Skip to main content


Table 3 Aspects of the PPM Inhibiting HE/SDOH Action

From: Influence of revised public health standards on health equity action: a qualitative study in Ontario, Canada

  Aspects of the PPM Inhibiting HE/SDOH Action
OPHS Policy Attributes Introduction of new language was poorly defined and may have hindered progress
New term caused confusion
The issue of prioritizing populations created the concept of inherent ranking of populations
Lack of evaluation, accountability and reporting mechanisms of the PPM meant there was no formal evaluation
Priority populations identified through a ‘burden of disease first’ approach took away from HE/SDOH action
EIDM required proof that a SDOH was causing a negative health outcome, which hindered progress on HE/SDOH action due to lack of available published evidence in some areas
Data hindered HE/SDOH action because it highlighted data gaps which people found to be insurmountable
The OPHS de-emphasized social justice and advocacy as some policymakers didn’t think HE/SDOH was linked to PPM
Health equity was not crucial in PPM. That is, although health equity is seen as a part of the PPM, it is not the most important outcome
Health Sector Context into which the PPM was introduced Different understandings of health equity caused confusion across professionals and health units, and talking at cross-purposes
There was a need to collaborate with other sectors because issues may often be identified that are beyond mandate or capacity of public health
It was not helpful to have different terminology (i.e., ‘priority populations’) than community partners
Implementation by PHUs Little conceptual clarity by policymakers themselves led to poorly defined mandate
There were various interpretations of PPM actions and outcomes as these were not clearly linked or laid out
Led to too much focus on identification of priority populations versus action on HE/SDOH