(From the ISHN Member information service) An excellent illustration of a procedure to select evidence-based interventions to promote health is described in Issue #1, 2015 of Environmental Health Review. ISHN recommends the use of this type of planning tool but also suggests that, despite the rigour within this procedure used to select relevant research on better practices, other steps need to be taken to test our underlying assumptions before we begin as well as use our common sense in assessing the fit between the planned intervention and our local context, especially in regards to likely barriers that may be prevalent in our local communities, states or countries.
The illustration used in the journal article is focused on an urban setting, wherein the public health practitioners are looking for urban planning interventions to increase physical activity among children and adults in the community in response to rising obesity rates. The article takes the reader through several planning steps to identify such urban planning tools, eventually pointing to a credible research review published by the CDC in the United States that suggest that "Community-scale urban design and land-use regulations, policies, and practices" such as zoning regulations and building codes, and environmental changes brought about by government policies or builders’ practices. The latter include policies encouraging transit-oriented development, and policies addressing street layouts, the density of development, the location of more stores, jobs and schools within walking distance of where people live as well as "street-scale urban design and land use approaches" in small geographic areas, generally limited to a few blocks, such as improved street lighting or infrastructure projects that increase the ease and safety of street crossing, ensure sidewalk continuity, introduce or enhance traffic calming such as center islands or raised crosswalks, or enhance the aesthetics of the street area, such as landscaping can improve levels of physical activity. Once these two types of interventions are identified in the procedure, the remaining steps suggest the involvement of stakeholders, program development and building in evaluation and feedback mechanisms. One section of the procedure suggests "Assessing Applicability and Transferability of Evidence" but the focus in that section is on how the knowledge about the intervention can be transferred successfully to policy-makers and practitioners and mentions real-barriers related to feasibility such as costs, resources and other practical factors only briefly.
We suggest here that this excellent illustration of a procedure to select an intervention to address a problem needs to be accompanied by at least three other processes. The first of these is to test our assumptions about the type of outcome we are seeking. The illustration in this article, where the fictional planners decide in advance that increased physical activity can prevent or reduce obesity and overweight is actually reflective of many real-life planners, who have done the same. The trouble is that there is increasing evidence, including from sources such as the CDC and the centre which has published this guide to selecting interventions, that increased physical activity alone, will have little impact on body weight unless it is very intense, well beyond the scope of the average person. The second process we suggest is a real hard look at the resources available in the community or organization. The research reviews identified in the article did note these barriers in their study. The barriers to community scale interventions include "1) changing how cities are built given that the urban landscape changes relatively slowly, 2) zoning regulations that preclude mixed-use neighborhoods, 3) cost of remodeling/retrofitting existing communities, 4) lack of effective communication between different professional groups (i.e., urban planners, architects, transportation engineers, public health professionals, etc.), and 5) changing behavioral norms directed towards urban design, lifestyle, and physical activity patterns" The real world barriers to street scale changes include: "the expense of changing existing streetscapes. In addition, street-scale urban design an land use policies require careful planning and coordination between urban planners, architects, engineers, developers, and public health professionals. Success is greatly enhanced by community buy-in, which can take time and effort to achieve. Inadequate resources and lack of incentives for improving pedestrian-friendliness may affect how completely and appropriately interventions are implemented and evaluated". The article suggests that the local context is an established urban setting. In most established cities, it is very difficult to make major changes in existing neighbourhoods, especially in these days where priority concerns might very well be crime, traffic and aging infrastructure. This real world observation leads us to the third major consideration that should be used in conjunction with this procedure to select evidence-based interventions. The third consideration needs to be an in-depth understanding of the core mandates, constraints and current concerns of the system that will carry the major part of the burden in implementing the intervention. In this case, it is the municipality. There are lots of examples of how such systems analysis can be done, but we close this ISHN Commentary with an appropriate example, also found by the same centre that has created this procedure for identifying evidence-based interventions. This systems planning guide that they suggest is from the province of Alberta, which suggests that program planners consider the characterisitcs of the system that will will host the intervention. These include the leadership, organization "slack" in committed vs available resources, staffing, time for implementation and more.
In school health promotion, ISHN is pleased to be pat of a global dialogue being led by educators in regards to how health and social programs can be better integrated within education systems. We suggest that before we select an intervention from the research, we seek to truly understand the system that will carry the intervention over the long term. We also suggest we look closely ar practical barriers and that we check our assumptions. Read more>>
The illustration used in the journal article is focused on an urban setting, wherein the public health practitioners are looking for urban planning interventions to increase physical activity among children and adults in the community in response to rising obesity rates. The article takes the reader through several planning steps to identify such urban planning tools, eventually pointing to a credible research review published by the CDC in the United States that suggest that "Community-scale urban design and land-use regulations, policies, and practices" such as zoning regulations and building codes, and environmental changes brought about by government policies or builders’ practices. The latter include policies encouraging transit-oriented development, and policies addressing street layouts, the density of development, the location of more stores, jobs and schools within walking distance of where people live as well as "street-scale urban design and land use approaches" in small geographic areas, generally limited to a few blocks, such as improved street lighting or infrastructure projects that increase the ease and safety of street crossing, ensure sidewalk continuity, introduce or enhance traffic calming such as center islands or raised crosswalks, or enhance the aesthetics of the street area, such as landscaping can improve levels of physical activity. Once these two types of interventions are identified in the procedure, the remaining steps suggest the involvement of stakeholders, program development and building in evaluation and feedback mechanisms. One section of the procedure suggests "Assessing Applicability and Transferability of Evidence" but the focus in that section is on how the knowledge about the intervention can be transferred successfully to policy-makers and practitioners and mentions real-barriers related to feasibility such as costs, resources and other practical factors only briefly.
We suggest here that this excellent illustration of a procedure to select an intervention to address a problem needs to be accompanied by at least three other processes. The first of these is to test our assumptions about the type of outcome we are seeking. The illustration in this article, where the fictional planners decide in advance that increased physical activity can prevent or reduce obesity and overweight is actually reflective of many real-life planners, who have done the same. The trouble is that there is increasing evidence, including from sources such as the CDC and the centre which has published this guide to selecting interventions, that increased physical activity alone, will have little impact on body weight unless it is very intense, well beyond the scope of the average person. The second process we suggest is a real hard look at the resources available in the community or organization. The research reviews identified in the article did note these barriers in their study. The barriers to community scale interventions include "1) changing how cities are built given that the urban landscape changes relatively slowly, 2) zoning regulations that preclude mixed-use neighborhoods, 3) cost of remodeling/retrofitting existing communities, 4) lack of effective communication between different professional groups (i.e., urban planners, architects, transportation engineers, public health professionals, etc.), and 5) changing behavioral norms directed towards urban design, lifestyle, and physical activity patterns" The real world barriers to street scale changes include: "the expense of changing existing streetscapes. In addition, street-scale urban design an land use policies require careful planning and coordination between urban planners, architects, engineers, developers, and public health professionals. Success is greatly enhanced by community buy-in, which can take time and effort to achieve. Inadequate resources and lack of incentives for improving pedestrian-friendliness may affect how completely and appropriately interventions are implemented and evaluated". The article suggests that the local context is an established urban setting. In most established cities, it is very difficult to make major changes in existing neighbourhoods, especially in these days where priority concerns might very well be crime, traffic and aging infrastructure. This real world observation leads us to the third major consideration that should be used in conjunction with this procedure to select evidence-based interventions. The third consideration needs to be an in-depth understanding of the core mandates, constraints and current concerns of the system that will carry the major part of the burden in implementing the intervention. In this case, it is the municipality. There are lots of examples of how such systems analysis can be done, but we close this ISHN Commentary with an appropriate example, also found by the same centre that has created this procedure for identifying evidence-based interventions. This systems planning guide that they suggest is from the province of Alberta, which suggests that program planners consider the characterisitcs of the system that will will host the intervention. These include the leadership, organization "slack" in committed vs available resources, staffing, time for implementation and more.
In school health promotion, ISHN is pleased to be pat of a global dialogue being led by educators in regards to how health and social programs can be better integrated within education systems. We suggest that before we select an intervention from the research, we seek to truly understand the system that will carry the intervention over the long term. We also suggest we look closely ar practical barriers and that we check our assumptions. Read more>>
RSS Feed