherine Frohlich -- Conclusion. Integrating science and politics for public health Patrick Fafard, Evelyne de Leeuw and Adèle Cassola.

The literature on the evidence-policy nexus has been dominated in recent years by technocratic approaches such as 'knowledge translation'. Attention is beginning to return, however, to political science for its insights into the distribution of power, which are key to understanding how policy is made, particularly in the health sphere. Policy network theory, which suggests that policy outcomes are shaped by the interactions between actors in a network, points to the configuration of networks as an important focus of study. However, policy outcomes also depend on the agency of the actors themselves; actors who use language to frame issues in certain ways in order to create change. While 'policy networks' and 'policy frames' have each received attention, there is a need for analytical tools which allow us to examine the interaction between network structure and frames. The paper describes a novel approach to aligning network structure and frames, which we tested using a single policy case study analysing submissions to a specific policy process. Overlaying policy frames with a network map, we were able to identify 'boundary spanners' who could connect the agendas of different parts of the network. We explain our analytic approach and the technical tools available to support it, and encourage researchers interested in the interface between evidence and policy to build on this approach.

Global public health agreements are heralded as a success for the affirmation of the right to health within a complex and contested political landscape. However, the practical implementation of such agreements at the national level is often overlooked. This article outlines two radically different global health agreements: The Doha Declaration on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement and Public Health; and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). We identify significant challenges in their implementation, particularly for low and middle income countries. Shifts in the policy network constellations around these two agreements have allowed for some positive influence by civil society. Yet industry influence at the national level constrains effective implementation and those affected by these policies have largely been left on the periphery. The broader provisions of these two agreements have been watered down by vested interests and donor conditions. We advocate for both activist and academic actors to play a significant role in highlighting the consequences of these power asymmetries. Deliberative democracy may be the key to addressing these challenges in a way that empowers those presently excluded from effective participation in the policy process.

AbstractThe value of place‐based initiatives in the design and delivery of human services has long been recognised, but the need for hybrid service delivery to clients—that is any combination of online and in‐person modalities—has become more apparent in the wake of the COVID‐19 pandemic. At face value, there may be a perceived contradiction between the reliance on geographical place in place‐based initiatives and online service delivery. Yet, it is inevitable that human services will increasingly be delivered in a hybrid form—even in the context of place‐based initiatives. This exploratory study included a modified Delphi method and deliberative panels with policymakers, service providers, and academics with experience and/or knowledge of hybrid place‐based initiatives. A central finding was the lack of respondents' shared understanding and ability to link the three central intersecting ideas being examined in this research: 'hybrid' and 'place‐based' and 'human services'. The principles underpinning place‐based initiatives need to be retained when incorporating online service delivery within place‐based initiatives. This reflects the need to develop a shared lexicon on hybrid place‐based initiatives and more creative understandings and interpretations of the relationship between people and place.Points for practitioners
Increasingly, human services are being designed, implemented, and delivered through place‐based initiatives, yet the success of place‐based initiatives often relies on more than just face‐to‐face service delivery.
The COVID‐19 pandemic shifted many human services online, but how this has impacted on place‐based initiatives and their defining features of co‐location, collaboration, and co‐design has not been explored to date.
Following the pandemic, both service providers and clients see the benefit in retaining and integrating face‐to‐face and online services, without understanding how best to achieve this with place‐based initiatives.
This study draws on practices developed during the pandemic to understand how to best provide hybrid services (integrating in‐person and online services) and shows the relevance of hybrid services to place‐based initiatives and considerations moving forward.