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