Prioritizing a research agenda on built environments and physical activity: a twin panel Delphi consensus process with researchers and knowledge users.

BACKGROUND: The growth of urban dwelling populations globally has led to rapid increases of research and policy initiatives addressing associations between the built environment and physical activity (PA). Given this rapid proliferation, it is important to identify priority areas and research questions for moving the field forward. The objective of this study was to identify and compare research priorities on the built environment and PA among researchers and knowledge users (e.g., policy makers, practitioners). METHODS: Between September 2022 and April 2023, a three-round, modified Delphi survey was conducted among two independent panels of international researchers (n = 38) and knowledge users (n = 23) to identify similarities and differences in perceived research priorities on the built environment and PA and generate twin 'top 10' lists of the most important research needs. RESULTS: From a broad range of self-identified issues, both panels ranked in common the most pressing research priorities including stronger study designs such as natural experiments, research that examines inequalities and inequities, establishing the cost effectiveness of interventions, safety and injuries related to engagement in active transportation (AT), and considerations for climate change and climate adaptation. Additional priorities identified by researchers included: implementation science, research that incorporates Indigenous perspectives, land-use policies, built environments that support active aging, and participatory research. Additional priorities identified by knowledge users included: built environments and PA among people living with disabilities and a need for national data on trip chaining, multi-modal travel, and non-work or school-related AT. CONCLUSIONS: Five common research priorities between the two groups emerged, including (1) to better understand causality, (2) interactions with the natural environment, (3) economic evaluations, (4) social disparities, and (5) preventable AT-related injuries. The findings may help set directions for future research, interdisciplinary and intersectoral collaborations, and funding opportunities.

Why public health matters today more than ever: the convergence of health and social policy.

We argue that public health matters more today than ever because it is uniquely positioned as a meeting point or fulcrum between health care and social welfare policy perspectives on the social determinants of health. It combines a grounding in the sciences of biomedicine and epidemiology with the moral imperatives of social advocacy. Health cannot be delivered through health care policy alone and neither can social welfare policy ensure the well-being of all citizens on its own. Social policy is at a disadvantage because it does not engender universal consent the way health policy can. While the way that illness should be addressed is debated, it should be addressed to be not contested, as is social welfare for vulnerable populations. The convergence of health and social policy to address the social determinants of health means public health advocacy must explicitly leverage biomedicine to provide materialist and substantive arguments and social welfare to provide the normative and moral arguments. We conclude that a new model of public health advocacy or social lobbying is necessary to effectively raise concerns that health care-focused thinking will not, but with potential heft that social welfare, historically, has not been able to command.

Great expectations and hard times: developing community indicators in a healthy communities initiative in Canada.

This paper reports on expectations for and community members' experience in the development of community indicators in a healthy communities initiative (HCI) in Alberta, Canada. The HCI process involved community visioning, the creation of action plans to further the vision by addressing key health priorities and/or community capacity building activities and the development of indicators to monitor and report on progress towards goals. Nineteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with community participants to discuss definitions of success in the HCI and participant experience in developing indicators. Three themes emerged: the formal indicators lacked relevance to community members; the community did not own the HCI indicators and participants instead drew upon measures of success which were largely experiential in nature. The study provides a critically reflective, candid account of on-the-ground work with communities. The findings reveal limitations in the process of developing community indicators in this HCI, which we attribute in part to skills and discontinuities on the staffing side of the health authority and in part to failure to recognize and fully appreciate 'different ways of knowing' between communities and agencies.