4.6 Article

Moving beyond individual choice in policies to reduce health inequalities: the integration of dynamic with individual explanations

Journal

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 40, Issue 4, Pages 764-775

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdy045

Keywords

dynamic and relational explanations; health inequalities; individualistic explanations

Funding

  1. Annual Fund of St John's College, Cambridge
  2. Wellcome Trust [097899]
  3. Arts and Humanities Research Council [AH/M005917/1]
  4. AHRC [AH/M005917/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background A strong focus on individual choice and behaviour informs interventions designed to reduce health inequalities in the UK. We review evidence for wider mechanisms from a range of disciplines, demonstrate that they are not yet impacting on programmes, and argue for their systematic inclusion in policy and research. Methods We identified potential mechanisms relevant to health inequalities and their amelioration from different disciplines and analysed six policy documents published between 1976 and 2010 using Bacchi's 'What's the problem represented to be?' framework for policy analysis. Results We found substantial evidence of supra-individualistic and relational mechanisms relevant to health inequalities from sociology, history, biology, neuroscience, philosophy and psychology. Policy documents sometimes expressed these mechanisms in policy rhetoric but rarely in policy recommendations, which continue to focus on individual behaviour. Discussion Current evidence points to the potential of systematically applying broader thinking about causal mechanisms, beyond individual choice and responsibility, to the design, implementation and evaluation of policies to reduce health inequalities. We provide a set of questions designed to enable critique of policy discussions and programmes to ensure that these wider mechanisms are considered.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available