Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 100, Issue 1, pp I20–I26 | Cite as

Can the Canadian Heart Health Initiative Inform the Population Health Intervention Research Initiative for Canada?

  • Barbara L. Riley
  • Sylvie Stachenko
  • Elinor Wilson
  • Dexter Harvey
  • Roy Cameron
  • Jane Farquharson
  • Catherine Donovan
  • Gregory Taylor
Article

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of the Population Health Intervention Research Initiative for Canada (PHIRIC) is to build capacity to increase the quantity, quality and use of population health intervention research. But what capacity is required, and how should capacity be created? There may be relevant lessons from the Canadian Heart Health Initiative (CHHI), a 20-year initiative (1986-2006) that was groundbreaking in its attempt to bring together researchers and public health leaders (from government and non-government organizations) to jointly plan, conduct and act on relevant evidence. The present study focused on what enabled and constrained the ability to fund, conduct and use science in the CHHI.

Methods

Guided by a provisional capacity-building framework, a two-step methodology was used: a CHHI document analysis followed by consultation with CHHI leaders to refine and confirm emerging findings.

Results

A few well-positioned, visionary people conceived of the CHHI as a long-term, coherent initiative that would have impact, and they then created an environment to enable this to become reality. To achieve the vision, capacity was needed to a) align science (research and evaluation) with public health policy and program priorities, including the capacity to study “natural experiments“ and b) build meaningful partnerships within and across sectors.

Conclusion

There is now an opportunity to apply lessons from the CHHI in planning PHIRIC.

Key words

Heart health promotion population health intervention research health research system research capacity 

Résumé

Objectifs

L’Initiative de recherche interventionnelle en santé des populations du Canada (IRISPC) a pour but de développer les capacités d’accroître la quantité, la qualité et l’utilisation de la recherche interventionnelle en santé des populations. Mais quelles sont les capacités requises, et comment les développer? Il pourrait y avoir des leçons intéressantes à tirer de l’Initiative canadienne en santé cardiovasculaire (ICSC), qui s’est échelonnée sur 20 ans (1986-2006) et a été la première à rassembler des chercheurs et des responsables de la santé publique (issus des gouvernements et des organisations non gouvernementales) afin de planifier et d’exécuter de la recherche pertinente et d’en mettre les résultats en pratique. La présente étude porte sur les facteurs qui ont habilité ou limité le financement, la conduite et l’utilisation de la recherche scientifique dans le cadre de l’ICSC.

Méthode

En nous guidant sur un cadre provisoire de renforcement des capacités, nous avons opté pour une méthode en deux temps: nous avons analysé les documents de l’ICSC, puis consulté les dirigeants de l’ICSC pour peaufiner et confirmer les résultats de l’analyse.

Résultats

L’ICSC est le fruit du travail de quelques visionnaires idéalement placés, qui envisageaient une initiative influente, cohérente et de longue durée et qui ont créé l’environnement nécessaire pour la concrétiser. Pour cela, il fallait développer a) la capacité de faire concorder la science (la recherche et l’évaluation) avec les priorités des politiques et des programmes de santé publique, notamment la capacité de mener des «expériences dans des conditions naturelles» et b) la capacité de créer des partenariats constructifs entre différents secteurs d’activité et au sein de ces secteurs.

Conclusion

Il est maintenant possible d’appliquer les leçons de l’ICSC à la planification de l’IRISPC.

Mots clés

promotion de la santé cardiovasculaire recherche interventionnelle en santé des populations réseau de recherche en santé capacité de recherche 

References

  1. 1.
    Lomas J, Culyer T, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Law S. Conceptualizing and Combining Evidence for Health System Guidance: Final Report. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kiefer L, Frank J, Di Ruggiero E, Dobbins M, Manuel D, Gully PR, et al. Fostering evidence-based decision-making in Canada: Examining the need for a Canadian population and public health evidence centre and research network. Can J Public Health 2005;96(3):I1–I19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Speller V, Wimbush E, Morgan A. Evidence-based health promotion practice: How to make it work. Promot Educ 2005;Suppl 1:15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Millward LM, Kelly MP, Nutbeam D. Public Health Intervention Research — the Evidence. London: Health Development Agency, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Health and Welfare Canada. The Canadian Heart Health Initiative: A policy in action. Health Promot 1992;30(4):2–19.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conference of Principal Investigators (COPI) of Heart Health. Canadian Heart Health Initiative: Process Evaluation of the Demonstration Phase. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elliott SJ, O’Loughlin J, Robinson K, Eyles J, Cameron R, Harvey D, et al. Conceptualizing dissemination research and activity: The case of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative. Health Educ Behav 2003;30(3):267–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dressendorfer R, Raine K, Dyck R, Plotnikoff R, Collins-Nakai R, McLaughlin W, et al. A conceptual model of community capacity development for health promotion in the Alberta Heart Health Project. Health Promot Pract 2005;6(1):31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farmer T, Robinson K, Elliott S, Eyles J. Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qual Health Res 2006;16(3):377–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Plotnikoff R, Anderson D, Raine K, Cook K, Barrett L, Prodaniuk T. Scale development of individual and organizational infrastructure for heart health promotion in regional health authorities. Health Educ J 2005;64(3):256–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anderson D, Plotnikoff R, Raine K, Barrett L. Development of measures of individual leadership for health promotion. Leadersh Health Serv 2005;18(2):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anderson D, Plotnikoff R, Raine K, Cook K, Smith C, Barrett L. Towards the development of scales to measure ‘will’ to promote heart health within health organizations in Canada. Health Promot Int 2004;19(4):471–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Riley BL. Dissemination of heart health promotion in the Ontario public health system: 1989–1999. Health Educ Res 2003;18(1):15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Riley B, Elliott S, Taylor M, Cameron R, Walker R. Dissemination of heart health promotion: Lessons from the Canadian Heart Health Initiative Ontario Project. Promot Educ 2001;(Supplement 1):26–30.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McLean S, Feather J, Butler-Jones D. Building Health Promotion Capacity. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Federal/Provincial Working Group on the Prevention and Control of Cardiovascular Disease. Promoting Heart Health in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Health and Welfare Canada, 1987.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goodman RM, Speers MA, McLeroy K, Fawcett S, Kegler M, Parker E, et al. Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for measurement. Health Educ Behav 1998;25(3):258–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    The Advisory Board International Heart Health Conference. The Singapore Declaration: Forging the Will for Heart Health in the Next Millennium. Singapore: Singapore National Heart Association, 1998.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pang T, Sadana R, Hanney S, Bhutta ZA, Hyder AA, Simon J. Knowledge for better health: A conceptual framework and foundation for health research systems. Bull World Health Organ 2003;81(11):815–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Potter C, Brough R. Systemic capacity building: A hierarchy of needs. Health Policy Plan 2004;19(5):336–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schacter M. “Capacity Building”: A New Way of Doing Business for Development Assistance Organizations. Policy Brief No. 6. Ottawa, ON: Institute on Governance, 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Walter I, Nutley SM, Davies HTO. What works to promote evidence-based practice? A cross-sector review. Evidence & Policy 2005;1(3):335–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Best A, Hiatt RA, Norman C. The Working Group on Translational Research and Knowledge Integration. The Language and Logic of Research Transfer: Finding Common Ground. Toronto, ON: National Cancer Institute of Canada, 2006.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lomas J. Using ‘linkage and exchange’ to move research into policy at a Canadian Foundation. Health Aff 2000;19(3):236–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lomas J. Connecting research and policy. Isuma 2000;1(1):140–44.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Best A, Riley B, Norman C. Evidence Informed Public Health Policy and Practice through a Complex Lens: A Rapid Review. Ottawa, ON: Public Health Agency of Canada, 2007.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Riley B, Feltracco A. Situational Analysis of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative: Final Report. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada, 2002.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Elliott S, Robinson K, Eyles J, Cameron R, Harvey D, O’Loughlin J. Canadian Heart Health Dissemination Project: Final Report. 2007.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cameron R, Jolin MA, Walker R, McDermott N, Gough M. Linking science and practice: Toward a system for enabling communities to adopt best practices for chronic disease prevention. Health Promot Pract 2001;2(1):35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Department of Health and Community Services. Healthier Together: A Strategic Health Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s, NL: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2002.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Department of Health and Community Services. Achieving Health and Wellness: Provincial Wellness Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador (Phase 1: 2006-2008). St. John’s, NL: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2006.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Asselbergs M, Connolly C. A Vision for Integrated Research within an Integrated System for Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada, 2005.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Petticrew M, Cummins S, Ferrell C, Findlay A, Higgins C, Hoy C, et al. Natural experiments: An underused tool for public health? Public Health 2005;119(9):751–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hazlewood A. ActNow BC: Long Standard Presentation. BC Ministry of Health, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara L. Riley
    • 1
  • Sylvie Stachenko
    • 2
  • Elinor Wilson
    • 3
  • Dexter Harvey
    • 4
  • Roy Cameron
    • 1
  • Jane Farquharson
    • 5
  • Catherine Donovan
    • 6
  • Gregory Taylor
    • 2
  1. 1.Canadian Cancer Society’s Centre for Behavioural Research and Program EvaluationUniversity of Waterloo, Lyle S. Hallman Institute NorthWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Public Health Agency of CanadaCanada
  3. 3.Health CanadaCanada
  4. 4.Canadian Cancer Society Manitoba Division, Heart and Stroke Foundation of ManitobaCanada
  5. 5.Heart and Stroke Foundation of Nova ScotiaCanada
  6. 6.Memorial University of NewfoundlandCanada

Personalised recommendations