Carter Stacy M, Hooker L Claire, Davey Heather M
The University of Sydney, Sydney, Lennox 2006, Australia.
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Apr;68(8):1448-55. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.01.029. Epub 2009 Feb 23.
A large literature concurs that social determinants of health (SDH) are demonstrable, important, and insufficiently attended to in policy and practice. A resulting priority for research should be to determine how the social determinants of health can best be addressed. In this paper we support the more effective transfer of social determinants research into policy by: (1) describing a qualitative analysis of thirty-two cancer control policy documents from six English-speaking OECD countries and two transnational organizations, demonstrating great variability in the treatment of social determinants in these policies; (2) critiquing these various policy practices in relation to their likely impact on social determinants of health; and (3) advancing a tool that policy writers can use to assess the way in which social determinants of health have been addressed in their work. In the sample of policy documents, the distinction between structural and intermediate determinants, population-based and targeted interventions, and their respective relationships to equity were not always clear. The authors identified four approaches to social determinants (acknowledging SDH, auditing SDH, stating aims regarding SDH and setting out actions on SDH), and five ways of writing about the relationship between social determinants and cancer risk. These five discourses implied, respectively: that group membership was intrinsically risky; that not enough was known about SDH; that risk arose from choices made by individuals; that groups were constrained by circumstance; or that structural change was necessary. Socio-cultural factors were generally presented negatively, though New Zealand policies modeled a possible alternative. Based on their empirical work, the authors propose a matrix and a set of questions to guide the development and assessment of health policy.
大量文献一致认为,健康的社会决定因素(SDH)是可论证的、重要的,且在政策和实践中未得到充分关注。因此,研究的一个优先事项应该是确定如何才能最好地解决健康的社会决定因素问题。在本文中,我们通过以下方式支持将社会决定因素研究更有效地转化为政策:(1)描述对来自六个英语国家的经合组织国家和两个跨国组织的32份癌症控制政策文件的定性分析,表明这些政策在对待社会决定因素方面存在很大差异;(2)就这些不同的政策实践对健康的社会决定因素可能产生的影响进行批判;(3)提出一种工具,政策制定者可以用它来评估其工作中处理健康的社会决定因素的方式。在政策文件样本中,结构性和中间性决定因素、基于人群和有针对性的干预措施之间的区别,以及它们与公平的各自关系并不总是很清楚。作者确定了处理社会决定因素的四种方法(承认SDH、审核SDH、陈述关于SDH的目标并列出关于SDH的行动),以及五种描述社会决定因素与癌症风险之间关系的方式。这五种论述分别意味着:群体成员身份本质上具有风险;对SDH了解不足;风险源于个人做出的选择;群体受到环境的限制;或者需要进行结构性变革。社会文化因素通常被呈现为负面,不过新西兰的政策展示了一种可能的替代方案。基于他们的实证研究,作者提出了一个矩阵和一系列问题,以指导卫生政策的制定和评估。