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 |