Epilepsy Action aims to improve the quality of life and promote the interests of people living with epilepsy. • We BLOCKINprovide BLOCKINinformation BLOCKINto BLOCKINanyone BLOCKINwith BLOCKINan BLOCKINinterest BLOCKINin BLOCKINepilepsy. • We BLOCKINimprove BLOCKINthe BLOCKINunderstanding BLOCKINof BLOCKINepilepsy BLOCKINin BLOCKINschools BLOCKINand raise educational standards. • We BLOCKINwork BLOCKINto BLOCKINgive BLOCKINpeople BLOCKINwith BLOCKINepilepsy BLOCKINa BLOCKINfair BLOCKINchance BLOCKINof BLOCKINfinding and keeping a job. • We BLOCKINraise BLOCKINstandards BLOCKINof BLOCKINcare BLOCKINthrough BLOCKINcontact BLOCKINwith BLOCKINdoctors, nurses, BLOCKINsocial BLOCKINworkers, BLOCKINgovernment BLOCKINand BLOCKINother BLOCKINorganisations. • We BLOCKINpromote BLOCKINequality BLOCKINof BLOCKINaccess BLOCKINto BLOCKINquality BLOCKINcare. Epilepsy Action has local branches in most parts of the UK. Each branch offers support to local people and raises money to help ensure our work can continue.

How is our work

Right to education.

Background : ‘Health in All Policies’ (HiAP) describes the pursuit of health equity It has five main elements: treat health as a human right; identify evidence of the ‘social determinants’ of health inequalities, recognise that most powers to affect health are not held by health departments, promote intersectoral policymaking and collaboration inside and outside of government, and generate political will Studies describe its potential but bemoan a major implementation gap Some HiAP scholars learn from policymaking research how to understand this gap, but the use of policy theories is patchy In that context, our guiding research question is: How does HiAP research use policy theory to understand policymaking? It allows us to zoom-out to survey the field and zoom-in to identify: the assumed and actual causes of policy change, and transferable lessons to HiAP scholars and advocates Methods:  Our qualitative systematic review (two phases, 2018 and 2020) identified 4972 HiAP articles Of these, 113 journal articles (research and commentary) provide a non-trivial reference to policymaking (at least one reference to a policymaking concept) We use the 113 articles to produce a general HiAP narrative and explore how the relatively theory-informed articles enhance it Results : Most articles focus on policy analysis (identifying policy problems and solutions) rather than policy theory (explaining policymaking dynamics) They report a disappointing gap between HiAP expectations and policy outcomes Theory-informed articles contribute to a HiAP playbook to close that gap or a programme theory to design and evaluate HiAP in new ways Conclusions : Few HiAP articles use policy theories for their intended purpose Policy theories provide lessons to aid critical reflection on power, political dilemmas, and policymaking context HiAP scholars seek more instrumental lessons, potentially at the cost of effective advocacy and research

The future of public health policymaking after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from Health in All Policies

Policy in all sectors affects health, through multiple pathways and determinants. Health in all policies (HiAP) is an approach that seeks to identify and influence the health and equity impacts of policy decisions, to enhance health benefits and avoid harm. This usually involves the use of health impact assessment or health lens analysis. There is growing international experience in these approaches, and some countries have cross-sectoral governance structures that prioritize the assessment of the policies that are most likely to affect health. The fundamental elements of HiAP are inter-sectoral collaboration, policy influence, and holistic consideration of the range of health determinants affected by a policy area or proposal. HiAP requires public health professionals to invest time to build partnerships and engage meaningfully with the sectors affecting the social determinants of health and health equity. With commitment, political will and tools such as the health impact assessment, it provides a powerful approach to integrated policymaking that promotes health, well-being, and equity. The COVID-19 pandemic has raised the profile of public health and highlighted the links between health and other policy areas. This paper describes the rationale for, and principles underpinning, HiAP mechanisms, including HIA, experiences, challenges and opportunities for the future.

'Health in All Policies'-A Key Driver for Health and Well-Being in a Post-COVID-19 Pandemic World.

Policy Learning and Policy Failure: Definitions, Dimensions and Intersections

Policy ‘incoherence’ describes a lack of joined-up government that contributes to a confusing mix of policy instruments. It is an inevitable feature of multilevel policy-making, in which many actor...

/pdf/policy-learning-to-reduce-inequalities-the-search-for-a-1ecd9wp0jx.pdf

Policy learning to reduce inequalities: the search for a coherent Scottish gender mainstreaming policy in a multilevel UK

The EU has many plans to foster equity and spatial justice. However, each has separate reference points and it is difficult to find an overall vision. To demonstrate, we analyse two sectoral strategies to identify their implications for spatial justice strategies. Education focuses on early investment and public service reform. Health prioritizes intersectoral action to address the ‘social determinants’ beyond the control of health services. Both warn against equating territorial cohesion or spatial justice with equal access to public services. These findings could inform European Commission strategy, but it tends to respond with renewed rhetoric rather than reconsidering its approach.

/pdf/policy-design-for-territorial-equity-in-multi-level-and-54hgrxkwb1.pdf

Emily St Denny

Papers

The future of public health policymaking after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from Health in All Policies

Policy learning to reduce inequalities: the search for a coherent Scottish gender mainstreaming policy in a multilevel UK

Policy design for territorial equity in multi‐level and multi‐sectoral political systems: comparing health and education strategies