Rainbows over the world's public health: determinants of health models in the past, present, and future.

The need to visualise the complexity of the determinants of population health and their interactions inspired the development of the rainbow model. In this commentary we chronicle how variations of this model have emerged, including the initial models of Haglund and Svanström (1982), Dahlgren and Whitehead (1991), and the Östgöta model (2014), and we illustrate how these models have been influential in both public health and beyond. All these models have strong Nordic connections and are thus an important Nordic contribution to public health. Further, these models have underpinned and facilitated other examples of Nordic leadership in public health, including practical efforts to address health inequalities and design new health policy approaches.Apart from documenting the emergence of rainbow models and their wide range of contemporary uses, we examine a range of criticisms levelled at these models - including limitations in methodological development and in scope. We propose the time is ripe for an updated generic determinants of health model, one that elucidates and preserves the core value in older models, while recognising the developments that have occurred over the past decades in our understanding of the determinants of health. We conclude with an example of a generic model that fulfills the general purposes of a determinants of health model while maintaining the necessary scope for further adjustments to be made in the future, as well as adjustments to location or context-specific purposes, in education, research, health promotion and beyond.

Milestones in Nordic Health Promotion research.

Based on the storytelling tradition and analyses of conference material, this article provides an overview of the evolving Nordic Health Promotion Research Network (NHPRN) and its conferences over the last 20 years. The story goes from the planning of the first conference in Bergen, Norway, back in 1996 to the eighth conference in Jyväskylä, Finland, in 2016. There have been three phases of development. During the first phase, 1996-2007, the five first conferences were initiated and implemented by departments of public health in the Nordic countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) collaborative centres of Health Promotion in Bergen University and a group at Karolinska Institute, Department of Social Medicine, creating supportive environments for health in Stockholm played key roles in initiating and supporting NHPRN. During the second phase, 2007-2014, the network was strengthened and supported by the Nordic School of Public Health (NHV) in Gothenburg. The third phase started when NHV closed down in 2015 and networking activities were transferred to the European Office of WHO in Copenhagen. The Nordic Health Promotion Research Conference series has served several purposes and will continue to do so. They are important Nordic meeting places, stimulating Health Promotion research, as well as explicitly managing ongoing concerns in the international Health Promotion community. This is reflected in the shift of foci over time. The content of the conferences has been highly responsive to whatever challenges are particularly relevant at different points in time, while also contributing to developing Health Promotion as a discipline, given that every conference has built on the previous ones.

Leadership, organization and health at work: a case study of a Swedish industrial company.

The application of knowledge on organization and leadership is important for the promotion of health at workplace. The purpose of this article is to analyse the leadership and organization, including the organizational culture, of a Swedish industrial company in relation to the health of the employees. The leadership in this company has been oriented towards developing and actively promoting a culture and a structure of organization where the employees have a high degree of control over their work situation. According to the employees, this means extensive possibilities for personal development and responsibility, as well as good companionship, which makes them feel well at work. This is also supported by the low sickness rate of the company. The results indicate that the leadership and organization of this company may have been conducive to the health of the employees interviewed. However, the culture of personal responsibility and the structure of self-managed teams seemed to suit only those who were able to manage the demands of the company and adapt to that kind of organization. Therefore, the findings indicate that the specific context of the technology, the environment and the professional level of the employees need to be taken into consideration when analysing the relation between leadership, organization and health at work.

Cardiovascular risk and events in 17 low-,middle-, and high-income countries

BACKGROUNDMore than 80% of deaths from cardiovascular disease are estimated to occur inlow-income and middle-income countries, but the reasons are unknown.METHODSWe enrolled 156,424 persons from 628 urban and rural communities in 17 countries(3 high-income, 10 middle-income, and 4 low-income countries) and assessedtheir cardiovascular risk using the INTERHEART Risk Score, a validated score forquantifying risk-factor burden without the use of laboratory testing (with higherscores indicating greater risk-factor burden). Participants were followed for incidentcardiovascular disease and death for a mean of 4.1 years.RESULTSThe mean INTERHEART Risk Score was highest in high-income countries, intermediatein middle-income countries, and lowest in low-income countries (P<0.001).However, the rates of major cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascularcauses, myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure) were lower in high-incomecountries than in middle- and low-income countries (3.99 events per 1000 personyearsvs. 5.38 and 6.43 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; P<0.001). Casefatality rates were also lowest in high-income countries (6.5%, 15.9%, and 17.3%in high-, middle-, and low-income countries, respectively; P = 0.01). Urban communitieshad a higher risk-factor burden than rural communities but lower ratesof cardiovascular events (4.83 vs. 6.25 events per 1000 person-years, P<0.001) andcase fatality rates (13.52% vs. 17.25%, P<0.001). The use of preventive medicationsand revascularization procedures was significantly more common in high-incomecountries than in middle- or low-income countries (P<0.001).CONCLUSIONSAlthough the risk-factor burden was lowest in low-income countries, the rates ofmajor cardiovascular disease and death were substantially higher in low-incomecountries than in high-income countries. The high burden of risk factors in highincome...