Public Health Coordinator – How to Promote Focus on Social Inequality at a Local Level, and How Should It Be Included in Public Health Policies?; Comment on “Health Promotion at Local Level in Norway: The Use of Public Health Coordinators and Health Overviews to Promote Fair Distribution Among Social Groups”

Document Type : Commentary


Department of Social Work, Child Welfare and Social Policy, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway


The Norwegian Public Health Act of 2012 (PHA)1 states that the social causes of inequality in health have not been devoted sufficient attention in Norwegian health policy. Different means have been implemented to pay more attention to health inequalities at a local level, one is the use of a designated public health coordinator (PHC). Hagen et al2 reveals in a new study, however, that the presence of PHCs’ does not add to the priority of reducing inequality as a health objective. This negative association is, by the authors, explained by a widespread use of coordinators before the Act, and as such, not really a new measure. Another factor emphasized is that the PHC position is not empowered by bureaucratic backing. I agree with these explanations. However, the study by Hagen et al2 lacks a critical discussion of how the role of the PHC is situated in an administrative intersection between national health policy based on universal initiatives and social policy in the municipalities historically driven by a focus on poverty and specific target groups. This commentary reflects upon how social inequalities in health at a local level and the responsibilities imposed on the municipalities contest the principals of universalism. The tension between universalism and selectivity needs to be more prominent in the debate on how health inequalities should be abated at the local level, if universalism shall prevail as the overarching principle in Norwegian health policies. The commentary concludes by asking for a more nuanced discussion on how work with health related social problems can support universalistic initiatives. It is also suggested as a task for the PHC to make sure that public health initiatives are systematically evaluated. Documentation of effects will provide knowledge needed about how initiatives affects the social gradient over time.


Main Subjects

  1. Lov om folkehelsearbeid (folkehelseloven) (Public Health Act). Prop. 90 L (2010–2011) Proposisjon til Stortinget (forslag til lovvedtak).
  2. Hagen S, Øvergård KI, Helgesen M, Fosse E, Torp S. Health promotion at local level in Norway: the use of public health coordinators and health overviews to promote fair distribution among social groups. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(9):807–817. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2018.22
  3. van der Wel K, Dahl E, Bergsli H. The Norwegian policy to reduce health inequalities: key challenges. Nordisk välfärdsforskning. 2016;1:19-29. doi:10.18261/issn.2464-4161-2016-01-03
  4. Sumah AM, Baatiema L, Abimbola S. The impacts of decentralisation on health-related equity: A systematic review of the evidence. Health Policy. 2016;120(10):1183-1192.
  5. Diderichsen F, Scheele CE, Little IG. Tackling Health Inequalities Locally: The Scandinavian Experience. Copenhagen: Københavns Universitet; 2015.
  6. Bekken W, Dahl E, Van Der Wel K. Tackling health inequality at the local level: Some critical reflections on the future of Norwegian policies. Scand J Public Health. 2017;45(18_suppl):56-61. doi:10.1177/1403494817701012
  7. Hagen S, Torp S, Helgesen M, Fosse E. Promoting health by addressing living conditions in Norwegian municipalities. Health Promot Int. 2017;32(6):977-987. doi:10.1093/heapro/daw052
  8. Fosse E, Helgesen MK. How can local governments level the social gradient in health among families with children? The case of Norway. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies. 2015;6(2):328-346.
  9. Dønnestad J, Kleppe TH, Strandmyr A. 2015. Oppfølging av folkehelseprosjekt i barnehager. Groruddalssatsningen. Oslo: Bydel Grorud; 2015.
  10. Ødegård, G., Bakken, A. and Strandbu, Å. (2016). Idrettsdeltakelse og trening blant ungdom i Oslo – barrierer, frafall og endringer over tidSenter for forskning på sivilsamfunn og frivillig sektor; 2016. Rapport fra Senter for forskning på sivilsamfunn og frivillig sektor.
  11. Haugen GMD, Elvegård K, og Berg B. Tiltak for et godt og inkluderende oppvekstmiljø. Trondheim: NTNU Samfunnsforskning, Mangfold og inkludering; 2012.
  12. Ministry of Health and Care Services. National strategy to reduce social inequalities in health. Report no.20 (2006-2007) to the Storting. Oslo: Ministry of Health and Care Services; 2006.
  13. Dahl E, Bergli H, van der Wel K. Sosial ulikhet i helse: en norsk kunnskapsoversikt. Oslo: Høgskolen i Oslo og Akershus; 2014.
  14. Ohnstad A, Rugkåsa M, Ylvisaker S. Ubehaget i sosialt arbeid. opplag. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk; 2016.
  15. Fløtten T. Helhetlige tiltak mot barnefattigdom: en kunnskapsoppsummering. Oslo: Fafo; 2014.
  16. Bekken W, Dahl E, van der Wel K. Levevilkår og helse i barndommen: hva kan kommunene gjøre?: noen tilnærminger. OsloMet Rapport. Vol. nr. 3. Oslo: OsloMet – storbyuniversitetet; 2018.
Volume 7, Issue 11
November 2018
Pages 1061-1063
  • Receive Date: 15 June 2018
  • Revise Date: 31 July 2018
  • Accept Date: 04 August 2018
  • First Publish Date: 01 November 2018