Results indicate that the fireworks disaster had a substantial impact on the health of those affected by the disaster. The health impact was most pronounced for residents and passers-by and also for rescue workers living in the affected area, but to a lesser degree. Physical and mental health problems were strongly associated with the shocking experiences during and shortly after the disaster.

No abstract

Geographic patterns of poor health and mortality risk are found in most countries. Important health effects at the neighborhood level are mortality, general health, illness and disabilities, mental health, and healthcare utilization. Awareness of the influence of social class on health has been growing during the last decades. Studies show that individuals with lower socioeconomic status (SES) have a shorter life expectancy than do their 'well-off' counterparts. Yet SES-related health inequalities cannot be fully explained by individual characteristics, and environmental qualities should be taken into account. Many aspects of local areas that might be related to health or access to opportunities to live healthily are systematically poorer in socially disadvantaged areas. Such factors have the potential to explain health differences between deprived and prosperous neighborhoods. Investigating health differences at the neighborhood level implies conceptual as well as methodological issues pertaining to selection, accumulation, multiple level measurement, objective features versus perceptions, and time dynamic aspects. This article reviews such issues and evaluates several exemplary theoretical approaches from the fields of public health and environmental health in their ability to overcome such problems.

Calls for evidence-informed public health policy-making often ignore that there are multiple, and often competing, bodies of potentially relevant evidence to which policy-makers have recourse in identifying policy priorities and taking decisions. In this paper, we illustrate how policy frames may favour the use of specific bodies of evidence. For the sixth Dutch Public Health Status and Foresight report (2014), possible future trends in population health and healthcare expenditure were used as a starting point for a deliberative dialogue with stakeholders to identify and formulate the most important societal challenges for the Dutch health system. Working with these stakeholders, we expanded these societal challenges into four normative perspectives on public health. These perspectives can be regarded as policy frames. In each of the perspectives, a specific body of evidence is favoured and other types of evidence are neglected. Crucial outcomes in one body may be regarded as irrelevant from other perspectives. Consequently, the results of research from a single body of evidence may not be helpful in the policymaking processes because policy-makers need to account for trade-offs between all competing interests and values. To support these policy processes, researchers need to combine qualitative and quantitative methodologies to address different outcomes from the start of their studies. We feel it is time for the research community to repoliticise the idea of evidence use and for policy-makers to demand research that helps them to account for all health-related policy goals. This is a prerequisite for real evidence-informed policy-making.