Clinical practice guidelines have been a popular tool for the improvement of health care through the implementation of evidence from systematic research. Yet, it is increasingly clear that knowledge alone is insufficient to change practice. The social, cultural, and material contexts within which practice occurs may invite or reject innovation, complement or inhibit the activities required for success, and sustain or alter adherence to entrenched practices. However, knowledge translation (KT) models are limited in providing insight about how and why contextual contingencies interact, the causal mechanisms linking structural aspects of context and individual agency, and how these mechanisms influence KT. Another limitation of KT models is the neglect of methods to engage potential adopters of the innovation in critical reflection about aspects of context that influence practice, the relevance and meaning of innovation in the context of practice, and the identification of strategies for bringing about meaningful change.
Taking a settings approach to health promotion means addressing the contexts within which people live, work, and play and making these the object of inquiry and intervention as well as the needs and capacities of people to be found in different settings. This approach can increase the likelihood of success because it offers opportunities to situate practice in its context. Members of the setting can optimize interventions for specific contextual contingencies, target crucial factors in the organizational context influencing behavior, and render settings themselves more health promoting. A number of attempts have been made to systematize evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions in different types of settings (e.g., school-based health promotion, community development). Few, if any, attempts have been made to systematically develop a template or framework for analyzing those features of settings that should influence intervention design and delivery. This article lays out the core elements of such a framework in the form of a nested series of questions to guide analysis. Furthermore, it offers advice on additional considerations that should be taken into account when operationalizing a settings approach in the field.
A growing number of health authorities around the world are conducting climate change and health vulnerability and adaptation assessments; however, few explore impacts and adaptations related to mental health. We argue for an expanded conceptualization of health that includes both the physiological and psychological aspects of climate change and health. Through a review of the global literature on mental health and climate change, this analytical review explores how mental health can be integrated into climate change and health vulnerability assessments and concludes with recommendations for integrating mental health within climate change and health vulnerability and adaptation assessments.