Signild Vallgårda1. 1. Department of Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. s.vallgarda@pubhealth.ku.dk
Abstract
AIM: To identify how public health problems are identified, explained, and addressed in Scandinavian public health programmes. METHODS: Recent public health white papers from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have been studied asking the following questions. How are policies and activities justified? Which problems and causes are identified? What is to be done? To what extent are the interpretations and suggested interventions in accordance with liberal or social democratic political ideals? RESULTS: The programmes studied give similar reasons for dealing with public health, namely the wish to create good lives for citizens and to improve the economy of society. The health problems identified are almost the same: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, musculoskeletal diseases, and mental illness. The Danish programme differs from its Norwegian and Swedish counterparts with regard to explanations and suggested solutions to the problems. It may be characterized as more liberal. While the Danish programme stresses the importance of individual behaviour, responsibility, and autonomy, the two others emphasize social relations, living conditions, and participation in addition to behavioural factors. Political responsibility for the health of the population is emphasized in the Norwegian and Swedish programmes. The Swedish programme, in particular, stresses common values such as equality and equal rights, and the significance of the welfare state. The Norwegian programme underlines the importance of empowering the individual, an ambition that could also be seen as a social liberal ambition to increase the self-determination of citizens. CONCLUSION: There is not one Scandinavian model in public health policy but several: a Danish model mainly adhering to liberal ideals, a Norwegian one that could tentatively be labelled social liberal, and a Swedish model adhering to more social democratic ideals.
AIM: To identify how public health problems are identified, explained, and addressed in Scandinavian public health programmes. METHODS: Recent public health white papers from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have been studied asking the following questions. How are policies and activities justified? Which problems and causes are identified? What is to be done? To what extent are the interpretations and suggested interventions in accordance with liberal or social democratic political ideals? RESULTS: The programmes studied give similar reasons for dealing with public health, namely the wish to create good lives for citizens and to improve the economy of society. The health problems identified are almost the same: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, musculoskeletal diseases, and mental illness. The Danish programme differs from its Norwegian and Swedish counterparts with regard to explanations and suggested solutions to the problems. It may be characterized as more liberal. While the Danish programme stresses the importance of individual behaviour, responsibility, and autonomy, the two others emphasize social relations, living conditions, and participation in addition to behavioural factors. Political responsibility for the health of the population is emphasized in the Norwegian and Swedish programmes. The Swedish programme, in particular, stresses common values such as equality and equal rights, and the significance of the welfare state. The Norwegian programme underlines the importance of empowering the individual, an ambition that could also be seen as a social liberal ambition to increase the self-determination of citizens. CONCLUSION: There is not one Scandinavian model in public health policy but several: a Danish model mainly adhering to liberal ideals, a Norwegian one that could tentatively be labelled social liberal, and a Swedish model adhering to more social democratic ideals.
Authors: Magdalena Lagerlund; Line Hvidberg; Senada Hajdarevic; Anette Fischer Pedersen; Sara Runesdotter; Peter Vedsted; Carol Tishelman Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 3.295