From Healthy Public Policy to Intersectoral Action and Health-in-All Policies



This chapter outlines the rationale for use of the Health-in-All Policies (HiAP) approach for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and reviews successes and failings related to healthy public policy (HPP) and intersectoral action. As a governance innovation, the HiAP approach addresses health equity and social determinants of health. Such an approach aims to create the enabling conditions for intersectoral action as well as provide a framework for HPP on specific risk factors. The HiAP approach recognises the need for comprehensive policy action in sectors other than health, at all levels of government as well as private partnership and civil society and at multiple levels, in order to curb the increasing prevalence of chronic disease. The chapter considers suggestions about how HiAP can be used to address health inequities and risk factors and determinants of chronic disease and concludes with lessons as governments begin to adopt HiAP.


Tobacco Control Health Equity Health Impact Assessment Healthy City Intersectoral Collaboration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Australian Health Promotion Association. (2009). Core competencies for health promotion practitioners. Maroochydore, QLD: Australian Health Promotion Association.Google Scholar
  2. Barry, M., Allegrante, J., Lamarre, M. -C., Auld, M. E., & Taub, A. (2009). The Galway consensus conference: International collaboration on the development of core competencies for health promotion and health education. Global Health Promotion, 16(2), 5–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellew, B. (2008). Primary prevention of chronic disease in Australia through interventions in the workplace setting: An evidence check rapid review brokered by the Sax institute for the Chronic Disease Prevention Unit. Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Government Department of Human Services.Google Scholar
  4. Berkeleya, D., & Springett, J. (2006). From rhetoric to reality: Barriers faced by health for all initiatives. Social Science & Medicine, 63, 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Centre Disease Control. (n.d.). US National activity plan. From
  6. Collins, L., Stoneham, M. J., et al. (2001). Preventing skin cancer in Queensland: An evaluation of a community shade creation project. Environmental Health, 1(2), 87–94.Google Scholar
  7. Council of the European Union. (2006). Council Conclusions on Health in All Policies (HiAP), 2767th Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council meeting, Brussels.Google Scholar
  8. Crawshaw, P., Bunton, R., & Gillen, K. (2003). Health action zones and the problem of community. Health & Social Care in the Community, 11(1), 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Department of Health and Ageing. (2011). Labelling logic. Review of food labelling law and policy. Commonwealth of Australia: Department of Health and Ageing.Google Scholar
  10. Department of Health South Australia. (2010). Implementing health in all policies. Adelaide, SA: Department of Health Government of South Australia.Google Scholar
  11. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. (2006). Health in all policies prospects and potentials. Finland: Ministry of Social Affairs and Health Finland.Google Scholar
  12. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. (2007). The effectiveness of health impact assessment scope and limitations of supporting decision-making in Europe. Copenhagen: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  13. European Union. (2007). Declaration on Health in All Policies. Health in All Policies: achievement and challenges. Rome.Google Scholar
  14. Harpham, T., Burton, S., & Blue, I. (2001). Healthy city projects in developing countries: The first evaluation. Health Promotion International, 16(2), 111–125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heart Foundation of Australia. (n.d.). Healthy eating. From
  16. Kegler, M. C., Ellenberg Painter, J., Twiss, J. M., Aronson, R., & Norton, B. L. (2009). Evaluation findings on community participation in the California Healthy Cities and Communities program. Health Promotion International, 24(4), 300–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kegler, M. C., Escoffery, C., Alcantara, I., Ballard, D., & Glanz, K. (2008). A qualitative examination of home and neighborhood environments for obesity prevention in rural adults. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5, 65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kegler, M. C., Norton, B. L., & Aronson, R. (2007). Skill improvement among coalition members in the California Healthy Cities and Communities Program. Health Education Research, 22(3), 450–457.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kemm, J., Parry, J., & Palmer, S. (2004). Health impact assessment: Concepts, theory, techniques and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee, K. (2011). Active design guidelines promoting physical activity and health in design. Alberta: WHO Collaborating Center for NCD Policy University of Alberta School of Public Health.Google Scholar
  21. Lock, K. (2011). HIA of agriculture and nutrition policies in Slovenia. From:
  22. Lock, K., Gabrijelcic-Blenkus, M., Martuzzi, M., Otorepec, P., Wallace, P., & Dora, C. (2003). Health impact assessment of agriculture and food policies: Lessons learnt from the Republic of Slovenia. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81(6), 391–398.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. McQueen, D., Wismar, M., Lin, V., Jones, C. M., & Davies, M. (2012). Intersectoral governance for health in all policies. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  24. Moscow Declaration. (2011). First Global Ministerial Conference on Healthy Lifestyles and Noncommunicable Disease Control. Moscow.Google Scholar
  25. O’Neill, M., & Simard, P. (2006). Choosing indicators to evaluate Healthy Cities projects: A political task? Health Promotion International, 21(2), 145–152.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pan American Health Organization. (2008). Mainstreaming health promotion in PAHO. Revised Framework—Draft July. Washington, DC: Pan-American Health Organization.Google Scholar
  27. Peña, S. (2012). Health in all policies. A global contribution to the WHO Global Conference on Health Promotion in Helsinki 2013.Google Scholar
  28. Shankardass, K., Solar, O., Murphy, K., Freiler, A., Bobbili, S., & Bayoumi, A. (2011). Getting started with health in all policies: A resource pack. Report to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Ontario, Prepared by the Centre for Research on Inner City Health (CRICH) in the Keenan Research Centre of the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital.Google Scholar
  29. Springett, J. (2005). Geographically-based approaches to the integration of health promotion into health systems: A comparative study of two Health Action Zones in the UK. Promotion and Education, Suppl 3, 39–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. The Australian National Preventive Health Agency. (2012). ANPHA First Year Highlights Report 2011–2012. Retrieved July 27, 2012, from
  31. United Nations. (2011). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. Political Declaration of the High-level Meeting of the General Assembly on the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. World Bank. (2011a). Toward a healthy and harmonious life in China: Stemming the rising tide of non-communicable diseases. Human Development Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region. Washington.Google Scholar
  33. World Bank. (2011b). The growing danger of non-communicable diseases, acting now to reverse course.Google Scholar
  34. World Health Organization. (1986). The Ottawa charter for health promotion. First International Conference on Health Promotion, Ottawa. From
  35. World Health Organization. (1997). Intersectoral action for health. A cornerstone for health-for-all in the twenty-first century. Report of the International Conference. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.Google Scholar
  36. World Health Organization. (2004a). Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  37. World Health Organization. (2004b). Marketing food to children: The global regulatory environment. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  38. World Health Organization. (2005a). Settings-based initiatives to address environmental risks to children’s health—What works? (Annex 3). In Consultation report—Healthy Environments for Children Alliance, Inter-regional Consultation, Improving Children’s Environmental Health in Settings, Experiences and lessons for policies and action. Entebbe, Uganda.Google Scholar
  39. World Health Organization. (2005b). WHO framework convention on tobacco control. From
  40. World Health Organization. (2008a). City leadership for health. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  41. World Health Organization. (2008b). Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Commission on Social Determinants of Health—final report. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  42. World Health Organization. (2009). Population-based prevention strategies for childhood obesity. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  43. World Health Organization. (2012). Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. Retrieved July 27, 2012, from
  44. World Health Organization. (2012). Healthy cities evaluation. From
  45. World Health Organization. (2012). Management of substance abuse. Global strategy to reduce harmful use of alcohol. Retrieved July 27, 2012, from
  46. World Health Organization and Government of South Australia. (2010). Statement on health in all policies: Moving towards a shared governance for health and well-being. Adelaide. Health Promotion International, 25(2), 258–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public HealthInternational Union for Health Promotion and EducationMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.La Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.School of Public HealthLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations