Understanding similarities in the local implementation of a healthy environment programme: Insights from policy studies
Highlights
► The paper studies intersectoral health action in the implementation of a healthy environment programme in Quebec (Canada). ► As the programme is procedural and relies on local actors for implementation, significant local variations were expected. ► But results showed similarity in programme implementation, which we explained with characteristics of the programme itself. ► Some of these mechanisms limited local actors' opportunities for intersectoral action and de facto influenced implementation. ► This is consistent with policy studies research on policy instruments showing that these may produce unintended effects.
Introduction
The issue of programme–context interactions is central to programme evaluation in areas of public health that rely on complex interventions rather than on standardized programmes (Egan, Bambra, Petticrew, & Whitehead, 2009; Hawe, Shiell, Riley, & Gold, 2004; Potvin, Haddad, & Frohlich, 2001). Recognition that programmes adapt to the existing context through implementation (Howlett, 2001) has led to comprehensive methods and theories in programme evaluation (Hawe et al., 2004; Potvin et al., 2001; Potvin & McQueen, 2008). These aim to understand how contextual factors – such as the presence of strategic actors, the culture of collaborative interventions or local political dynamics – influence the processes and outcomes of interventions; or how different categories of professionals interact at the programme–context interface (Berkeley & Springett, 2006; Bisset, Daniel, & Potvin, 2009). The underlying purpose is to facilitate the generalisability of evaluation results beyond a particular programme or context.
In this study, we explore how a programme–context interaction plays out during the implementation of a particular type of public health programme, namely a procedural programme. The notion of procedural programme comes from the policy studies literature on the “tools of government” (Hood, 1986). Procedural instruments are mechanisms used by governments to indirectly orient the provision of goods and services in line with their objectives (Howlett, 2000). A procedural programme, therefore, determines guidelines and allocates resources, but it does not prescribe any specific content. It is left to the targeted public or private organizations to develop projects that will fulfil the programme's mandate. One would then expect some variation in the spectrum of implementation between sites or local communities.
The programme studied here is procedural in that central government requires local health institutions and community-based non-governmental organisations to create healthy environments (HE) for vulnerable families in their local communities. Local organizations are expected to implement intersectoral health actions; that is, collaborative processes that extend beyond the health sector to other sectors like education, housing and transportation, to address social determinants of health (Degeling, 1995; O'Neill, Lemieux, Groleau, Fortin, & Lamarche, 1997).
We have adopted a qualitative exploratory approach to examine the programme–context interaction in the implementation of this procedural programme. This study seeks to answer the following question: Does the procedural nature of the HE programme result in variation between local cases in terms of the types of projects and collaborations it subsidizes?
Section snippets
Context
The programme we studied is one of two components of a broader programme called SIPPE (Integrated Perinatal and Early Childhood Services for Families Living in Vulnerable Situations) which was created by the Ministry of Health and Social Services in Quebec to support vulnerable families, facilitate the social inclusion of parents and ensure optimal child development (Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec, 2004). Eligibility is defined according to either the mother's age (<20
Multiple case study design
Using qualitative research methods, we carried out a multiple case study of the implementation of the SIPPE–HE programme, between 2004 and 2009, in eight localities under the responsibility of eight different CSSSs in Quebec (Canada) (Stake, 2006).1 Given that little
Content of the action plans
Although the SIPPE–HE programme did not impose constraints on the content of the HE projects that were funded, our results highlight limited variation with respect to their goals across the eight localities studied.
The community organizers interviewed all insisted that creating HE within the SIPPE–HE programme entailed various forms of collaboration to improve the provision of and access to local services for young parents and their families. They also expressed a central belief supporting the
Discussion
This study shows that the implementation of the SIPPE–HE programme resulted in remarkably similar conceptions of what should constitute HE for vulnerable young families. The characteristics of the HE projects and the configurations of HE collectives indicate some variations across local cases in the amount of emphasis on intersectorality and collaboration. Half of the cases distinguish themselves in all or some of these dimensions, pointing to the presence of intersectoral health action.
Conclusion
This paper reports on the evaluation of the implementation of a procedural HE programme in eight local cases in the province of Quebec. Given that the local actors had substantial leeway in the implementation of the programme, we had expected significant variation due to contextual adaptation. There were some variations between the cases which could be explained, in part, due to the intensity of networking among local organizations and to specific issues that are inherent to the realities of
Role of the funding source
At the time of research, C. Clavier held a postdoctoral fellowship from the CHSRF/CIHR Chair on Community approaches and health inequalities. S. Gendron held a grant from the Ministry for Health and Social Services for the evaluation of the Programme for the Support of Young Parents, now an integral part of the SIPPE programme. The Ministry was not involved with the design of the study presented in this paper, nor with the actual study or writing of the paper. L. Potvin held the CHSRF/CIHR
Acknowledgements
C. Clavier conceived and led the study, analysis and writing. S. Gendron assisted with the analysis and writing. L. Potvin assisted with the writing. L. Lamontagne assisted with the study contacts and with document analysis. The authors wish to thank and acknowledge the support of the evaluation team, especially of Céline Goulet, PhD, Jacques Moreau, PhD and Gilles Dupuis, PhD.
References (33)
- et al.
From rhetoric to reality: a systemic approach to understanding the constraints faced by Health For All initiatives in England
Social Science & Medicine
(2006) - et al.
Comment rendre compte de la création d'environnements favorables? Document de travail
(2005) Changing the world? Reflections on the interface between social science, epidemiology and public health
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
(2009)- et al.
Public health policy research: making the case for a political science approach
Health Promotion International
(2011) - et al.
Exploring the intervention context interface: a case from a school-based nutrition intervention
American Journal of Evaluation
(2009) - et al.
Theories of the policy process in health promotion research: a review
Health Promotion International
(2011) Closing the gap in a generation. Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health
(2008)The significance of ‘sectors’ in calls for urban public health intersectoralism: an Australian perspective
Policy and Politics
(1995)- et al.
Reviewing evidence on complex social interventions: appraising implementation in systematic reviews of the health effects of organisational-level workplace interventions
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
(2009)
Methods for exploring implementation variation and local context within a cluster randomised community intervention trial
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
The tools of government
Managing the “hollow state”: procedural policy instruments and modern governance
Canadian Public Administration/Administration Publique du Canada
Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation: national approaches to theories of instrument choice
Policy Studies Journal
Studying public policy. Policy cycles & policy subsystems
Les organismes communautaires et la transformation de l'Etat-providence. Trois décennies de coconstruction des politiques publiques dans le domaine de la santé et des services sociaux
Cited by (17)
Conditions for addressing environmental determinants of health behavior in intersectoral policy networks: A fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis
2017, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :Next to personal determinants, such as motivation, interventions to improve health also should address environmental determinants of health behavior (EDHB) (Swinburn et al., 1999). In practice, however, health promoting interventions are mainly aimed at changing personal determinants of health behavior (PDHB) (e.g., Clavier et al., 2012). This is attributed to the fact that most environmental determinants are situated outside the sphere of influence of the public health sector (Dahlgren and Whitehead, 1992).
Providing context to the implementation of health promoting schools: A case study
2015, Evaluation and Program PlanningCitation Excerpt :School jurisdictions internationally have developed policies and guidelines to support adoption of HPS approaches across schools (Denman, 1999; Gugglberger & Inchley, 2012; Tang et al., 2009; Veugelers & Schwartz, 2010); however, achieving and sustaining system-wide implementation continues to pose a challenge to advancing this field of work (Mohammadi, Rowling, & Nutbeam, 2010). Issues related to program context are an important feature of population and public health interventions (Clavier, Gendron, Lamontagne, & Potvin, 2012; Potvin, Haddad, & Frohlich, 2001) and are also important to consider with complex, adaptive initiatives like HPS (Keshavarz, Nutbeam, Rowling, & Khavarpour, 2010; Kremser, 2011). Program implementation represents a complex interaction between characteristics of the innovation (i.e., HPS), the providers (i.e., school stakeholders involved) and various aspects of organizational context or functioning (Clarke, O'Sullivan, & Barry, 2010; De Meij, van der Wal, van Mechelen, & Chinapaw, 2012; Durlak & DuPre, 2008).
Social determinants of health and health equity policy research: Exploring the use, misuse, and nonuse of policy analysis theory
2014, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :Neither type of report has contributed significantly to policy change. Clavier et al. (2012) describe the progression of a SDH/HE initiative into the evaluation phase of the policy process. However their analysis reveals that the policy failed to reform resource distribution to SDH/HE initiatives because the policy procedures and community decision makers did not adapt to the changes to resource allocation recommendations.
Intersectorality and social participation as coping policies for health inequities-worldwide
2018, Gaceta SanitariaCitation Excerpt :The need to create a cooperative culture in management and administrative relationships, together with technical training for intersectoral management, is fundamental. According to our theoretical framework, eight documents reported on intersectoral actions and social participation using as theoretical reference of the SDH model of the CSDH-WHO associated with the social capital. 25,26,30–35 This data can be interpreted by associating the result referring to the variables, that is, the studies strongly emphasized the need to develop intersectoral actions associated with social participation and the importance of besides the economic social determinants also to strengthen the social bonds of the community involved in the project.
Aligning healthcare, public health and social services: A scoping review of the role of purpose, governance, finance and data
2022, Health and Social Care in the Community