Health Promotion International Advance Access originally published online on October 18, 2007
Health Promotion International 2007 22(4):307-315; doi:10.1093/heapro/dam028
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Window of opportunity for intersectoral health policy in Sweden—open, half-open or half-shut?
1School of Public Health, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland 2Department of Public Health, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
* Corresponding author. E-mail: louise.nilunger.mannheimer{at}ki.se
 |
Abstract |
|---|
‘Health in All Policies’ (HiAP) is defined as a ‘horizontal, complementary policy-related strategy with a high potential for contributing to population health’. To ensure that health impacts are highlighted across sectors, the support of actors in different sectors, not just the health sector, is needed. Public health, here defined as a universally important but a low prioritized politics area, needs to involve high politics areas to fulfil the HiAP strategy. This study aimed to analyse the agenda setting, formulation, initiation and implementation of the intersectoral public health policy and one tool of HiAP, health impact assessment (HIA), at the national and local level (exemplified by Stockholm County) in Sweden. A literature search was carried out of scientific and grey literature on intersectoral health policy and HIA in Sweden. The study was a policy analysis, using a content analysis method, and the theoretical framework of Kingdon where the results were examined through problem identification (why a window of opportunity opens for an intersectoral health policy and HIA), the factors and impact of politics (support for the formulation and implementation of policy) and policy (how best to solve the problem). The results showed that actors perceived the problems (the rationale) differently depending on their agenda and interest. Politicians and experts had a high impact on the formulation of the policy, agreeing on the policy goals. However, there was little focus on implementation plans implying that the political actors were not in agreement, and the experts sometimes showing conflicting evidence-based opinions on how to best ensure the policy. Without this in place, it is difficult to involve high politics areas, and vice versa, without the involvement of high politics, it is difficult to achieve the policy. However, this is a long-term process, where small steps need to be taken, leaving the policy window half-shut.
Key words: health politics; health impact assessment; policy and implementation analysis