Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Study protocol

The GREENH-City interventional research protocol on health in all policies

Authors: Marion Porcherie, Zoé Vaillant, Emmanuelle Faure, Stéphane Rican, Jean Simos, Nicola Luca Cantoreggi, Zoé Heritage, Anne Roue Le Gall, Linda Cambon, Thierno Amadou Diallo, Eva Vidales, Jeanine Pommier

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This paper presents the research protocol of the GoveRnance for Equity, EnviroNment and Health in the City (GREENH-City) project funded by the National Institute for Cancer (Subvention N°2017–003-INCA). In France, health inequities have tended to increase since the late 1980s. Numerous studies show the influence of social, economic, geographic and political determinants on health inequities across the life course. Exposure to environmental factors is uneven across the population and may impact on health and health inequities. In cities, green spaces contribute to creating healthy settings which may help tackle health inequities. Health in All Policies (HiAP) represents one of the key strategies for addressing social and environmental determinants of health inequities. The objective of this research is to identify the most promising interventions to operationalize the HiAP approaches at the city level to tackle health inequities through urban green spaces. It is a participatory interventional research to analyze public policy in real life setting (WHO Healthy Cities).

Method/design

It is a mixed method systemic study with a quantitative approach for the 80 cities and a comparative qualitative multiple case-studies of 6 cities. The research combines 3 different lens: 1/a political analysis of how municipalities apply HiAP to reduce social inequities of health through green space policies and interventions 2/a geographical and topological characterization of green spaces and 3/ on-site observations of the use of green spaces by the inhabitants.

Results

City profiles will be identified regarding their HiAP approaches and the extent to which these cities address social inequities in health as part of their green space policy action. The analysis of the transferability of the results will inform policy recommendations in the rest of the Health City Network and widely for the French municipalities.

Discussion/conclusion

The study will help identify factors enabling the implementation of the HiAP approach at a municipal level, promoting the development of green spaces policies in urban areas in order to tackle the social inequities in health.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
CSDH. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Geneva: Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health; 2008.
3.
Braveman P, Tarimo E. Social inequalities in health within countries: not only an issue for affluent nations. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:11.CrossRef
4.
Goldblatt PO. Moving forward monitoring of the social determinants of health in a country: lessons from England 5 years after the marmot review. Glob Health Action. 2016;9:29627.CrossRef
5.
Marmot M, Allen J, Bell R, Bloomer E, Goldblatt P. WHO European review of social determinants of health and the health divide. Lancet. 2012;380:1011.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Stringhini S, Dugravot A, Shipley M, Goldberg M, Zins M, Kivimäki M, et al. Health behaviours, socioeconomic status, and mortality: further analyses of the British Whitehall II and the French GAZEL prospective cohorts. PLoS Med. 2011;8(2):e1000419.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Benach J, Friel S, Houweling T, Labonte R, Muntaner C, Schrecker T, et al. CSDH- a conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health discussion paper for the commission on social determinants of health DRAFT 2007.
8.
P a B, S a E, Mockenhaupt RE. Broadening the focus: the need to address the social determinants of health. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(Suppl 1):S4–18.
9.
Jouany JM. Environment and human health. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety. 2013;40.
10.
Van den Berg M, Wendel-Vos W, van Poppel M, Kemper H, van Mechelen W, Maas J. Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Urban For Urban Green. 2015;14(4):806–16.CrossRef
11.
Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, Yli-Pelkonen V, Kaźmierczak A, Niemela J, et al. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc Urban Plan. 2007;81(3):167–78.CrossRef
12.
Lee ACK, Maheswaran R. The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the evidence. J Public Health. Bangkok: Oxford University Press. 2011;33(2):212–22.CrossRef
13.
Lachowycz K, Jones AP. Towards a better understanding of the relationship between greenspace and health: development of a theoretical framework. Landsc Urban Plan. 2013;118:62–9.CrossRef
14.
Urban green spaces and health. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2016.
15.
ONU-Habitat O et. La Face cachée des villes. Kobe; 2010.
16.
Villanueva K, Badland H, Hooper P, Koohsari MJ, Mavoa S, Davern M, et al. Developing indicators of public open space to promote health and wellbeing in communities. Appl Geogr. 2015;57:112–9.CrossRef
17.
Carrus G, Scopelliti M, Lafortezza R, Colangelo G, Ferrini F, Salbitano F, et al. Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landsc Urban Plan. 2015;134:221–8.CrossRef
18.
Barton H. Land use planning and health and well-being. Land Use Policy. 2009;26:S115–23.CrossRef
19.
Bertram C, Rehdanz K. The role of urban green space for human well-being. Ecol Econ. 2015;120(C):139–152.
20.
Butterworth I. The relationship between the built environment and well-being:opportunities for health promotion in urban planning. Melbourne: Foundation HP; 2000.
21.
Thompson CW, Aspinall P, Roe J. Access to green space in disadvantaged urban communities: evidence of Salutogenic effects based on biomarker and self-report measures of wellbeing. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2014;153:10–22.CrossRef
22.
Rasidi MH, Jamirsah N, Said I. Urban green space design affects urban residents’ social interaction. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 2012;68:464–80.CrossRef
23.
Meisser ALG. One health: the a Operationalizing one health for local governance. In: Zinsstag J, Schelling E, Waltner-Toews D, Whittaker MTM, editors. One Health: The theory and practice of integrated health approaches. Wallingford & Boston: CABI; 2015.
24.
Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities “just green enough.”. Landsc Urban Plan. 2014;125:234–44.CrossRef
25.
Mitchell R, Popham F, Smith GD, Shaw M, Mitchell R, Dorling D, et al. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. Lancet. 2008;372:1655–60.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Kabisch N. Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning—the case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy. 2015;42:557–67.CrossRef
27.
Clark WA, Coulter R. Who wants to move? The role of neighbourhood change. Environ plan a. London : SAGE Publications Sage UK. 2015;47(12):2683–709.
28.
Astell-Burt T, Fen X, Mavoa S, et al. Do low-income neighbourhoods have the least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia’s most populous cities. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:292.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Debrand T, Pierre A, Allonier C, Lucas-Gabrielli V. Critical urban areas, deprived areas and neighbourhood effects on health in France. Health Policy Elsevier. 2012;105(1):92–101.CrossRef
30.
de Leeuw E. Engagement of sectors other than health in integrated health governance, policy, and action. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38:25.1–25.21.CrossRef
31.
WHO. Learning from Intersectoral actions for implementing health in all policies: a compilation of case studies executive summaries of in-depth case studies from the WHO regions of Africa, South-East Asia, and the western Pacific. 2013.
32.
Curtis S. How can we address health inequality through healthy public policy in Europe? Eur Urban Reg Stud. 2008;15(4):293–305.CrossRef
33.
34.
M a M. Health inequalities as a foundation for embodying knowledge within public health teaching: a qualitative study. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12:46.CrossRef
35.
Ndumbe-Eyoh S, Moffatt H. Intersectoral action for health equity: a rapid systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1.CrossRef
36.
Kickbusch I, Williams C, Lawless A. Making the most of open windows: establishing health in all policies in South Australia. Int J Health Serv. 2014;44(1):185.CrossRefPubMed
37.
McIntyre D, Gilson L. Putting equity in health back onto the social policy agenda: experience from South Africa. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(11):1637–56.CrossRefPubMed
38.
39.
de Leeuw, Evelyne, Simos J. Healthy Cities The Theory, Policy, and Practice of Value-Based Urban Planning. Springer Farlag. de Leeuw, Evelyne, Simos J, editor. New York; 2017.
40.
Bauman AE, King L, Nutbeam D. Rethinking the evaluation and measurement of health in all policies. Health Promot Int. 2014;29(S1):i143–50.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Creswell JW. Research design - qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications; 2003.
42.
Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Fifth edit. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications; 2013.
43.
OMS. Déclaration d’Athènes pour les Villes-Santé. In: WHO, editor. conférence internationale des Villes-Santé, la santé et la ville au 21ème siècle. Athènes; 2014.
44.
Maystre LY, J SJ P. Méthodes multicritères Electre. Description, conseils pratiques et cas d’application à la gestion environnementale. Lausanne: PUR; 1994.
45.
WHO French Healthy Cities Network. Active Mobiliy every Day : the role of local government. Rennes: Presses EH; 2014.
46.
Craig P, Cooper C, Gunnell D, Haw S, Lawson K, Macintyre S, et al. Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: new Medical Research Council guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(12):1182–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
47.
48.
Hawe P. Methods for exploring implementation variation and local context within a cluster randomised community intervention trial. J Epidemiol Community Heal. 2004;58(9):788–93.CrossRef
49.
Hawe P, Potvin L. What is population health intervention research? Can J Public Health. 2009;100(1):Suppl I8–14.
50.
51.
Storm I, Harting J, Stronks K, Schuit AJ. Measuring stages of health in all policies on a local level: the applicability of a maturity model. Health Policy. 2014;114(2–3):183.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Baum F, Lawless A, Delany T, Macdougall C, Williams C, Broderick D, et al. Evaluation of health in all policies: concept, theory and application. Health Promot Int. 2014;29(S1):130.CrossRef
53.
Greer SL, Lillvis DF. Beyond leadership: political strategies for coordination in health policies. Health Policy. 2014;116:12.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Davies JK, Sherriff NS. Assessing public health policy approaches to level-up the gradient in health inequalities: the gradient evaluation framework. Public Health. 2014;128:3.CrossRef
55.
Benach J, Malmusi D, Yasui Y, Martínez JM, Muntaner C. Beyond Rose’s strategies: a typology of scenarios of policy impact on population health and health inequalities. Int J Health Serv. 2011;41:1.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Benach J, Malmusi D, Yasui Y, Martinez JM. A new typology of policies to tackle health inequalities and scenarios of impact based on Rose’s population approach. J Epidemiol Community Heal. 2012;67:3.
57.
Benach J, Malmusi D, Yasui Y, Martínez JM. A new typology of policies to tackle health inequalities and scenarios of impact based on Rose’s population approach. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67:3.CrossRef
58.
Davies JK, Sherriff NS. Assessing public health policy approaches to level-up the gradient in health inequalities: the gradient evaluation framework. Public Health. 2014;
59.
Metadata
Title
The GREENH-City interventional research protocol on health in all policies
Authors
Marion Porcherie
Zoé Vaillant
Emmanuelle Faure
Stéphane Rican
Jean Simos
Nicola Luca Cantoreggi
Zoé Heritage
Anne Roue Le Gall
Linda Cambon
Thierno Amadou Diallo
Eva Vidales
Jeanine Pommier
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4812-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Public Health 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Effect of exclusive breastfeeding on selected adverse health and nutritional outcomes: a nationally representative study

Study protocol

Study protocol for “MOVEdiabetes”: a trial to promote physical activity for adults with type 2 diabetes in primary health care in Oman

Research article

Improving the effectiveness of sickness benefit case management through a public-private partnership? A difference-in-difference analysis in eighteen Danish municipalities

Research article

Male involvement in maternal healthcare through Community- based Health Planning and Services: the views of the men in rural Ghana

Research article

Neighborhood-resources for the development of a strong SOC and the importance of understanding why and how resources work: a grounded theory approach

Research article

High variability of TB, HIV, hepatitis C treatment and opioid substitution therapy among prisoners in Germany