Brexit, COVID-19 and climate change: mapping the impact of the ‘triple challenge' on health and well-being in wales

Brexit, COVID-19 and climate change pose challenges of national and global importance. They continue to have impacts across the economy, society, health, and the environment, all of which are determinants of health and well-being. Between 2018 and 2021, Public Health Wales undertook three Health Impact Assessments (HIA) in relation to the impact of the challenges in Wales. Based on these, work has been carried out to map the synergies across the ‘Triple Challenge'. This paper highlights the commonalities in the impact of the three challenges for Wales, discusses the process carried out, learns from it and proposes actions that can be taken to mitigate harm. Results indicate the three components of the Triple Challenge must not be viewed as separate silos as they have cumulative multi-faceted impacts. This affects some population groups more negatively than others and present a ‘Triple Challenge' to nation states in the UK and Europe. A HIA approach can enable a range of stakeholders to critically view similar challenges not just as single issues but as a holistic whole to mobilise action.

The architecture of the European Union's pandemic preparedness and response policy framework.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has highlighted the importance of preparedness and response systems when faced with a pandemic. The rapid spread of the disease throughout Europe raised questions about the capacity of the European Union (EU) and its Member States to combat serious cross-border threats to health. This article provides an overview of institutional arrangements for pandemic preparedness before the COVID-19 pandemic and outlines the changes proposed by the European Health Union (EHU) framework. METHODS: A systematic review of relevant EU law, EU policy documents and the scientific literature was conducted. EUR-lex, PubMed, Web of Science core collection and Google Scholar databases were searched for relevant records published after the year 2000. The proposed new regulatory framework was extracted from the EHU legislative package. The results were organized according to the Public Health Emergency Preparedness Logic Model. RESULTS: The main EU bodies involved in preparedness and response are the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the European Commission and the Health Security Committee (HSC). The proposed changes of the EHU focus on strengthening the auditing capabilities of the ECDC, increasing the scope of EU action in managing medical countermeasures, and further formalizing the HSC. CONCLUSIONS: The proposal takes bold steps to address technical and political issues of preparedness and response; whereas, on the latter point, it is likely that amendments to the proposal will not address long-standing challenges in preparing for and coordinating national responses to a future EU-wide pandemic.

Exploring the social value of Public Health Institutes: An international scoping survey and expert interviews.

Introduction: Making the case for investing in preventative public health by illustrating not only the health impact but the social, economic and environmental value of Public Health Institutes is imperative. This is captured by the concept of Social Value, which when measured, demonstrates the combined intersectoral value of public health. There is currently insufficient research and evidence to show the social value of Public Health Institutes and their work across the life course, population groups and settings, in order to make the case for more investment. Methods: During July 2021, a quantitative online self-administered questionnaire was conducted across international networks. Semi-structured interviews were also carried out with nine representatives to gain a deeper understanding. A thematic analysis was undertaken on the data collected. Results: In total, 82.3% (n = 14) were aware of the terminology of social value and 58.8% (n = 10) were aware of the economic method of Social Return on Investment. However, only two Institutes reported capturing social and community impacts within their economic analysis and only 41.2% (n = 7) currently capture or measure the social value of their actions. Interviews and survey responses indicate a lack of resources, skills and buy-in from political powers. Finally, 76.5% (n = 12) wanted to do more to understand and measure wider outcomes and impact of their actions. It was noted this can be achieved through enhancing political will, developing a community of best practice and tools. Conclusion: This research can inform future work to understand how to measure the holistic social value of Public Health Institutes, in order to strengthen institutional capacity and impact, as well as to achieve a more equitable society, and a more sustainable health system and economy, making the case for investing in public health, as we recover from COVID-19.

'Health in All Policies'-A Key Driver for Health and Well-Being in a Post-COVID-19 Pandemic World.

Policy in all sectors affects health, through multiple pathways and determinants. Health in all policies (HiAP) is an approach that seeks to identify and influence the health and equity impacts of policy decisions, to enhance health benefits and avoid harm. This usually involves the use of health impact assessment or health lens analysis. There is growing international experience in these approaches, and some countries have cross-sectoral governance structures that prioritize the assessment of the policies that are most likely to affect health. The fundamental elements of HiAP are inter-sectoral collaboration, policy influence, and holistic consideration of the range of health determinants affected by a policy area or proposal. HiAP requires public health professionals to invest time to build partnerships and engage meaningfully with the sectors affecting the social determinants of health and health equity. With commitment, political will and tools such as the health impact assessment, it provides a powerful approach to integrated policymaking that promotes health, well-being, and equity. The COVID-19 pandemic has raised the profile of public health and highlighted the links between health and other policy areas. This paper describes the rationale for, and principles underpinning, HiAP mechanisms, including HIA, experiences, challenges and opportunities for the future.

Using health impact assessment (HIA) to understand the wider health and well-being implications of policy decisions: the COVID-19 'staying at home and social distancing policy' in Wales.

BACKGROUND: Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is promoted as a decision-informing tool by public health and governmental agencies. HIA is beneficial when carried out as part of policy development but is also valuable as a methodology when a policy is being implemented to identify and understand the wider health and well-being impacts of policy decisions, particularly when a decision needs to be taken rapidly to protect the population. This paper focusses on a HIA of the 'Staying at Home and Social Distancing Policy' or 'lockdown' in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Wales conducted by the Welsh national public health institute. It describes the process and findings, captures the learning and discusses how the process has been used to better understand the wider health and well-being impacts of policy decisions beyond direct health harm. It also examines the role of public health institutes in promoting and using HIA. METHODS: A HIA was conducted following a standard HIA five step process. A literature review was undertaken alongside 15 qualitative semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, and relevant health and demographic data were collated. The results were triangulated and analysed to form a holistic assessment of the policy decision and its impacts. RESULTS: A wide range of major health and well-being impacts of the lockdown in Wales were identified across the determinants of health, which included positive and negative social, economic, environmental and mental well-being impacts beyond the impact on direct health. Populations affected included children and young people, those on low incomes and women as well as those whose health has been directly impacted by COVID-19 such as older people. The work highlighted the benefit that HIA can bring in emphasizing impacts which can inform policy and shared learning with others. CONCLUSION: HIA is a largely underused tool to understand the impact of policy and political decisions, particularly when a decision has been taken at speed. This case study highlights how HIA provide evidence and information for advocacy and further work by public health institutes, health agencies and policy makers.