What Enables and Constrains the Inclusion of the Social Determinants of Health Inequities in Government Policy Agendas? A Narrative Review

Abstract

Background: Despite decades of evidence gathering and calls for action, few countries have systematically attenuated health inequities (HI) through action on the social determinants of health (SDH). This is at least partly because doing so presents a significant political and policy challenge. This paper explores this challenge through a review of the empirical literature, asking: what factors have enabled and constrained the inclusion of the social determinants of health inequities (SDHI) in government policy agendas? Methods: A narrative review method was adopted involving three steps: first, drawing upon political science theories on agenda-setting, an integrated theoretical framework was developed to guide the review; second, a systematic search of scholarly databases for relevant literature; and third, qualitative analysis of the data and thematic synthesis of the results. Studies were included if they were empirical, met specified quality criteria, and identified factors that enabled or constrained the inclusion of the SDHI in government policy agendas. Results: A total of 48 studies were included in the final synthesis, with studies spanning a number of country-contexts and jurisdictional settings, and employing a diversity of theoretical frameworks. Influential factors included the ways in which the SDHI were framed in public, media and political discourse; emerging data and evidence describing health inequalities; limited supporting evidence and misalignment of proposed solutions with existing policy and institutional arrangements; institutionalised norms and ideologies (ie, belief systems) that are antithetical to a SDH approach including neoliberalism, the medicalisation of health and racism; civil society mobilization; leadership; and changes in government. Conclusion: A complex set of interrelated, context-dependent and dynamic factors influence the inclusion or neglect of the SDHI in government policy agendas. It is better to think about these factors as increasing (or decreasing) the ‘probability’ of health equity reaching a government agenda, rather than in terms of ‘necessity’ or ‘sufficiency.’ Understanding these factors may help advocates develop strategies for generating political priority for attenuating HI in the future.

The nexus between international trade, food systems, malnutrition and climate change

“…As the issue of trade highlights, and as noted throughout the two Lancet Commissions 23,24 , many of the needed policy actions to improve malnutrition and climate change fall outside the health and climate portfolios, requiring coordinated actions across many sectors, at multiple levels, within and outside of government. Fundamentally, this raises issues of power, with government priorities and decisions influenced by the interests of powerful policy actors and the strategies they adopt to advance their interests [53][54][55] .…”

Non-Communicable Chronic Diseases and Structural Indicators in an Epidemiological Transition Country

“…The overall objective of reducing by 25% the probability of dying by non-communicable diseases among persons aged 30 to 70 by 2025, [26] which has joined the Government of Ecuador, is based on an understanding of the influence of social and health inequalities, as well as an understanding of biological and behavioural sciences [27] [28].…”

A Time for Hope? Pursuing a Vision of a Fair, Sustainable and Healthy World

“…This raises issues of power across actors, ideas and interests. Particularly in the context of trying to recalibrate government priorities towards the public good, it is noteworthy that government decisions are shaped by the values and interests of powerful policy actors, the ideas they use to portray issues, the extent to which such portrayals resonate with existing ideologies, and the strategies they adopt to advance their interests (Baker et al., ).…”