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.

Do conceptualisations of health differ across social strata? A concept mapping study among lay people.

OBJECTIVES: The legitimacy of policies that aim at tackling socioeconomic inequalities in health can be challenged if they do not reflect the conceptualisations of health that are valued in all strata. Therefore, this study analyses how different socioeconomic groups formulate their own answers regarding: what does health mean to you? DESIGN: Concept mapping procedures were performed in three groups that differ in educational level. All procedures followed exactly the same design. SETTING: Area of the city of Utrecht, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Lay persons with a lower, intermediate and higher educational level (±15/group). RESULTS: The concept maps for the three groups consisted of nine, eight and seven clusters each, respectively. Four clusters occurred in all groups: absence of disease/disabilities, health-related behaviours, social life, attitude towards life. The content of some of these differed between groups, for example, behaviours were interpreted as having opportunities to behave healthily in the lower education group, and in terms of their impact on health in the higher education group. Other clusters appeared to be specific for particular groups, such as autonomy (intermediate/higher education group). Finally, ranking ranged from a higher ranking of the positively formulated aspects in the higher education group (eg, lust for life) to that of the negatively formulated aspects in the lower education group (eg, having no chronic disease). CONCLUSION: Our results provide indications to suggest that people in lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to show a conceptualisation of health that refers to (1) the absence of health threats (vs positive aspects), (2) a person within his/her circumstances (vs quality of own body/mind), (3) the value of functional (vs hedonistic) notions and (4) an accepting (vs active) attitude towards life.