The first consultations were held at the beginning of the 2005-06 fiscal year during the proposal development phase, and included participants from Quebec as well as from other provinces. The second set was held in the fall of 2006, six months after the Centre became operational. These consisted of two meetings, one in British Columbia and another New Brunswick. The objective was to consult potential users organised by region. Participants from the four western provinces were invited to the session in British Columbia, and from the four provinces of the Atlantic to the one in New Brunswick. Quebec user interests had already been taken into account and meetings in Ontario and the territories would be held at a later time.
The NCCHPP’s target clientele includes public health officers, population health planners and other actors in the health system at various levels, who are concerned with healthy public policy. It also includes members of non-governmental organizations, think tanks and community groups whose concern with healthy public policy makes them partners in this effort. Our knowledge exchange efforts will be directed to these public health clients in the first instance. However, because public policy advocacy implies that these public health actors will, themselves, target those in policy positions at various levels of government, we consider these latter policy makers to be indirect clients of the NCCHPP. Moreover, because public policy depends on the support and understanding of the population, public opinion and interaction with policy makers will be part of the NCCHPP’s framework. Finally, the research community is part of the NCCHPP community, both as providers of research information and as users of its products.
The purpose of the NCCHPP’s two user meetings in September and October 2006 was to solicit the views of a selection of direct clients about our program, priorities and potential products. The general question we asked was how the NCCHPP could best support the public health community's efforts in promoting healthy public policy. Specific questions included to what extent we should focus on research syntheses of specific interventions, and to what extent on building understanding of public policy processes. We also inquired about any specific common themes or public policies that we should focus on. Finally, we addressed the question of how they might continue to interact with us and how we might support collaboration among the participants themselves.
Participants were invited in equal numbers from the eight provinces covered by the consultations, i.e., the four Western and four Atlantic provinces. Members of our different client groups were represented (Table 1), with public and population health actors at provincial and regional levels making up the majority, and with representation from municipal government and non-government organizations. Although several were invited, only one government-level policy maker in a non-health sector actually participated. And finally, although the target clientele of these particular consultations was not the research community, there was some participation by university researchers, as well as experts from non-university think tanks.
User Workshops: Participants by Type
|
Participants by Type |
|
|
|
Public/medical health officers (provincial and regional levels) |
12 |
38% |
|
Population health planners (provincial and regional levels) |
7 |
22% |
|
Municipal officers and staff |
3 |
9% |
|
Non-government organizations and think tanks |
5 |
16% |
|
University researchers |
4 |
12% |
|
Non-health provincial policy makers |
1 |
3% |
|
TOTAL |
32 |
|
Following a presentation outlining the NCCHPP’s goals and potential program, participants engaged in group discussion, and ended the day by completing a written questionnaire about their opinions and potential use of NCCHPP tools and participation in our efforts.
The results of these consultations confirmed our program, but also changed our emphasis to some extent. Participants confirmed the value of and need for research-based information in their healthy public policy efforts. However, they placed emphasis on the importance of tools, frameworks and processes. They asked for tools and training about public policy processes, wanting to know more about facilitators and barriers to policy adoption.
Participants agreed with the NCCHPP’s proposal to focus on health impact evaluation. They also asked for policy evaluation, in particular wanting to build the “business case” for healthy public policy.
They asked for more emphasis on intersectoral and “whole of government” approaches, as well as on community approaches. They noted the importance of including multiple levels of authority, such as municipal and local as well as provincial jurisdictions. Participants identified regionalization as an area of study and collaboration with regional health authorities as a way to work. They noted the need for developing leadership for healthy public policy.
In addition to research, participants wanted more sharing of information about what others are doing throughout the country and internationally. They asked for an inventory of interventions as well as case studies and illustrative stories.
As for the specific subjects on which they would like to have additional research information, the vast majority prioritized health disparities and social inequities. Other specific subjects included housing, transportation, obesity, food, education, early childhood interventions, and youth at risk. However, it was noted that the prioritization of such latter subjects can change over time and that it would be better to help users be equipped as a community, in order to meet future needs in an appropriate and proactive way.
User Workshops: Summary of Major Themes
|
Tools, frameworks and processes |
- Intersectoral approaches
- Health impact assessment
- Political and policy processes
|
|
Topics for knowledge syntheses |
- Heath disparities and social inequities
- Urban themes (housing, transportation, planning),
- Food issues
(obesity, food security)
- Also, need for general capacity (« clearinghouse »)
|
|
Sharing practices |
- inventory of interventions
- case studies
|
|
Dimensions |
- equity
- community participation
|
|
Other concerns |
- regionalisation
- governance
- leadership |
2007 consultation with Ontario users
The latest meeting was held in Toronto in May 2007, with Ontario users. The meeting was hosted by Health Nexus (formerly Ontario Prevention Clearinghouse) and brought together researchers, policy makers, practitioners and other actors in public and population health from Ontario (see Table 1).
To read our full report from the meeting, click here. (PDF 154 Ko)
Participants were invited from different client groups from across the province in order to balance geographic and cultural representation, as well as to include non-health organizations that work with populations at high risk for poor health.
Table 1: Ontario User Meeting Participants by type:
|
Public/medical health officers (provincial and regional levels) |
1 ( 6%) |
|
Population health planners (provincial and regional levels) |
6 ( 35%) |
|
Municipal officers and staff |
2 (12%) |
|
Non-government organizations and think tanks |
4 (24%) |
|
Researchers |
2 (12%) |
|
Non-health provincial policy makers |
2 (12%) |
|
Total |
17 |
Again, the purpose of this user meeting was to solicit the views of a selection of clients about the NCCHPP program, priorities and potential products.
The group confirmed that the role of NCCHPP should be:
· holistic (including gaps in existing research / policy),
· multi-disciplinary,
· big picture,
· inclusive of others' work at all levels and stages,
· forward-looking· Innovative in translating policy concerns to making them accessible. For example: describing ‘health outbreaks’, adapting Monopoly-like board game on Determinants of Health developed by Wellesley student for web interactivity, engaging with CBC to do something like Canada Reads or Seven Wonders, with a health focus.
· The web-site as a primary mechanism for knowledge sharing could include a librarian role to aid access by people at all levels of public health work to what will be a complex site if it includes all types of information requested.
The group generally agreed that, in order for health disparity to become and remain central to the work of the NCCHPP, traditional interests needed to be balanced with those of the marginalized. This requires the legitimization of new kinds of data and measures, such as Atkinson Foundation’s Index of Wellbeing or GPI Atlantic’s Genuine Progress Index.
For the participants, the NCCHPP would add value to current work by looking at areas in which there is not a strong body of knowledge, e.g., social inclusion, and by involving people in these discussions who are not usually included, especially those who experience the problem under study and/or who work closely with those who do.