Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 108, Issue 2, pp e192–e198 | Cite as

Pathways to policy: Lessons learned in multisectoral collaboration for physical activity and built environment policy development from the Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention (CLASP) initiative

  • Christopher E. PolitisEmail author
  • David L. Mowat
  • Deb Keen
Innovations in Policy and Practice
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer funded 12 large-scale knowledge to action cancer and chronic disease prevention projects between 2009 and 2016 through the Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention (CLASP) initiative. Two projects, Healthy Canada by Design (HCBD) and Children’s Mobility, Health and Happiness (CMHH), developed policies to address physical activity and the built environment through a multisectoral approach. A qualitative analysis involving a review of 183 knowledge products and 8 key informant interviews was conducted to understand what policy changes occurred, and the underlying critical success factors, through these projects.

SETTING: Both projects worked at the local level to change physical activity and built environment policy in 203 sites, including municipalities and schools. Both projects brought multisectoral expertise (e.g., public health, land use planning, transportation engineering, education, etc.) together to inform the development of local healthy public policy in the areas of land use, transportation and school travel planning.

INTERVENTION: Through the qualitative analysis of the knowledge products and key informant interviews, 163 policies were attributed to HCBD and CMHH work.

OUTCOMES: Fourteen “pathways to policy” were identified as critical success factors facilitating and accelerating the development and implementation of physical activity and built environment policy. Of the 14 pathways to policy, 8 had a focus on multisectoral collaboration.

IMPLICATIONS: The lessons learned from the CLASP experience could support enhanced multisectoral collaborations to accelerate the development and implementation of physical activity and built environment policy in new jurisdictions across Canada and internationally.

Key Words

Public health policy physical activity environment design city planning collaboration 

Résumé

OBJECTIFS: Entre 2009 et 2016, le Partenariat canadien contre le cancer a financé 12 vastes projets de mise des connaissances en action pour la prévention du cancer et des maladies chroniques par l’entremise de l’initiative COALITION - Connaissances et action liées pour une meilleure prévention. Deux de ces projets, Bâtir un Canada en santé (BUCS) et Children’s Mobility, Health and Happiness (CMHH), ont élaboré des politiques pour aborder l’activité physique et l’environnement bâti selon une approche multisectorielle. Nous avons mené une analyse qualitative impliquant l’examen de 183 produits du savoir et la tenue de 8 entretiens avec des informateurs pour comprendre quels changements d’orientation se sont produits grâce à ces projets, et quels ont été les facteurs de réussite déterminants sous-jacents.

LIEU: Les deux projets ont été réalisés pour modifier à l’échelle locale les politiques sur l’activité physique et l’environnement bâti à 203 endroits, dont des municipalités et des écoles. Les deux projets ont réuni des experts de divers secteurs (santé publique, aménagement du territoire, ingénierie des transports, éducation, etc.) pour éclairer l’élaboration de politiques pour la santé locales dans les domaines de l’aménagement du territoire et de la planification des transports et du transport scolaire.

INTERVENTION: Au moyen de l’analyse qualitative des produits du savoir et des entretiens avec des informateurs, 163 politiques ont été imputées au travail de BUCS et de CMHH.

RÉSULTATS: Quatorze «sentiers stratégiques» ont été définis comme étant des facteurs de réussite déterminants pour faciliter et accélérer l’élaboration et la mise en œuvre de politiques sur l’activité physique et l’environnement bâti. De ces 14 sentiers stratégiques, 8 mettaient l’accent sur la collaboration multisectorielle.

CONSÉQUENCES: Les leçons de l’expérience de l’initiative COALITION pourraient appuyer des collaborations multisectorielles renforcées afin d’accélérer l’élaboration et la mise en œuvre de politiques sur l’activité physique et l’environnement bâti dans d’autres provinces ou territoires du Canada ainsi qu’à l’étranger.

Mots Clés

santé publique politique (principe) activité physique conception de l’environnement urbanisme collaboration 

References

  1. 1.
    Manafo E, Petermann L, Lobb R, Keen D, Kerner J. Research, practice, and policy partnerships in pan-Canadian coalitions for cancer and chronic disease prevention. J Public Health Manag Pract 2011;17(6):E1–11. PMID: 21964372. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e318215a4ae.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Golden SD, Moreland-Russell S. Public policy explained. In: Eyler AA, Chriqui JF, Moreland-Russell S, Brownson RC (Eds.), Prevention, Policy and Public Health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016; 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR). Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Washington, DC: AICR, 2007.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moore SC, Lee IM, Weiderpass E, Campbell PT, Sampson JN, Kitahara CM, et al. Association of leisure-time physical activity with risk of 26 types of cancer in 1.44 million adults. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176(6):816–25. PMID: 27183032. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang Y, Chau CK, Ng WY, Leung TM. A review on the effects of physical built environment attributes on enhancing walking and cycling activity levels within residential neighborhoods. Cities 2016;50:1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.cities. 2015.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sallis JF, Cerin E, Conway TL, Adams MA, Frank LD, Pratt M, et al. Physical activity in relation to urban environments in 14 cities worldwide: A cross-sectional study. Lancet 2016;387(10034):2207–17. PMID: 27045735. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01284-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caiazzo F, Ashok A, Waitz IA, Yim SHL, Barrett SRH. Air pollution and early deaths in the United States, Part 1: Quantifying the impact of major sectors in 2005. Atmos Environ 2013;79:198–208. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.05.081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krzyzonowski M, Kuna-Dibbert B, Scheider J. Health Effects of Transport-Related Air Pollution. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization, 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    HEI Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic-Related Air Pollution. Traffic-Related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure and Health Effects. Special Report 17. Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute, 2010.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosen E, Stigson H, Sander U. Literature review of pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed. Accid Anal Prev 2011;43:25–33. PMID: 21094293. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beck LF, Dellinger AM, O’Neal ME. Motor vehicle crash injury rates by mode of travel, United States: Using exposure-based methods to quantify differences. Am J Epidemiol 2007;166:212–18. PMID: 17449891. doi: 10. 1093/aje/kwm064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leyden KM. Social capital and the built environment: The importance of walkable neighbourhoods. Am J Public Health 2003;93:1546–51. PMID: 12948978. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Land H. Pedestrian environments and sense of community. J Plan Educ Res 2002;21:301–12. doi: 10.1177/0739456X0202100307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mitchell R, Popham F. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: An observational population study. Lancet 2008;372:1655–60. PMID: 18994663. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61689-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maas J, Verheij RA, de Vries S, Spreeuwenberg P, Schelleris FG, Groenewegen PP. Morbidity is related to living in a green environment. J Epidemiol Community Health 2008;63:967–73. PMID: 19833605. doi: 10. 1136/jech.2008.079038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Norman J, MacLean HL, Kennedy CA. Comparing high and low residential density. Life-cycle analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. J Urban Plan D 2006;132:10–21. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2006) 132:1(10).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Environmental Defence. The High Costs of Sprawl: Why Building More Sustainable Communities Will Save us Time and Money. Toronto, ON: Environmental Defence Canada, 2013.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Riley BL, Robinson KL, Taylor SM, Willis CD. Partnerships to improve population health and health equity: Geographic perspectives. In: Harrington DW, McLafferty S, Elliot SJ (Eds.), Population Health Intervention Research: Geographical Perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge, 2016; 10–25.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kelly PM, Davies A, Greig AJ, Lee KK. Obesity prevention in a city state: Lessons from New York City during the Bloomberg administration. Front Public Health 2016;4:60. PMID: 27064755. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Willis CD, Greene JK, Abramowicz A, Riley BL. Strengthening the evidence and action on multi-sectoral partnerships in public health: An action research initiative. Health Promot Chron Dis Prev Can 2016;36(6):101–11. PMID: 27284702. doi: 10.24095/hpcdp.36.6.01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Healthy Canada by Design. Can J Public Health 2015(Suppl):eS2–67.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miro A, Kishchuk NA, Perrotta K, Swinkels HM. Healthy Canada by Design CLASP: Lessons learned from the first phase of an intersectoral, cross-provincial, built environment initiative. Can J Public Health 2015;106: eS50–58. PMID: 25955549. doi: 10.17269/cjph.106.4555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Guide to Community Preventive Services–Increasing Physical Activity: Environmental and Policy Approaches, 2016. Available at: http://www.thecommunityguide.org/pa/environmental-policy/index.html (Accessed September 26, 2016).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heath GW, Brownson RC, Kruger J, Miles R, Powell KE, Ramsey LT. The effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity: A systematic review. J Phys Act Health 2006; 3(Suppl 1):S55–76. doi: 10.1123/jpah.3.s1.s55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Berke EM, Vernez-Moudon A. Built environment change: A framework to support health-enhancing behavior through environmental policy and health research. J Epidemiol Community Health 2015;68(6):586–90. PMID: 24459175. doi: 10.1136/jech-2012-201417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kumar S. Canadian urban design practice: A review of urban design regulations. Can J Urban Res 2002;11(2):239–63.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brownson RC, Chriqui JF, Stamatakis KA. Understanding evidence-based public health policy. Am J Public Health 2009;99(9):1576–83. PMID: 19608941. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.156224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mammen G. School Travel Planning in Canada: A Holistic Examination of Program Impact on Active School Travel. [PhD Thesis.] Toronto, ON: University of Toronto, 2016.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Miro A, Perrotta K, Evans H, Kishchuk NA, Gram C, Stanwick RS, et al. Building capacity of health authorities to influence land use and transportation planning: Lessons learned from the Healthy Canada by Design CLASP project in British Columbia. Can J Public Health 2015;106(Suppl 1):eS40–52. PMID: 25955547. doi: 10.17269/cjph.106.4566.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ulmer JM, Chapman JE, Kershaw SE, Campbell M, Frank LS. Application of an evidence-based tool to evaluate health impacts of changes to the built environment. Can J Public Health 2015;106(Suppl 1):eS26–32. PMID: 25955544. doi: 10.17269/cjph.106.4338.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Metrolinx, Green Communities Canada, University of Toronto. The Costs and Benefits of School Travel Planning Projects in Ontario, Canada, 2014. Available at: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/schooltravel/Costs_and_Benefits_of_School_Travel_Planning_Projects_EN.pdf (Accessed September 18, 2016).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher E. Politis
    • 1
    Email author
  • David L. Mowat
    • 2
  • Deb Keen
    • 3
  1. 1.Canadian Partnership Against Cancer1 University AvenueTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Population HealthCanadian Partnership Against CancerTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Prevention and ResearchCanadian Partnership Against CancerTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations