Ellen S Synnevåg1, Roar Amdam1, Elisabeth Fosse2. 1. 1 Institute of Planning and Administration, Faculty of Social Sciences and History, Volda University College, Norway. 2. 2 Department of Health Promotion and Development, University of Bergen, Norway.
Abstract
AIM: National public health policies in Norway are based on a Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach. At the local level, this means that public health, as a cross-sectional responsibility, should be implemented in all municipal sectors by integrating public health policies in municipal planning and management systems. The paper investigates these local processes, focusing on the use of public health terminology and how this terminology is translated from national to local contexts. We ask whether the terms 'public health' and 'public health work' are suitable when implementing an HiAP approach. METHODS: A qualitative case study based on analyses of interviews and planning documents was performed in three Norwegian municipalities. RESULTS: The results present dilemmas associated with using public health terminology when implementing an HiAP approach. On the one hand, the terms are experienced as wide, complex, advanced and unnecessary. On the other hand, the terms are experienced as important for a systematic approach towards understanding public health ideology and cross-sectional responsibility. One municipality used alternative terminology. CONCLUSIONS: This paper promotes debate about the appropriateness of using the terms 'public health' and 'public health work' at the local level. It suggests that adaptation is suitable and necessary, unless it compromises knowledge, responsibility and a systematic approach. This study concludes that the use of terminology is a central factor when implementing the Norwegian Public Health Act at the local level.
AIM: National public health policies in Norway are based on a Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach. At the local level, this means that public health, as a cross-sectional responsibility, should be implemented in all municipal sectors by integrating public health policies in municipal planning and management systems. The paper investigates these local processes, focusing on the use of public health terminology and how this terminology is translated from national to local contexts. We ask whether the terms 'public health' and 'public health work' are suitable when implementing an HiAP approach. METHODS: A qualitative case study based on analyses of interviews and planning documents was performed in three Norwegian municipalities. RESULTS: The results present dilemmas associated with using public health terminology when implementing an HiAP approach. On the one hand, the terms are experienced as wide, complex, advanced and unnecessary. On the other hand, the terms are experienced as important for a systematic approach towards understanding public health ideology and cross-sectional responsibility. One municipality used alternative terminology. CONCLUSIONS: This paper promotes debate about the appropriateness of using the terms 'public health' and 'public health work' at the local level. It suggests that adaptation is suitable and necessary, unless it compromises knowledge, responsibility and a systematic approach. This study concludes that the use of terminology is a central factor when implementing the Norwegian Public Health Act at the local level.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health in All Policies; Norwegian Public Health Act; Public health; health promotion; healthy public policy; implementation; municipality; terminology