How Do We Evaluate Health in All Policies?; Comment on “Developing a Framework for a Program Theory-Based Approach to Evaluating Policy Processes and Outcomes: Health in All Policies in South Australia”

Document Type : Commentary


National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark


It is well-established that population health is influenced by a multitude of factors, many of which lie outside the scope of the health sector. In the public health literature it is often assumed that intersectoral engagement with nonhealth sectors will be instrumental in addressing these social determinants of health. Due to the expected desirable outcomes in population health, several countries have introduced Health in All Policies (HiAP). However, whether this systematic, top-down approach to whole-of-government action (which HiAP entails) is efficient in changing government policies remains unclear. A systematic evaluation of HiAP is therefore much needed. Lawless and colleagues present an evaluation framework for HiAP in their article: “Developing a Framework for a Program Theory-Based Approach to Evaluating Policy Processes and Outcomes: Health in All Policies in South Australia.” This work is an important endeavor in addressing this problem (of uncertainty as to whether HiAP is effective) and represents an essential contribution to the HiAP literature. Nonetheless, in the spirit of encouraging ongoing reflection on this topic, we wish to highlight some challenges in the presented framework, which may pose difficulties in operationalization. We find that the evaluation framework faces two main limitations: its unclear causal logic and its level of complexity. We argue that in order to function as a tool for evaluation, the framework should be explicit about the mechanisms of change and enable us to trace whether the assumed causal relations resulted in changes in practice. Developing manageable evaluation frameworks, albeit simplified, may then be an important part of cumulating the theoretical insights aspired in theory-based evaluation. On this basis, we highlight how HiAP processes and healthy public policies respectively involve different mechanisms, and thus argue that different program theories are needed.


Main Subjects

  1. Lawless A, Baum F, Delany-Crowe T, et al. Developing a framework for a program theory-based approach to evaluating policy processes and outcomes: Health in All Policies in South Australia. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018; Forthcoming. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2017.121
  2. Marmot M. Fair Society, Healthy Lives. The Marmot Review. London, UK: Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England post-2010; 2010.
  3. Commission on Social Determinants of Health W. Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
  4. de Leeuw E, Clavier C, Breton E. Health policy - why research it and how: health political science. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12(1):55. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-12-55
  5. Carey G, Crammond B, Keast R. Creating change in government to address the social determinants of health: how can efforts be improved? BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1087. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1087
  6. Exworthy M. Policy to tackle the social determinants of health: using conceptual models to understand the policy process. Health Policy Plan. 2008;23(5):318-327. doi:10.1093/heapol/czn022
  7. Baum F, Lawless A, Delany T, et al. Evaluation of Health in All Policies: concept, theory and application. Health Promot Int. 2014;29 Suppl 1:i130-142. doi:10.1093/heapro/dau032
  8. Rogers PJ. Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation. 2008;14(1):29-48.
  9. Weiss CH. How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Evaluation Review. 1997;21(4):501-524.
  10. Winter S. Implementation Perspectives: Status and Reconsideration. In: Peters G, Pierre J, eds. Handbook of Public Administration. London: Sage;2003:212-222.
  11. Dahler-Larsen P. Evaluering af projekter – og andre ting, som ikke er ting. Odense, Denmark: Syddansk Universitetsforlag; 2013.
  12. Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1997.
Volume 7, Issue 8
August 2018
Pages 758-760
  • Receive Date: 15 January 2018
  • Revise Date: 19 March 2018
  • Accept Date: 26 March 2018
  • First Publish Date: 01 August 2018