Four normative perspectives on public health policy-making and their preferences for bodies of evidence.

Calls for evidence-informed public health policy-making often ignore that there are multiple, and often competing, bodies of potentially relevant evidence to which policy-makers have recourse in identifying policy priorities and taking decisions. In this paper, we illustrate how policy frames may favour the use of specific bodies of evidence. For the sixth Dutch Public Health Status and Foresight report (2014), possible future trends in population health and healthcare expenditure were used as a starting point for a deliberative dialogue with stakeholders to identify and formulate the most important societal challenges for the Dutch health system. Working with these stakeholders, we expanded these societal challenges into four normative perspectives on public health. These perspectives can be regarded as policy frames. In each of the perspectives, a specific body of evidence is favoured and other types of evidence are neglected. Crucial outcomes in one body may be regarded as irrelevant from other perspectives. Consequently, the results of research from a single body of evidence may not be helpful in the policy-making processes because policy-makers need to account for trade-offs between all competing interests and values. To support these policy processes, researchers need to combine qualitative and quantitative methodologies to address different outcomes from the start of their studies. We feel it is time for the research community to re-politicise the idea of evidence use and for policy-makers to demand research that helps them to account for all health-related policy goals. This is a prerequisite for real evidence-informed policy-making.

The Public Health Status and Foresight report 2014: Four normative perspectives on a healthier Netherlands in 2040.

Policy-oriented foresight reports aim to inform and advise decision-makers. In value-laden areas such as public health and healthcare, deliberative scenario methods are clearly needed. For the sixth Dutch Public Health Status and Forecasts-report (PHSF-2014), a new approach of co-creation was developed aiming to incorporate different societal norms and values in the description of possible future developments. The major future trends in the Netherlands were used as a starting point for a deliberative dialogue with stakeholders to identify the most important societal challenges for public health and healthcare. Four societal challenges were identified: 1) To keep people healthy as long as possible and cure illness promptly, 2) To support vulnerable people and enable social participation, 3) To promote individual autonomy and freedom of choice, and 4) To keep health care affordable. Working with stakeholders, we expanded these societal challenges into four corresponding normative scenarios. In a survey the normative scenarios were found to be recognizable and sufficiently distinctive. We organized meetings with experts to explore how engagement and policy strategies in each scenario would affect the other three societal challenges. Possible synergies and trade-offs between the four scenarios were identified. Public health foresight based on a business-as-usual scenario and normative scenarios is clearly practicable. The process and the outcomes support and elucidate a wide range of strategic discussions in public health.

Exceptions to the rule: healthy deprived areas and unhealthy wealthy areas.

In general, inhabitants of low socio-economic areas are unhealthier than inhabitants of high socio-economic areas, but some areas are an exception to this rule. These exceptions imply that other factors besides the socio-economic level of an area contribute to the health of the inhabitants of an area, e.g. environmental factors. In our study we concentrate on areas within the Netherlands that are healthier or unhealthier than could be expected based on their socio-economic level. This study first identifies these areas and secondly determines which area characteristics distinguish these areas from those areas where the level of health is in agreement with their socio-economic level. We used nation-wide data on neighbourhood differences in population composition (gender, age, marital status and ethnicity), urbanisation and two health indicators: mortality and hospitalisation rates. In the Netherlands, many areas are healthier or unhealthier than could be expected based on their income level alone. Areas with higher mortality rates than expected are mainly urban areas with high percentages of elderly people and persons living alone. Similar but opposite associations are observed for areas with lower mortality rates than expected, which are further characterised by a low percentage of non-western immigrants. Areas with lower hospitalisation rates than expected are mainly rural areas with few non-western immigrants. From these results, we conclude that urbanisation and residential segregation based on age, ethnicity and marital status might be important contributors to geographical health inequalities.

[The future of guidelines: an exploration based on the four perspectives of the PHSF-2014]. / De toekomst van richtlijnen: een verkenning aan de hand van de vier perspectieven van de VTV-2014.

In the Dutch Public Health Status and Foresight report (PHSF), the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment explores the future of public health and health care in the Netherlands up to 2040. In the first article of a short series on the PHSF 2014, we briefly explained the study and four normative perspectives on public health. In the second article, we described the most important future trends up to 2030. In this, the final article on the PHSF 2014, we use the four normative perspectives as a foresight of future guidelines. We make some recommendations in which normative diversity is taken into account. Our ultimate goal is to see our results and analyses also being put to use in other strategic discussions and determinations.

Residential environment and health: a review of methodological and conceptual issues.

Geographic patterns of poor health and mortality risk are found in most countries. Important health effects at the neighborhood level are mortality, general health, illness and disabilities, mental health, and healthcare utilization. Awareness of the influence of social class on health has been growing during the last decades. Studies show that individuals with lower socioeconomic status (SES) have a shorter life expectancy than do their 'well-off' counterparts. Yet SES-related health inequalities cannot be fully explained by individual characteristics, and environmental qualities should be taken into account. Many aspects of local areas that might be related to health or access to opportunities to live healthily are systematically poorer in socially disadvantaged areas. Such factors have the potential to explain health differences between deprived and prosperous neighborhoods. Investigating health differences at the neighborhood level implies conceptual as well as methodological issues pertaining to selection, accumulation, multiple level measurement, objective features versus perceptions, and time dynamic aspects. This article reviews such issues and evaluates several exemplary theoretical approaches from the fields of public health and environmental health in their ability to overcome such problems.

[A trend scenario and four perspectives for 2040: the Dutch Public Health Status and Forecast 2014]. / Een trendscenario en vier perspectieven voor 2040: de Volksgezondheid Toekomst Verkenning 2014.

In the Dutch Public Health Status and Forecast report (PHSF), the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment explores the future of public health and health care in the Netherlands until 2040. The PHSF-2014 will consist of four parts: (a) a description of public health in the Netherlands now and in the past; (b) future trends, based on model calculations and expert opinions; (c) future scenarios based on four normative perspectives on public health; and (d) opportunities and dilemmas in the prevention of future problems. In this first article of a short series on the PHSF-2014, we briefly explain these four parts of the study. In the next article, we will describe the most important future trends until 2030. In the final article, we will summarize the conclusions of the PHSF-2014.

Physical and mental health shortly after a disaster: first results from the Enschede firework disaster study.

OBJECTIVES: Two to three weeks after the explosion of a fireworks storage facility in a residential area (May 2000, Enschede, The Netherlands) we assessed the self-reported physical and mental health among those affected by the disaster. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted among 3792 residents, passers-by, and rescue workers, who were involved in and/or affected by the disaster and were > or =18 years of age. RESULTS: At least 30% of those affected by the disaster reported serious physical and mental health problems 2-3 weeks after the explosion. Compared with reference values in the general Dutch population, high scores were found for somatic symptoms, sleeping problems, and restrictions in daily functioning due to physical and mental problems, such as anxiety, depression, and feelings of insufficiency. The strength of these differences varied between groups, based on the level of involvement and the level of being affected. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the fireworks disaster had a substantial impact on the health of those affected by the disaster. The health impact was most pronounced for residents and passers-by and also for rescue workers living in the affected area, but to a lesser degree. Physical and mental health problems were strongly associated with the shocking experiences during and shortly after the disaster.