The gradient in health inequalities reflects a relationship between health and social circumstance demonstrating that health worsens as you move down the socioeconomic scale. Norway’s Public Health Act (PHA) specifically aims to tackle the gradient by addressing the social determinants of health. In this article, we draw on data from 2 studies that investigated how municipalities in Norway deal with these challenges. In doing so, we apply theoretical perspectives, as defined in the Gradient Evaluation Framework (GEF), to analyze the implementation of the PHA at the municipality level. The article aims to describe and analyze how local governments follow the requirements of the act. In doing so, we address the following research questions: Which policies are implemented at the local level to reduce social inequalities in health among families and children? How is intersectoral collaboration carried out, and who is taking part in the collaboration? The article draws on both quantitative survey data from questionnaires sent to all Norwegian municipalities and qualitative interview data in 6 municipalities. The findings show that there is raised awareness of the significance of social determinants among an increased number of municipalities, indicating that the PHA is being implemented according to its objectives.
SherriffNSGugglbergerLDaviesJKon behalf of the ACTION-FOR-HEALTH Consortium. Reducing Health Inequalities Through Health Promotion and Structural Funds.
Murska Sobota, Slovenia:
Institute of Public Health Murska Sobota; 2014.
2.
MackenbachJPStirbuIRoskamAJRet al.
Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries.N Engl J Med. 2008;
358(23):2468–2481.
3.
MackenbachJPMeerdingWJKunstAE.
Economic costs of health inequalities in the European Union.J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2011;
65(5):412–419.
4.
DaviesJKSherriffNS.The gradient in health inequalities among families and children: a review of evaluation frameworks.Health Policy. 2011;
101(1):1–10.
5.
GrahamH.Understanding Health Inequalities.
Maidenhead, Berkshire:
Open University Press; 2000.
6.
MarmotM.The Marmot Review. Fair Society, Healthy Lives. Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England Post-2010.
London, England:
Ministry of Health; 2010.
7.
WHO. Closing the Gap in a Generation. Health Equity Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Final Report From Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2008.
8.
RittelHWJWebberMM.Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.Policy Sci. 1973;
4:155–169.
9.
BlackmanTMarksLHarringtonBet al.
Wicked comparisons: reflections on cross-national research about health inequalities in the UK.Evaluation. 2010;
6: 43–57.
10.
FosseEBullTBurströmBet al.
Family policy and inequalities in health in different welfare states.Int J Health Serv. 2014;
44(2):233–251.
11.
PoultonRCaspiAMilneBJet al.
Association between children’s experience of socioeconomic disadvantage and adult health: a life-course study.Lancet. 2002;
360:1640–1645.
12.
GrahamHPowerC.Childhood disadvantage and health inequalities: a framework for policy-based life course research.Child Care Health Dev. 2004;
30(6):671–678.
13.
LundbergO.How do welfare policies contribute to the reduction of health inequalities?Eurohealth. 2009;
15(3):24–27.
14.
Esping-AndersenG.The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism.
Cambridge, England:
Polity Press; 1990.
15.
DahlEBergsliHvan der WelK.Social Inequalities in Norway. A Norwegian Knowledge Overview.
Oslo, Norway:
University College of Oslo and Akershus; 2014.
16.
Ministry of Health and Care Services Norway. National Strategy to Reduce Social Inequalities in Health. Report to the Storting no. 20 (2006-2007). Oslo, Norway: Ministry of Health and Care Services; 2006.
17.
DaviesJKSherriffNS.The Gradient Evaluation Framework (GEF): A European Framework for Designing and Evaluating Policies and Actions to Level-up the Gradient in Health Inequalities Among Children, Young People, and Their Families.
Brighton, England:
University of Brighton; 2012.
18.
Ministry of Health and Care Services. Public Health Act, no. 29, 24-06-2011.
Oslo, Norway:
Ministry of Health and Care Services; 2011.
19.
LeppoKOllilaEPeñaWismarMCookS. Health in All Policies. Seizing Opportunities, Implementing Policies.
Helsinki, Finland:
Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health; 2013.
20.
StrandMFosseE.Tackling health inequalities in Norway: applying linear and non-linear models in the policy-making process. Crit Public Health. 2011;
21(2):373–381.
21.
TallarekMGHelgesenMKFosseE.Reducing social inequalities in health in Norway: concerted action at state and local levels?Health Policy. 2013;
13:228–235.
22.
BaldersheimHStåhlbergK.Guided democracy or multi-level governance? New trends in regulatory regimes in central-local relations in the Nordic countries.Local Gov Stud. 2002;
28:74–90.
23.
HanssenGSHelgesenMK. Multi-level governance in Norway: universalism in elderly and mental health care services. Int J Sociol Soc Policy. 2011;
31:3–4.
24.
HofstadH.Healthy urban planning: ambitions, practices and prospects in a Norwegian context.Plann Theor Pract. 2011;
12(3):387–406.
25.
DaviesJKSherriffNS.Evaluating policies: applying the Gradient Equity Lens. In: StegemanICostongsC, eds. The Right Start to a Healthy Life: Levelling Up the Health Gradient Among Children, Young People and Families in the European Union-What Works?
Brussels:
EuroHealthNet; 2012:153–176.
26.
DaviesJKSherriffNS.Assessing public health policy approaches to level-up the gradient in health inequalities using a consensus-building process: the Gradient Evaluation Framework (GEF).Public Health. 2014;(
128):246–253.
27.
HallsworthMParkerSRutterJ.Policy Making in the Real World: Evidence and Analysis.
London, England:
Institute for Government; 2011.
28.
HelgesenMKHofstadH.Regionalt og lokalt folkehelsearbeid- Ressurser, organisering og koordinering En baselineundersøkelse [Regional and Local Health Promotion. Resources, Organization and Coordination. A Baseline Study].
Oslo, Norway:
NIBR; 2012:13.
29.
SchouAHelgesenMKHofstadH.Samhandlingsreformens effekt på kommunen som helsefremmende og sykdomsforebyggende aktør [The effect of the coordination reform on municipalities’ performance in the field of health promotion and public health].
Oslo, Norway:
NIBR; 2014:21.
30.
HelgesenMKAbebeDSSchouA.Oppmerksomhet mot barn og unge i Folkehelsearbeidet – Nullpunktsundersøkelse for Program for folkehelse i kommunene settes i verk [Children and youth in municipal health promotion. A baseline Joint Report].
Oslo, Norway:
NIBR/NOVA; 2017.
31.
Ministry of Health and Care Services. Mestring og muligheter [Coping and opportunities]. Public Health Report to the Storting no. 19 (2014-2015). Oslo, Norway: Ministry of Health and Care Services; 2014.
32.
Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Public Health Report – Short Version. Health Status in Norway.
Oslo, Norway:
Norwegian Institute of Public Health; 2018.
33.
FosseEHelgesenMK.How can local governments level the social gradient in health among families with children? The case of Norway.Int J Child Youth Family Stud. 2015;
6(2):328–346.
34.
CareyGCrammondBKeastR.Creating change in government to address the social determinants of health: how can efforts be improved?BMC Public Health. 2014;
14:1087.
35.
CareyGCrammondB.What works in joined-up government? An evidence synthesis.Int J Public Admin. 2015;
38:13–14, 1020–1029.
