Aspects of the PPM Facilitating HE/SDOH Action | |
---|---|
OPHS Policy Attributes | The introduction of new language (i.e. term 'priority populations') opened up discussion |
The term ‘priority populations’ was seen as proactive | |
The term ‘priority populations’ was perceived as value-neutral language | |
Flexibility emphasized PHU role and autonomy in interpreting the PPM to fit their needs | |
EIDM promoted objective conclusions due to business case of health equity / social justice | |
PPM was perceived as organizing practice and directing resources through EIDM in an environment where justification for action on SDOH was challenging | |
Health Sector Context into which the PPM was introduced | PPM tried to overlay high-level population health thinking onto program delivery |
PPM tried to maintain balance between different schools of thought or ideological differences | |
PPM promoted collaboration with different sectors | |
Implementation by Public Health Units (PHUs) | PPM was a catalyst that pushed PHUs to consider creative solutions and increased dialogue at local level |
PPM helped to counter negative perceptions that the health equity/ social justice approach had from a conservative viewpoint | |
PPM made a connection between SDOH and health equity | |
PPM assisted PHUs with making decisions in a tight funding environment | |
PPM focused the work being done by PHUs, and spurred on and encouraged new work | |
PPM drew attention of those PHUs who hadn’t been as engaged due to capacity issues, and increased mobilization | |
PPM raised awareness of the need for HE capacity building within PHUs | |
PPM identified opportunities for PHU partnerships; health equity work may be enhanced by sharing resources between PHUs | |
PPM helped PHUs “do what they need to” and facilitated existing action |