To address macro-social and economic determinants of health and equity, there has been growing use of intersectoral action by governments around the world. Health in All Policies (HiAP) initiatives are a special case where governments use cross-sectoral structures and relationships to systematically address health in policymaking by targeting broad health determinants rather than health services alone. Although many examples of HiAP have emerged in recent decades, the reasons for their successful implementation—and for implementation failures—have not been systematically studied. Consequently, rigorous evidence based on systematic research of the social mechanisms that have regularly enabled or hindered implementation in different jurisdictions is sparse. We describe a novel methodology for explanatory case studies that use a scientific realist perspective to study the implementation of HiAP. Our methodology begins with the formulation of a conceptual framework to describe contexts, social mechanisms and outcomes of relevance to the sustainable implementation of HiAP. We then describe the process of systematically explaining phenomena of interest using evidence from literature and key informant interviews, and looking for patterns and themes. Finally, we present a comparative example of how Health Impact Assessment tools have been utilized in Sweden and Quebec to illustrate how this methodology uses evidence to first describe successful practices for implementation of HiAP and then refine the initial framework. The methodology that we describe helps researchers to identify and triangulate rich evidence describing social mechanisms and salient contextual factors that characterize successful practices in implementing HiAP in specific jurisdictions. This methodology can be applied to study the implementation of HiAP and other forms of intersectoral action to reduce health inequities involving multiple geographic levels of government in diverse settings.

There has been a renewed interest in broadening the research agenda in health promotion to include action on the structural determinants of health, including a focus on the implementation of Health in All Policies (HiAP). Governments that use HiAP face the challenge of instituting governance structures and processes to facilitate policy coordination in an evidence-informed manner. Due to the complexity of government institutions and the policy process, systems theory has been proposed as a tool for evaluating the implementation of HiAP. Our multiple case study research programme (HiAP Analysis using Realist Methods On International Case Studies – HARMONICS) has relied on systems theory and realist methods to make sense of how and why the practices of policy-makers (including politicians and civil servants) from specific institutional environments (policy sectors) has either facilitated or hindered the implementation of HiAP. Herein, we present a systems framework for the implementation of HiAP based on our experience and empirical findings in studying this process. We describe a system of 14 components within three subsystems of government. Subsystems include the executive (heads of state and their appointed political elites), intersectoral (the milieu of policy-makers and experts working with governance structures related to HiAP) and intrasectoral (policy-makers within policy sectors). Here, HiAP implementation is a process involving interactions between subsystems and their components that leads to the emergence of implementation outcomes, as well as effects on the system components themselves. We also describe the influence of extra-governmental systems, including (but not limited to) the academic sector, third sector, private sector and intergovernmental sector. Finally, we present a case study that applies this framework to understand the implementation of HiAP – the Health 2015 Strategy – in Finland, from 2001 onward. This framework is useful for helping to explain how, why and under what circumstances HiAP has been successfully and unsuccessfully implemented in a sustainable manner. It serves as a tool for researchers to study this process, and for policy-makers and other public health actors to manage this process.

Psychological stress appears to contribute to poor oral health systemically in combination with other chronic diseases. Few studies directly examine this relationship. Data from a cross-sectional study of 2,412 participants between the ages of 25–64 years old living in the City of Toronto between 2009 and 2012 were used to examine the relationship between current stress and two self-rated oral health outcomes (general oral health and oral pain). Dental care utilization and access to dental insurance were examined as effect modifiers. A positive relationship between current stress and poor oral health was observed for both outcomes (oral pain coefficient 0.32, 95 % CI 0.26–0.38; general oral health coefficient 0.28, 95 % CI 0.19–0.36). Effects on oral pain were stronger for the uninsured, while effects on general oral health were stronger with decreasing socioeconomic position. Our findings suggest that individuals with greater perceived stress also report poorer oral health, and that this relationship is modified by dental insurance and socioeconomic position. These findings warrant a greater focus on the role of psychological stress in the development of oral disease, including how perceived stress contributes to health inequities in self-reported oral health status. Patients experiencing stressful lives may differentially require closer monitoring and more vigilant maintenance of their oral health, above and beyond that which is needed to achieve a state of health in the oral environment of less stressed individuals. There may be health promoting effects of addressing psychosocial concerns related to dental care - particularly for the poor and uninsured.

In spite of increasing research into intersections of public policy and health, little evidence shows how policy processes impact the implementation of Health in All Policies (HiAP) initiatives. Our research sought to understand how and why strategies for engaging partners from diverse policy sectors in the implementation of HiAP succeed or fail in order to uncover the underlying social mechanisms contributing to sustainable implementation of HiAP. In this explanatory multiple case study, we analyzed grey and peer-review literature and key informant interviews to identify mechanisms leading to implementation successes and failures in relation to different strategies for engagement across three case studies (Sweden, Quebec and South Australia), after accounting for the role of different contextual conditions. Our results yielded no support for the use of awareness-raising or directive strategies as standalone approaches for engaging partners to implement HiAP. However, we found strong evidence that mechanisms related to “win-win” strategies facilitated implementation by increasing perceived acceptability (or buy-in) and feasibility of HiAP implementation across sectors. Win-win strategies were facilitated by mechanisms related to several activities, including: the development of a shared language to facilitate communication between actors from different sectors; integrating health into other policy agendas (eg., sustainability) and use of dual outcomes to appeal to the interests of diverse policy sectors; use of scientific evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of HiAP; and using health impact assessment to make policy coordination for public health outcomes more feasible and to give credibility to policies being developed by diverse policy sectors. Our findings enrich theoretical understanding in an under-unexplored area of intersectoral action. They also provide policy makers with examples of HiAP across wealthy welfare regimes, and improve understanding of successful HiAP implementation practices, including the win-win approach.

Background: In Canada, there is longstanding evidence of health inequities for racialized groups. The purpose of this study is to understand the effect of current health care policies and practices on racial/ethnic groups and in particular racialized groups at the level of the individual in Toronto’s health care system. Methods: This study used a semi-qualitative study design: concept mapping. A purposive sampling strategy was used to recruit participants. Health care users and health care providers from Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area participated in all four concept mapping activities. The sample sizes varied according to the activity. For the rating activity, 41 racialized health care users, 23 non-racialized health care users and 11 health care providers completed this activity. The data analysis was completed using the concept systems software. Results: Participants generated 35 unique statements of ways in which patients feel disrespect or mistreatment when receiving health care. These statements were grouped into five clusters: ‘Racial/ethnic and class discrimination’, ‘Dehumanizing the patient’, ‘Negligent communication’, ‘Professional misconduct’, and ‘Unequal access to health and health services’. Two distinct conceptual regions were identified: ‘Viewed as inferior’ and ‘Unequal medical access’. From the rating activity, racialized health care users reported ‘race’/ethnic based discrimination or everyday racism as largely contributing to the challenges experienced when receiving health care; statements rated high for action/change include ‘when the health care provider does not complete a proper assessment’, ‘when the patient’s symptoms are ignored or not taken seriously’, ‘and ‘when the health care provider belittles or talks down to the patient’. Conclusions: Our study identifies how racialized health care users experience everyday racism when receiving health care and this is important to consider in the development of future research and interventions aimed at addressing institutional racism in the health care setting. To support the elimination of institutional racism, anti-racist policies are needed to move beyond cultural competence polices and towards addressing the centrality of unequal power social relations and everyday racism in the health care system.