Integrating Social Determinants in Decision-Making Processes for Health: Insights from Conceptual Frameworks-the 3-D Commission.

The inclusion of social determinants of health offers a more comprehensive lens to fully appreciate and effectively address health. However, decision-makers across sectors still struggle to appropriately recognise and act upon these determinants, as illustrated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, improving the health of populations remains challenging. This paper seeks to draw insights from the literature to better understand decision-making processes affecting health and the potential to integrate data on social determinants. We summarised commonly cited conceptual approaches across all stages of the policy process, from agenda-setting to evaluation. Nine conceptual approaches were identified, including two frameworks, two models and five theories. From across the selected literature, it became clear that the context, the actors and the type of the health issue are critical variables in decision-making for health, a process that by nature is a dynamic and adaptable one. The majority of these conceptual approaches implicitly suggest a possible role for data on social determinants of health in decision-making. We suggest two main avenues to make the link more explicit: the use of data in giving health problems the appropriate visibility and credibility they require and the use of social determinants of health as a broader framing to more effectively attract the attention of a diverse group of decision-makers with the power to allocate resources. Social determinants of health present opportunities for decision-making, which can target modifiable factors influencing health-i.e. interventions to improve or reduce risks to population health. Future work is needed to build on this review and propose an improved, people-centred and evidence-informed decision-making tool that strongly and explicitly integrates data on social determinants of health.

"When the Fun Stops, Stop": An analysis of the provenance, framing and evidence of a 'responsible gambling' campaign.

When the Fun Stops, Stop, is a prominent 'responsible gambling' campaign in the UK, originally funded and delivered by the industry-initiated and funded Senet Group. Since the Senet Group's dissolution in 2020, the campaign has been overseen by the Betting and Gambling Council (BGC), the main gambling industry trade body. There has been no prior analysis of the activities, ideas and framing adopted by the Senet Group, who claimed to be acting as an industry 'watchdog' and oversaw what they characterised as a major public education campaign. We collated written and image-based material related to the Senet Group and its When the Fun Stops, Stop campaign from multiple sources. Guided by Entman's four functions of framing, we analysed the Senet Group's framing of the issues it sought to address, particularly harmful gambling, as well as its causes, and the solutions, focusing on the group's main activity: the delivery of the When the Fun Stops, Stop campaign. We also critically appraised an evaluation of the campaign funded by the Senet Group, using the findings to interrogate the stated claims about the campaign's effectiveness. The analysis showed that the Senet Group's framing of the problem, its causes, and proposed responses resemble those adopted by other industries and industry-funded groups. This involves portraying any harms caused by their products as limited to an atypical minority, rejecting upstream determinants of harm, and promoting individually-targeted voluntary measures, all contrary to the evidence of what works in health promotion, and what would characterise a public health approach. Neither the existing evidence base nor the evidence presented by the Senet Group support their claims about the campaign's effectiveness. These findings add to concerns about industry-funded campaigns in other areas. To minimise conflicts of interest, interventions intended to address gambling-related harms, such as public education campaigns, should be evidence-based and developed, implemented and evaluated completely independent of the industry and industry-funded organisations.

The Commercial Determinants of Three Contemporary National Crises: How Corporate Practices Intersect With the COVID-19 Pandemic, Economic Downturn, and Racial Inequity.

Policy Points  The United States finds itself in the middle of an unprecedented combination of crises: a global pandemic, economic crisis, and unprecedented civic responses to structural racism.  While public sector responses to these crises have faced much justified criticism, the commercial determinants of these crises have not been sufficiently examined.  In this commentary we examine the nature of the contributions of such actors to the conditions that underpin these crises in the United States through their market and nonmarket activities.  On the basis of this analysis, we make recommendations on the role of governance and civil society in relation to such commercial actors in a post-COVID-19 world.

Taking the Long View: COVID-19 Priorities for the Biden Administration.

The COVID-19 pandemic transformed the American political landscape, influencing the course of the 2020 election and creating an urgent policy priority for the new administration. The Biden-Harris plan for beating COVID-19 represents a practicable, technically competent plan to contain the pandemic, one that will serve the country well in the months ahead. The authors suggest that the United States would also benefit from an even bolder set of aspirations-reframing the national conversation on COVID-19, embedding equity in all health decision making, strengthening the social safety net, and changing how we talk about health-as part of the national response to COVID-19. This would represent a genuine step forward in the US approach to health, informed by the systemic flaws COVID-19 exposed, and would realize benefits from the pandemic moment that in turn would propel national health forward for the rest of the century.

Claiming Health as a Public Good in the Post-COVID-19 Era.

The global response to COVID-19 has been uneven and disappointing in the vast majority of countries. The United States has borne the largest absolute burden of disease globally, as COVID-19 exploited pre-existing poor population health among Americans to spread rapidly, with devastating consequences. Why does the country that spends the most on healthcare in the world have one of the worst responses to COVID-19? We argue that this is because the United States conception of health is predominantly focused on healthcare, an overwhelming investment in developing drugs and treatments, and an underinvestment in the foundational conditions that keep people healthy. COVID-19 has exposed the limits of this approach to health. In order to prevent COVID-19 and future such pandemics, we must create the conditions that can keep population-level health threats at bay. This means addressing the conditions that shape health, including economics, employment, community networks, racial disparities, how we treat older adults, and the physical layout of our communities. To do so means acknowledging health as a public good, as a transnational project with countries working together to build a healthier world. It also means acknowledging that everyone has a right to health. These aspirations should become core to the global community's health aspirations in the post-COVID-19 era.