OBJECTIVES: We carried out a scoping review to identify and describe scholarly and grey literature referring to global cases of intersectoral action for health equity featuring a central role for governments. METHODS: The scoping review process systematically identified articles describing one or more cases of intersectoral action. Each article was then described in terms of the context of initiation, as well as the strategies, actors, tools and structures used to implement these initiatives. RESULTS: 128 unique articles were found describing intersectoral action across 43 countries. A majority of the cases appear to have initiated in the last decade. A variety of approaches were used to carry out intersectoral action, but articles varied in the richness of information included to describe different aspects of these initiatives. CONCLUSION: With this examination of cases across multiple countries and contexts, we can begin to clarify how intersectoral approaches to health equity have been used; however, the description of these complex, multi-actor processes in the published documents was generally superficial and sometimes entirely absent and improvements in such documentation in future publications is warranted. Richer sources of information such as interviews may facilitate a more comprehensive understanding from the perspective of multiple sectors involved.
OBJECTIVES: We carried out a scoping review to identify and describe scholarly and grey literature referring to global cases of intersectoral action for health equity featuring a central role for governments. METHODS: The scoping review process systematically identified articles describing one or more cases of intersectoral action. Each article was then described in terms of the context of initiation, as well as the strategies, actors, tools and structures used to implement these initiatives. RESULTS: 128 unique articles were found describing intersectoral action across 43 countries. A majority of the cases appear to have initiated in the last decade. A variety of approaches were used to carry out intersectoral action, but articles varied in the richness of information included to describe different aspects of these initiatives. CONCLUSION: With this examination of cases across multiple countries and contexts, we can begin to clarify how intersectoral approaches to health equity have been used; however, the description of these complex, multi-actor processes in the published documents was generally superficial and sometimes entirely absent and improvements in such documentation in future publications is warranted. Richer sources of information such as interviews may facilitate a more comprehensive understanding from the perspective of multiple sectors involved.