The finding that there is a social gradient in health has prompted considerable interest in public health circles. Recent influential works describing health inequities and their causes do not always argue cogently for a policy framework that would drive the most appropriate solutions differentially across the social gradient This paper aims to develop a practice heuristic for proportionate universalism. Through a review the proposed heuristic integrates evidence from welfare state and policy research, the literature on universal and targeted policy frameworks, and a multi-level governance approach that adopts the principle of subsidiarity. The proposed heuristic provides a more-grained analysis of different policy approaches, integral for operationalizing the concept of proportionate universalism. The proposed framework would allow governments at all levels, social policy developers and bureaucrats, public health professionals and activists to consider the appropriateness of distinctive policy objectives across distinctive population needs within universal welfare state principles.

Health is created largely outside the health sector. Engagement in health governance, policy, and intervention development and implementation by sectors other than health is therefore important. Recent calls for building and implementing Health in All Policies, and continued arguments for intersectoral action, may strengthen the potential that other sectors have for health. This review clarifies the conceptual foundations for integral health governance, policy, and action, delineates the different sectors and their possible engagement, and provides an overview of a continuum of methods of engagement with other sectors to secure integration. This continuum ranges from institutional (re)design to value-based narratives. Depending on the lens applied, different elements can be identified within the continuum. This review is built on insights from political science, leadership studies, public health, empirical Health in All Policy research, knowledge and evidence nexus approaches, and community perspectives. Successful integration of health governance, policy, and action depends on integration of the elements on the continuum.

The establishment of policy is key to the implementation of actions for health. We review the nature of policy and the definition and directions of health policy. In doing so, we explicitly cast a health political science gaze on setting parameters for researching policy change for health. A brief overview of core theories of the policy process for health promotion is presented, and illustrated with empirical evidence. The key arguments are that (a) policy is not an intervention, but drives intervention development and implementation; (b) understanding policy processes and their pertinent theories is pivotal for the potential to influence policy change; (c) those theories and associated empirical work need to recognise the wicked, multi-level, and incremental nature of elements in the process; and, therefore, (d) the public health, health promotion, and education research toolbox should more explicitly embrace health political science insights. The rigorous application of insights from and theories of the policy process will enhance our understanding of not just how, but also why health policy is structured and implemented the way it is.

The Ottawa Charter laid the ground work for a new research and practice agenda by urging health promoters to advocate for healthy public policies. After more than 20 years, it is now time to reflect on the state of policy research in health promotion and to examine how rigorously theories are applied. The review of the literature was conducted on 11 peer-reviewed journals. The journals were selected for their solid track record in publishing health promotion articles and by using a set of pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The articles, published between January 1986 and June 2006, were searched using Medline and CINAHL databases. The selected papers feature search terms related to ‘politics’, ‘policy’, ‘advocacy’ and ‘coalition’. We examined the theoretical grounding of each paper and whether it focuses on policy content (e.g. nature, impact, evolution of the policy), policy processes (e.g. advocacy capacity building and strategies) or theoretical/methodological issues in policy analysis. This review demonstrates that policy research in health promotion is still largely an a-theoretical enterprise. Out of the 119 articles that were found eligible, 39 did apply to some degree a theoretical framework, of which 21 referred to a theoretical framework from political science. We conclude that the field has yet to acknowledge critical concepts that would help to shed light on the policy process, and that validated rigorous theoretical frameworks to inform research and practice are hardly applied. Recommendations are formulated to improve policy research in health promotion.

The European Healthy Cities project can be characterized as a social movement that employs an extremely wide range of political, social and behavioural interventions for the development and sustenance of urban population health. At all of these levels, the movement is inspired by ideological, theoretical and evidence-based perspectives. The result of this stance is a dynamic, complex and diverse landscape of initiatives, plans, programmes and actions. In quantitative terms (the number of WHO designated cities and associated cities and communities through national networks), ‘Healthy Cities’ can be regarded as an extraordinary accomplishment and a credit for both WHO and cities in the movement. In qualitative terms, however, critics of the movement have maintained that little evidence on its success and effectiveness has been generated. This critique finds its foundations in the mere perceptions of evidence, the politics of science and urban governance, and perspectives on the preferred or professed utilities of evidence-based health notions. The article reviews the nature of evidence and its interface with politics and governance. Applying a conceptual framework combining insights from knowledge utilization theory, theoretical perspectives on (health) policy development, theory-based evaluations and planned intervention approaches, it demonstrates that, although the evidence is overwhelming, there are barriers to the implementation of such evidence that should be further addressed by ‘Healthy Cities’.

Population health interventions tend to lack links to the emerging discourse on interactive knowledge production and exchange. This situation may limit both a better understanding of mechanisms that impact health lifestyles and the development of strategies for population level change. This paper introduces an integrated approach based on structure-agency theory in the context of ‘social practice’. It investigates the mechanisms of co-production of active lifestyles by population groups, professionals, policymakers and researchers. It combines a whole system approach with an interactive knowledge-to-action strategy for developing and implementing active lifestyle interventions. A system model is outlined to describe and explain how social practices of selected groups co-produce active lifestyles. Four intervention models for promoting the co-production of active lifestyles through an interactive-knowledge-to-action approach are discussed. Examples from case studies of the German research network Capital4Health are used to illustrate, how intervention models might be operationalized in a real-world intervention. Five subprojects develop, implement and evaluate interventions across the life-course. Although subprojects differ with regard to settings and population groups involved, they all focus on the four key components of the system model. The paper contributes new strategies to address the intervention research challenge of sustainable change of inactive lifestyles. The interactive approach presented allows consideration of the specificities of settings and scientific contexts for manifold purposes. Further research remains needed on what a co-produced knowledge-to-action agenda would look like and what impact it might have for whole system change.