Increasing rates of chronic conditions have resulted in governments targeting health behaviour such as smoking, eating high‐fat diets, or physical inactivity known to increase risk for these conditions. In the process, many have become preoccupied with disease prevention policies focused excessively and narrowly on behavioural health‐promotion strategies. These aim to improve health status by persuading individuals to change their health behaviour. At the same time, health promotion policy often fails to incorporate an understanding of the social determinants of health, which recognises that health behaviour itself is greatly influenced by peoples’ environmental, socioeconomic and cultural settings, and that chronic diseases and health behaviour such as smoking are more prevalent among the socially or economically disadvantaged. We identify several reasons why behavioural forms of health promotion are inadequate for addressing social inequities in health and point to a dilemma that, despite these inadequacies and increasing evidence of the social determinants of health, behavioural approaches and policies have strong appeal to governments. In conclusion, the article promotes strategies addressing social determinants that are likely to reduce health inequities. The article also concludes that evidence alone will not result in health policies aimed at equity and that political values and will, and the pressure of civil society are also crucial.

Social determinants of health have come to greater prominence through the recent work of the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health, and the Marmot Review of Health Inequalities in England. These reports also have significant implications for promotion of mental health in developed countries. In particular they reflect a growing research interest in the view that certain adverse social conditions may detrimentally affect mental or physical health by acting as chronic stressors. However, although the case for chronic arousal of stress systems as a risk factor for mental health is empirically well-founded, questions remain about how and why psychological exposure to certain kinds of proximal social conditions might contribute to such arousal. In this paper we argue that combining evidence and ideas from a number of disciplines, including public health research and psychiatry, presents an opportunity to understand the relationship better, and so inform complementary strategies in treatment, prevention and health promotion.

The adverse health and equity impacts of transnational corporations’ (TNCs) practices have become central public health concerns as TNCs increasingly dominate global trade and investment and shape national economies. Despite this, methodologies have been lacking with which to study the health equity impacts of individual corporations and thus to inform actions to mitigate or reverse negative and increase positive impacts. This paper reports on a framework designed to conduct corporate health impact assessment (CHIA), developed at a meeting held at the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center in May 2015. On the basis of the deliberations at the meeting it was recommended that the CHIA should be based on ex post assessment and follow the standard HIA steps of screening, scoping, identification, assessment, decision-making and recommendations. A framework to conduct the CHIA was developed and designed to be applied to a TNC’s practices internationally, and within countries to enable comparison of practices and health impacts in different settings. The meeting participants proposed that impacts should be assessed according to the TNC’s global and national operating context; its organisational structure, political and business practices (including the type, distribution and marketing of its products); and workforce and working conditions, social factors, the environment, consumption patterns, and economic conditions within countries. We anticipate that the results of the CHIA will be used by civil society for capacity building and advocacy purposes, by governments to inform regulatory decision-making, and by TNCs to lessen their negative health impacts on health and fulfil commitments made to corporate social responsibility.

Background: Universal health coverage (UHC) is central to current international debate on health policy. The primary healthcare (PHC) system is crucial to achieving UHC, in order to address the rising incidence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) more effectively and equitably. In this paper, we examine the Australian case as a mature system of UHC and identify lessons for UHC policy to support equity of access to PHC and reduce NCDs. Methods: Our qualitative research used policy mapping and monitoring and 30 key informant interviews, and applied policy theory, to investigate the implementation of Australian PHC policy between 2008 and 2018. Results: Although the Australian PHC system does support equity of access to primary medical care, other ideational, actor-centred and structural features of policy detract from the capacities of the system to prevent and manage NCDs effectively, deliver equity of access according to need, and support equity in health outcomes. These features include a dominant focus on episodic primary medical care, which is a poor model of care for NCDs, and an inequitable distribution of these services. Also, a mixed system of public and private insurance coverage in PHC contributes to inequities in access and health outcomes, driving additional NCD demand into the health system. Conclusion: Countries aiming to achieve UHC to support health equity and reduce NCDs can learn from strengths and weaknesses in the Australian system. We recommend a range of ideational, actor-centred and structural features of UHC systems in PHC that will support effective action on NCDs, equity of access to care according to need, and equity in health outcomes across geographically and ethnically diverse populations.