Co-producing knowledge of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) health-care inequalities via rapid reviews of grey literature in 27 EU Member States.

BACKGROUND: The health inequalities experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) people are well documented with several reviews of global research summarizing key inequalities. These reviews also show how the health-care needs of LGBTI people are often poorly understood whilst suggesting that targeted initiatives to reduce inequalities should involve LGBTI people. OBJECTIVES: To determine what is known about the health-care inequalities faced by LGBTI people? What are the barriers faced by LGBTI people whilst accessing health care, and health professionals when providing care? What examples of promising practice exist? DESIGN: Rapid reviews of grey literature were co-produced with LGBTI people in 27 countries followed by a thematic analysis and synthesis across all data sets. The review included grey literature from each country that might not otherwise be accessible due to language barriers. MAIN RESULTS: Rapid reviews showed that LGBTI people faced various inequalities and barriers whilst accessing health care. Where heterosexuality, binary gender and assumed male/female sex characteristics were upheld as the norm, and where LGBTI people differed from these norms, discrimination could result. In consultations where LGBTI people feared discrimination and did not disclose their LGBTI status, health professionals lacked the information required for appropriate assessments. CONCLUSION: With greater understanding of sexual orientation (LGB people), gender identity (trans people) and sex characteristics (intersex people), combined with access to contemporary knowledge and training, health professionals can work in collaboration with researchers, policymakers and LGBTI people to develop systems that are better attuned to the needs of all service users.

An overview of future EU health systems. An insight into governance, primary care, data collection and citizens' participation.

Background: Health systems in the European Union (EU) are being questioned over their effectiveness and sustainability. In pursuing both goals, they have to conciliate coexisting, not always aligned, realities. Methods: This paper originated from a workshop entitled 'Health systems for the future' held at the European Parliament. Experts and decision makers were asked to discuss measures that may increase the effectiveness and sustainability of health systems, namely: (i) increasing citizens' participation; (ii) the importance of primary care in providing integrated services; (iii) improving the governance and (iv) fostering better data collection and information channels to support the decision making process. Results: In the parliamentary debate, was discussed the concept that, in the near future, health systems' effectiveness and sustainability will very much depend on effective access to integrated services where primary care is pivotal, a clearer shift from care-oriented systems to health promotion and prevention, a profound commitment to good governance, particularly to stakeholders participation, and a systematic reuse of data meant to build health data-driven learning systems. Conclusions: Many health issues, such as future health systems in the EU, are potentially transformative and hence an intense political issue. It is policy-making leadership that will mostly determine how well EU health systems are prepared to face future challenges.

The role of community social capital in the relationship between socioeconomic status and adolescent life satisfaction: mediating or moderating? Evidence from Czech data.

BACKGROUND: The concept of social capital has been extensively used to explain the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and adolescent health and well-being. Much less is known about the specific mechanism through which social capital impacts the relationship. This paper investigates whether an individual's perception of community social capital moderates or mediates the association between SES and life satisfaction. METHODS: This study employs cross-sectional data from the 2009-2010 Czech Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children survey: a WHO Collaborative Cross-National Study (HBSC). A sample of 4425 adolescents from the 5th, 7th and 9th grade (94.5% school response rate, 87% student response) was used to perform multilevel analysis. RESULTS: We found that pupils' life satisfaction was positively related to both family affluence and perceived wealth. Moreover, we found the cognitive component of social capital to be positively associated with life satisfaction. Additionally, a significant interaction was found, such that the social gradient in life satisfaction was flattened when pupils reported high levels of perceived community social capital. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest that community social capital acts as an unequal health resource for adolescents, but could potentially represent opportunities for public health policy to close the gap in socioeconomic disparities.

Advocacy for health equity: a synthesis review.

UNLABELLED: POLICY POINTS: Many barriers hamper advocacy for health equity, including the contemporary economic zeitgeist, the biomedical health perspective, and difficulties cooperating across policy sectors on the issue. Effective advocacy should include persistent efforts to raise awareness and understanding of the social determinants of health. Education on the social determinants as part of medical training should be encouraged, including professional training within disadvantaged communities. Advocacy organizations have a central role in advocating for health equity given the challenges bridging the worlds of civil society, research, and policy. CONTEXT: Health inequalities are systematic differences in health among social groups that are caused by unequal exposure to-and distributions of-the social determinants of health (SDH). They are persistent between and within countries despite action to reduce them. Advocacy is a means of promoting policies that improve health equity, but the literature on how to do so effectively is dispersed. The aim of this review is to synthesize the evidence in the academic and gray literature and to provide a body of knowledge for advocates to draw on to inform their efforts. METHODS: This article is a systematic review of the academic literature and a fixed-length systematic search of the gray literature. After applying our inclusion criteria, we analyzed our findings according to our predefined dimensions of advocacy for health equity. Last, we synthesized our findings and made a critical appraisal of the literature. FINDINGS: The policy world is complex, and scientific evidence is unlikely to be conclusive in making decisions. Timely qualitative, interdisciplinary, and mixed-methods research may be valuable in advocacy efforts. The potential impact of evidence can be increased by "packaging" it as part of knowledge transfer and translation. Increased contact between researchers and policymakers could improve the uptake of research in policy processes. Researchers can play a role in advocacy efforts, although health professionals and disadvantaged people, who have direct contact with or experience of hardship, can be particularly persuasive in advocacy efforts. Different types of advocacy messages can accompany evidence, but messages should be tailored to advocacy target. Several barriers hamper advocacy efforts. The most frequently cited in the academic literature are the current political and economic zeitgeist and related public opinion, which tend to blame disadvantaged people for their ill health, even though biomedical approaches to health and political short-termism also act as barriers. These barriers could be tackled through long-term actions to raise public awareness and understanding of the SDH and through training of health professionals in advocacy. Advocates need to take advantage of "windows of opportunity," which open and close quickly, and demonstrate expertise and credibility. CONCLUSIONS: This article brings together for the first time evidence from the academic and the gray literature and provides a building block for efforts to advocate for health equity. Evidence regarding many of the dimensions is scant, and additional research is merited, particularly concerning the applicability of findings outside the English-speaking world. Advocacy organizations have a central role in advocating for health equity, given the challenges bridging the worlds of civil society, research, and policy.

Strengthening the European Semester to Achieve Economies of Wellbeing.

The environmental crisis, growing levels of social inequalities and rising levels of noncommunicable diseases are all symptoms of economic systems that are failing to generate wellbeing. There is increasing support for the notion that addressing these crises requires shifting the focus from economic growth to a broader range of measures that reflect wellbeing, through more comprehensive, consistent and integrated policy approaches to deliver this. In 2019, the EU Finnish Council Presidency Council Conclusions called amongst other things for the development of a new long-term, post-2020 strategy to provide the framework for horizontal assessment and cross-sectoral collaboration, in particular through the European Semester process. This article contextualises this call and explores its follow-up. It draws from key policy documents to explore what Economies of Wellbeing are, why and how the concept has emerged and how they can be put in place. It then explores to what extent this concept is being applied at the EU level, by tracking changes in some of the EU's key policies and strategies over the past 10 years and in the Semester process, as a mechanism to implement them. It concludes that while progress towards more comprehensive, consistent and integrated policy approaches has been made in the context of the Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy, underpinning the Semester processes, it is limited by the continuing emphasis on economic, over other policy, areas. It also argues that the process needs to be broadened even further, to include other dimensions of wellbeing, which intersect with the economy and impact wellbeing. To strengthen the European Semester process to achieve Economies of Wellbeing, it should be put at the service of an even more consistent and comprehensive EU Strategy that enables policy sectors to deliver wellbeing objectives in a more integrated and coordinated manner. This paper ends with recommendations for action.

A comparison of social prescribing approaches across twelve high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing connects patients with community resources to improve their health and well-being. It is gaining momentum globally due to its potential for addressing non-medical causes of illness while building on existing resources and enhancing overall health at a relatively low cost. The COVID-19 pandemic further underscored the need for policy interventions to address health-related social issues such as loneliness and isolation. AIM: This paper presents evidence of the conceptualisation and implementation of social prescribing schemes in twelve countries: Australia, Austria, Canada, England, Finland, Germany, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, the Netherlands, the United States and Wales. METHODS: Twelve countries were identified through the Health Systems and Policy Monitor (HSPM) network and the EuroHealthNet Partnership. Information was collected through a twelve open-ended question survey based on a conceptual model inspired by the WHO's Health System Framework. RESULTS: We found that social prescribing can take different forms, and the scale of implementation also varies significantly. Robust evidence on impact is scarce and highly context-specific, with some indications of cost-effectiveness and positive impact on well-being. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides insights into social prescribing in various contexts and may guide countries interested in holistically tackling health-related social factors and strengthening community-based care. Policies can support a more seamless integration of social prescribing into existing care, improve collaboration among sectors and training programs for health and social care professionals.

Does neighbourhood social capital aid in levelling the social gradient in the health and well-being of children and adolescents? A literature review.

BACKGROUND: Although most countries in the European Union are richer and healthier than ever, health inequalities remain an important public health challenge. Health-related problems and premature death have disproportionately been reported in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Neighbourhood social capital is believed to influence the association between neighbourhood deprivation and health in children and adolescents, making it a potentially interesting concept for policymakers. METHODS: This study aims to review the role of social capital in health inequalities and the social gradient in health and well-being of children and adolescents. A systematic review of published quantitative literature was conducted, focussing on (1) the mediating role of neighbourhood social capital in the relationship between socio-economic status (SES) and health-related outcomes in children and adolescents and (2) the interaction between neighbourhood social capital and socio-economic characteristics in relation to health-related outcomes in children and adolescents. Three electronic databases were searched. Studies executed between 1 January 1990 and 1 September 2011 in Western countries (USA, New Zealand, Australia and Europe) that included a health-related outcome in children or adolescents and a variable that measured neighbourhood social capital were included. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. The findings are mixed. Only two of five studies confirmed that neighbourhood social capital mediates the association between neighbourhood deprivation and health and well-being in adolescents. Furthermore, two studies found a significant interaction between neighbourhood socio-economic factors and neighbourhood social capital, which indicates that neighbourhood social capital is especially beneficial for children who reside in deprived neighbourhoods. However, two other studies did not find a significant interaction between SES and neighbourhood social capital. Due to the broad range of studied health-related outcomes, the different operationalisations of neighbourhood social capital and the conceptual overlap between measures of SES and social capital in some studies, the factors that explain these differences in findings remain unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Although the findings of this study should be interpreted with caution, the results suggest that neighbourhood social capital might play a role in the health gradient among children and adolescents. However, only two of the included studies were conducted in Europe. Furthermore, some studies focussed on specific populations and minority groups. To formulate relevant European policy recommendations, further European-focussed research on this issue is needed.

Nature-based biopsychosocial resilience: An integrative theoretical framework for research on nature and health.

Nature-based solutions including urban forests and wetlands can help communities cope better with climate change and other environmental stressors by enhancing social-ecological resilience. Natural ecosystems, settings, elements and affordances can also help individuals become more personally resilient to a variety of stressors, although the mechanisms underpinning individual-level nature-based resilience, and their relations to social-ecological resilience, are not well articulated. We propose 'nature-based biopsychosocial resilience theory' (NBRT) to address these gaps. Our framework begins by suggesting that individual-level resilience can refer to both: a) a person's set of adaptive resources; and b) the processes by which these resources are deployed. Drawing on existing nature-health perspectives, we argue that nature contact can support individuals build and maintain biological, psychological, and social (i.e. biopsychosocial) resilience-related resources. Together with nature-based social-ecological resilience, these biopsychosocial resilience resources can: i) reduce the risk of various stressors (preventive resilience); ii) enhance adaptive reactions to stressful circumstances (response resilience), and/or iii) facilitate more rapid and/or complete recovery from stress (recovery resilience). Reference to these three resilience processes supports integration across more familiar pathways involving harm reduction, capacity building, and restoration. Evidence in support of the theory, potential interventions to promote nature-based biopsychosocial resilience, and issues that require further consideration are discussed.

Encouraging and Enabling Lifestyles and Behaviours to Simultaneously Promote Environmental Sustainability, Health and Equity: Key Policy Messages from INHERIT.

Human consumption and activity are damaging the global ecosystem and the resources on which we rely for health, well-being and survival. The COVID-19 crisis is yet another manifestation of the urgent need to transition to more sustainable societies, further exposing the weaknesses in health systems and the injustice in our societies. It also underlines that many of the factors leading to environmental degradation, ill health and social and health inequities are interlinked. The current situation provides an unprecedented opportunity to invest in initiatives that address these common factors and encourage people to live more healthily and sustainably. Such initiatives can generate the positive feedback loops needed to change the systems and structures that shape our lives. INHERIT (January 2016-December 2019), an ambitious, multisectoral and transnational research project that involved 18 organisations across Europe, funded by the European Commission, explored such solutions. It identified, defined and analysed promising inter-sectoral policies, practices and approaches to simultaneously promote environmental sustainability, protect and promote health and contribute to health equity (the INHERIT "triple-win") and that can encourage and enable people to live, move and consume more healthfully and sustainably. It also explored the facilitators and barriers to working across sectors and in public private cooperation. The insights were brought together in guidelines setting out how policy makers can help instigate and support local "triple-win" initiatives that influence behaviours as an approach to contributing to the change that is so urgently needed to stem environmental degradation and the interlinked threats to health and wellbeing. This article sets out this guidance, providing timely insights on how to "build back better" in the post pandemic era.

Training healthcare professionals in LGBTI cultural competencies: Exploratory findings from the Health4LGBTI pilot project.

OBJECTIVES: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) people experience health inequalities and barriers to accessing healthcare at a greater rate than the general population. This paper aims to present the Health4LGBTI training course for healthcare workers and the results of its pilot implementation. METHODS: Funded by the European Parliament, the training course was developed by a multidisciplinary team including LGBTI organisations as part of the Health4LGBTI Project. 110 healthcare professionals from diverse medical fields attended the pilot training in six European Member States. Knowledge and attitudes were compared on the basis of a pre-post evaluation design utilising an ad hoc questionnaire. RESULTS: Knowledge scores increased after the training, irrespective of age and sexual orientation of participants. Attitudes scores generally improved, particularly in terms of inclusivity and a greater acknowledgement of LGBTI health needs and self-competence. CONCLUSION: The Health4LGBTI training course is both feasible and effective in training healthcare professionals and support staff to improve cultural competence and thereby promoting inclusive healthcare practice. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The Health4LGBTI training course can be implemented in different healthcare contexts. Piloting of the course provided an opportunity for healthcare professionals and for support staff to improve their knowledge of, and attitudes towards, LGBTI people.

Ten Lessons for Good Practice for the INHERIT Triple Win: Health, Equity, and Environmental Sustainability.

The world's challenges of climate change, damage to ecosystems, and social and health inequalities require changes in human behaviours at every level of organisation, among governments, business, communities, and individuals. An important question is how behaviour change can be enabled and supported at the scale and speed required. The research reported in this paper describes important lessons for good practice in changing contexts to modify behaviours for a triple win for health, equity and environmental sustainability. Authors synthesised learning from qualitative, quantitative and cost benefit evaluations of 15 case studies conducted in 12 countries in Europe. The case studies address ways of living (green spaces and energy efficient housing), moving (active transport) and consuming (healthy and sustainable diets) that support the triple win. Ten lessons for good practice were identified. These include bringing a triple win mindset to policy and practice in planning interventions, with potential to improve environmental sustainability, health and equity at the same time. The lessons for good practice are intended to support governmental and non-governmental actors, practitioners and researchers planning to work across sectors to achieve mutual benefits for health and environmental sustainability and in particular to benefit poorer and more socio-economically disadvantaged groups.

The INHERIT Model: A Tool to Jointly Improve Health, Environmental Sustainability and Health Equity through Behavior and Lifestyle Change.

The need for analysis and action across the interrelated domains of human behaviors and lifestyles, environmental sustainability, health and inequality is increasingly apparent. Currently, these areas are often not considered in conjunction when developing policies or interventions, introducing the potential for suboptimal or conflicting outcomes. The INHERIT model has been developed within the EU-funded project INHERIT as a tool to guide thinking and intersectoral action towards changing the behaviors and lifestyles that play such an important role in today’s multidisciplinary challenges. The model integrates ecological public health and behavioral change models, emphasizing inequalities and those parts of the causal process that are influenced by human behaviors and lifestyles. The model was developed through web-based and live discussions with experts and policy stakeholders. To test the model’s usability, the model was applied to aspects of food consumption. This paper shows that the INHERIT model can serve as a tool to identify opportunities for change in important −food-related behaviors and lifestyles and to examine how they impact on health, health inequalities, and the environment in Europe and beyond. The INHERIT model helps clarify these interrelated domains, creating new opportunities to improve environmental health and health inequality, while taking our planetary boundaries into consideration.

‘Build forward better’ must include heavy investment in government capacities to engage with communities and civil society

Civil society and community groups are active players in the COVID-19 response, providing support, advice and information where government reach is poor. Yet most governments have not managed to bring civil society’s perspectives, insights, and experiences into the COVID-19 response in a systematic way. If the world is to ‘build forward better’, more regular and systematised government-civil society engagement will need to underpin a shifttowards more inclusive health governance. Doing so successfully will require heavy investments in capacity-building for government actors to value and feel comfortable managing and sustaining participatory spaces and in skills to bring forward the kind of governance needed to build resilience against the next pandemic.

Public health and health promotion capacity at national and regional level: a review of conceptual frameworks.

The concept of capacity building for public health has gained much attention during the last decade. National as well as international organizations increasingly focus their efforts on capacity building to improve performance in the health sector. During the past two decades, a variety of conceptual frameworks have been developed which describe relevant dimensions for public health capacity. Notably, these frameworks differ in design and conceptualization. This paper therefore reviews the existing conceptual frameworks and integrates them into one framework, which contains the most relevant dimensions for public health capacity at the country- or regional level. A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify frameworks addressing public health capacity building at the national or regional level. We content-analysed these frameworks to identify the core dimensions of public health capacity. The dimensions were subsequently synthesized into a set of thematic areas to construct a conceptual framework which describes the most relevant dimensions for capacities at the national- or regional level. The systematic review resulted in the identification of seven core domains for public health capacity: resources, organizational structures, workforce, partnerships, leadership and governance, knowledge development and country specific context. Accordingly, these dimensions were used to construct a framework, which describes these core domains more in detail. Our research shows that although there is no generally agreedupon model of public health capacity, a number of key domains for public health and health promotion capacity are consistently recurring in existing frameworks, regardless of their geographical location or thematic area. As only little work on the core concepts of public health capacities has yet taken place, this study adds value to the discourse by identifying these consistencies across existing frameworks and by synthesising them into a new framework. The framework proposed in this paper can act as a theoretical guide for academic researchers and institutions to set up their own public health capacity assessment. Significance for public healthAs the concept of public health capacities is increasingly debated across countries and national/ international organizations, there is no consensus on the main dimensions of public health capacity. This paper therefore provides a rigorous review of currently existing frameworks, which describe public health capacities at the national or regional level. The main objective is to highlight commonalities among these frameworks, and propose a country-level framework which integrates all reoccurring dimensions. Such a comparison can yield vital information on those dimensions for public health capacities, which are common across all frameworks, and hence could be considered indispensable, irrespective of their context or geographic origin. As such, this review and the subsequent presentation of a conceptual framework is targeted at academic researchers and policy makers, who are interested in setting up a capacity mapping process and who are looking for concepts and frameworks on which they can base their work.

Transitioning to more sustainable food systems that support health equity and wellbeing

There is now overwhelming evidence that current food systems are not sustainable, due to their detrimental impact on the environment, food-related health concerns, rise in chronic diseases and socio-economic impacts. At the institutional level, the seriousness of the situation has been acknowledged, but policies are still not sufficiently effective to resolve the challenge. We consider the over-reliance on and limits of the ‘business as usual’ approach, such as self-regulation by industry and focusing on changing individual behaviours in an unsustainable food environment. Instead, coordinated and systemic policies are needed that normalise sustainable and healthy food choice and practices for the whole population.