The NCCHPP presents a few examples of use and adaptation of its Framework for Analyzing Public Policies by different public health actors in Canada. Please find below six examples collected during a call for stories, launched in December 2017.

These examples aim to facilitate network-building among public health actors through the discovery of common interests and/or challenges encountered. Through these stories, you can observe how some public health actors have made the NCCHPP’s analytical framework their own by adapting it to suit their needs; perhaps it might inspire other public health colleagues to use it to carry out their own projects.

 Each of the examples showcased describes :
  • the context in which the NCCHPP’s analytical framework was used;
  • the adaptations made;
  • if appropriate, the data method collection used;
  • the lessons learned;
  • the impact on public policies, programs and/or interventions;
  • if appropriate, the next steps.

Also, if any resources have been published relating to the projects, we provide links so that you may access them (in their language of publication, in French or in English).

Example 1: Presenting the Results of an Intervention for Controlling Ragweed to Municipal Policy Makers

Translation of an example presented by Elisabeth Masson

Head of Professional Coordination, Environmental Health Team

Centre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Montérégie-Centre, Direction de santé publique [Integrated health and social services centre for Montérégie-Centre, public health authority]

Context of use

The pollen of ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), a highly allergenic plant that is native to North America, affects 12% of the population of Québec, in regions where the plant is classified as abundant. This plant cannot be eradicated, but can be controlled through human intervention aimed at reducing the amount of pollen released into the air.
But what is the impact of such intervention on the health and the quality of life of those who are allergic? Whose responsibility is it to intervene with respect to the plant? Is acting alone effective or is it preferable to take collective action, for example at the scale of a municipality?
After more than twenty years of information and mobilization efforts by the public health network aimed at controlling this plant, it had become imperative to renew advocacy, based on new evidence, in favour of collective and targeted action. The anticipated positive results of a research project offered an opportunity to prompt the mobilization of collective action targeting this public health issue, mainly by the municipal sector and by major private and public land owners.
To obtain these results, the environmental health team at the Direction de santé publique de la Montérégie [the Montérégie public health authority] teamed up with researchers in the field of weed science at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) to conduct a study between 2007 and 2010, to assess the health effects of the concerted management of ragweed by partners within a municipality. At the same time, AAFC demonstrated that a simple intervention (the cutting of plants) carried out at precise times resulted in considerably reducing the amount of pollen released into the air. The evidence gathered through our rigorous scientific research process was meant to provide the strong foundation needed to promote the implementation of a municipal policy for controlling the allergenic plant.

Possessed of these conclusive results, we used the NCCHPP’s analytical framework to translate the results into a more suitable format for more effectively reaching the target audience, namely municipal policy makers in Québec.  Several of the NCCHPP’s dimensions for analyzing public policies match up with those of municipal administrations.

Adaptations made

One of the study’s collaborators, from the municipal sector, summed up the main questions asked by a public administrator or an elected official, when faced with choices concerning ragweed management, as follows: Is it feasible for the municipality to do this? Does it work? How much will it cost the municipality? Thus, the order in which the dimensions appear in the framework was modified to reflect the logic of a municipal policy maker faced with a choice.

Ultimately, five of the framework’s dimensions remained unchanged while another was adapted (Unintended effects was replaced by Unexpected effects) in favour of a term that would be more evocative for the target audience.

Data collection methods

The NCCHPP’s analytical framework was not used for our data collection, but rather for the presentation of the results. For details on the data collection methods used in the context of our project, please see the scientific summary referenced under the section heading To learn more.

Lessons learned

Our study lent itself well to the use of the NCCHPP’s analytical framework. Synthesizing the data on the effects produced by the project (soon to result in a municipal policy!) proved relatively simple given their scientific robustness.

Part of the added value of the NCCHPP’s analytical framework is, without a doubt, that it enables data from a study to be transposed into a flexible framework “that speaks” to municipal policy makers. This framework functions more or less as a simple and adaptable vehicle for communicating with the target audience.
For purposes of knowledge transfer, we used it to produce an informative brochure featuring input from all the project’s partners, which was distributed to all Québec municipalities. Each section of the brochure corresponds to one of the dimensions of the analytical framework (to consult the brochure, please refer to the link under the section heading To learn more).
I consider this analytical framework to be an indispensable tool when we need to analyze a municipal policy. In the field of environmental health, it is unusual to use such an approach. And yet we have much to gain from its use since this approach allows us to “reframe” our message to highlight the essentials, the essentials that policy makers want to know!

Impact on public policies, programs and/or interventions

The project led to significant advances in knowledge about how to manage ragweed which reinforced the relevance of managing this plant at the scale of municipalities. The project helped underpin the implementation of the Stratégie québécoise de réduction des pollens allergènes 2015-2017, Québec’s strategy for reducing pollen allergens. This interdepartmental strategy is based on evidence from a series of recent studies. Its aim is to mobilize Québec authorities, including those at the municipal level, to take action to reduce the health impacts associated with pollen allergens, mainly from ragweed. A funding program has been established to support the implementation of municipal plans for managing ragweed.

To learn more:

  • Brochure intended for municipal policy makers which relies on the NCCHPP’s analytical framework:Direction de santé publique de la Montérégie, Agriculture et agroalimentaire Canada, & Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux du Québec. (2011). Réduire le pollen de l’herbe à poux : mission réaliste — Le succès d’une communauté mobilisée. Longueuil, Canada: Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de la Montérégie. Retrieved from:
  • Scientific summary of the project: Direction de santé publique de la Montérégie, Agriculture et agroalimentaire Canada, & Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux du Québec. (2012). Projet herbe à poux 2007-2010 – Résumé scientifique – Phase 1 – Évaluation de l’efficacité d’un projet de mobilisation pour la lutte contre l’herbe à poux sur la qualité de vie des personnes allergiques. Retrieved from:

    Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2011). The effects of cutting on pollen and seed production in ragweed. Retrieved from:

Example 2: Producing a Knowledge Synthesis on the Effectiveness of Health Warnings on Sugary Drink Containers
Translation of an example presented by Annie Gauthier
Planning, Programming and Research Officer, Institut national de santé publique du Québec [Québec’s public health institute]
Context of use
I used the NCCHPP’s analytical framework to organize data extraction within the context of producing a review of the scientific literature evaluating the effectiveness of health warnings on sugary drink containers. Because warnings are an emerging intervention in the food sector, there was not a critical mass of studies having evaluated their effectiveness or potential effectiveness on sugary drink containers. I therefore also examined the results of literature reviews on the effectiveness of this strategy as applied to alcoholic drink containers and tobacco product packaging, so as to draw lessons that could be applicable to warnings on sugary drink containers.
This knowledge synthesis was produced by the Institut national de santé publique [Québec’s public health institute] at the request of the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec [Québec’s ministry of health and social services].

Adaptations made

The NCCHPP’s framework was adapted, not only to take into account the type of evidence available in the scientific literature, but also, most importantly, to take into account the perspective adopted for this project, in which health warnings were viewed as an intervention strategy aimed at modifying the socio-cultural environment. Political and economic dimensions were not the central focus of this study; so, even though they were taken into account, they were not subjected to a thorough analysis.

Together with the NCCHPP’s analytic framework, the main resources used were:

Data collection methods
The review focused mainly on articles from scientific journals. These articles were identified by querying various databases in the fields of health, social sciences and psychology. Data collection was supplemented by a documentary search of the grey literature (for example: government reports or reports of research institutes), as well as by an ongoing scan of the field.
I prepared a data extraction table in a Word file in which, for each selected scientific article, I recorded the available and relevant data on the effects and applicability of health warnings.
Lessons learned
I read the NCCHPP’s document entitled Method for Synthesizing Knowledge About Public Policies (which includes the framework for analyzing six dimensions) and the short summary, which presents the essential content. One difficulty I encountered in seeking to apply this method is a challenge integral to any analysis, which must be structured in accordance with its stated objectives and priorities. My work focuses on effecting change in the socio-cultural environment, so I must leave aside some data on the political, economic, and dietary environments, even if I find this data to be just as relevant and significant. This is the challenge: to clearly delineate one’s field of analysis, which entails sorting through many interesting facets, retaining some and setting others aside.
Moreover, if a public health professional is not fully knowledgeable about all the dimensions of the NCCHPP’s analytical framework, and if the project is not being carried out by a multidisciplinary team, it may be useful to first identify the analytical dimensions that are relevant to his or her particular expertise and to the project’s objectives. The other dimensions can be described as contextual elements, or aspects to be examined in greater depth by other professionals: policy makers can collect information from various resources (lawyers, economists, etc.) in order to gather everything they need to make informed decisions. Sometimes also, a dimension may be examined, but without the intention of conducting a thorough analysis. My advice would be to clarify these points to the extent possible, right from the start, before the data extraction step.
Another issue I encountered is that some publications compel us to distinguish between what constitutes evidence and what reflects the stance taken by the authors of the articles. These authors can interpret the results of research, particularly in the grey literature, in divergent manners, depending on their own perspectives (academic, corporate, industry). To stay on course, it seemed to me best to simply let the facts speak (since they represent a stable footing), leaving aside the commentary “for” or “against” the policy under study. It seems to me that the NCCHPP’s framework can be used judiciously in this regard.
Overall, the added value of this analytical framework was to structure my work, which is reflected in the table of contents of my document. I particularly appreciated this framework because of the fact that it is used by other public health actors. This provides us with a shared conceptual base.
Impact on public policies, programs and/or interventions
It is too early to assess the impact of this knowledge synthesis because it has only just been produced. The Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec, which requested that this work be carried out, will be able to use it to inform reflection related to efforts to implement its action plan for sugary drinks (Plan d’action sur les boissons sucrées).
To learn more:
The knowledge synthesis (available in French only at this moment) has been published, click on the following link to read the document: L’efficacité des mises en garde sur les contenants de boissons sucrées en promotion de la saine alimentation.
Example 3: Reviewing and Assessing Nutrition-Related Chronic Disease Prevention Interventions
An example presented by:
Kally Cheung, Public Health Nutrition Provincial Lead, Alberta Health Services

Sheila Tyminski, Population Public Health Strategy Director, Alberta Health Services

Context of use

Our provincial nutrition department at Alberta Health Services undertook an evidence review of nutrition-related chronic disease prevention (CDP) interventions for adults. Interventions included policies, approaches, and programs. The intent of this review was to provide health care providers and other CDP stakeholders in Alberta with guidance on the effectiveness of the different population health-level interventions, to help inform planning.
We expect many of our stakeholders will want some overall direction or information on whether an intervention is recommended. We used the dimensions outlined in the NCCHPP’s analytical framework to inform our recommendations.

Adaptations made

The recommendations we provided for each intervention were largely based on the analytical dimensions of effectiveness, equity, and unintended effects. As the dimensions of cost, feasibility and acceptability of an intervention will depend on implementation strategies and the local context, we advised readers of our report to undertake a situational analysis to include these dimensions prior to making decisions about whether to implement an intervention to ensure it fits their local context and target audience. These dimensions were not weighted as part of our analysis.

We also compared the NCCHPP’s framework to the GRADE approach for reviewing evidence and found alignment, as they looked at similar dimensions.

Data collection methods

We collected data from systematic reviews. We primarily looked for evidence on effectiveness, but we pulled out themes about equity, unintended effects and other considerations where relevant. The data extracted and conclusion statements were shared with content experts to help validate our findings.

Lessons learned

We used the information presented in the practical guide and online course to understand what each dimension of the NCCHPP’s analytical framework entails. The framework is easy to understand, and leads to a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach to intervention selection.
By examining multiple dimensions that may affect the success of an intervention’s effectiveness, equity, acceptability, cost, etc., the framework enabled us to assess an intervention more holistically. We feel our recommendations would not have been as comprehensive were we to have focused only on effectiveness. Dimensions such as equity and unintended consequences are important considerations when choosing an intervention. In the end, we feel we were able to provide robust recommendations for our stakeholders. A few reviewers of our report commended us for using the NCCHPP’s framework in our work. The framework was highly regarded by those reviewers.

Our advice for public health colleagues who are considering using this framework: when planning interventions, it will help if the framework’s dimensions are considered at the beginning of the project.

Impact on public policies, programs and/or interventions

Our evidence review will help inform chronic disease prevention (CDP) stakeholders in Alberta, primarily policy and program planners and decision makers, of the current evidence on nutrition-related CDP interventions. The information can help support them with priority setting and planning.

Next steps

The report is available at

Please email if you have any questions about this work.

Example 4: Producing a Comparative Analysis of Federal Regulatory Options for E-Cigarettes in Canada

An example presented by Suraj Chavda
Student, Master of Public Health, University of Alberta (degree completed in 2017)
Intern, Canadian Cancer Society (Summer 2015)

Context of use

The NCCHPP’s framework was used for my capping project for my Master of Public Health in Health Policy and Management at the University of Alberta. The project’s goal was to analyze four potential policy solutions for the Canadian federal government’s e-cigarette regulation framework and to make an evidence-based recommendation.

The NCCHPP’s framework (the Practical Guide) was provided to me by my political science professor, Dr. Kevin Wipf. This project was completed during my internship at the Canadian Cancer Society, under the guidance of Angeline Webb, Senior Policy Advisor at the Canadian Cancer Society, Alberta & Northwest Territory Division.

This analysis was done prior to the 2015 federal election. Up to that moment, little had been done yet to regulate e-cigarettes in Canada, thus there was a political need for this analysis. There were municipal and provincial movements to regulate e-cigarettes, but a federal stance had not been taken. Thus, there was a policy gap, as there were specific legal domains that fell within federal jurisdiction that needed to be addressed.

The primary source of the four e-cigarette policy options that I had analyzed was the 2015 House of Common’s Standing Committee on Health report on e-cigarettes in Canada entitled, Vaping: Towards a Regulatory Framework for E-Cigarettes.

I applied the NCCHPP’s framework to these four policy options and then I compared the analytical dimensions between the four options to determine which was the best recommendation. When comparing the outcomes I used a simple scoring system (+,++, +++) to rank the options. Translating the analytical dimensions to ascoring system was based on the pros and cons and I applied the score based on what I thought the major benefits and drawbacks were. I did not use any rigid translation criteria. Below is the results table of my analysis using the NCCHPP’s framework from my capping project.

Assessment of Regulatory Frameworks using the NCCHPP’s Framework

  Effectiveness Unintended Effects Cost  Feasibility  Acceptability
Tobacco Act  + +  + + + +  + +  + +
Medical Devices Regulations  + + +  + + + +  +  + +
Canada Consumer Product Safety Act  +  + + +  +  – – –  – –
New E-cigarette Policy (Recommended)  + + +  –  + + +  + + +  + + +

Adaptations made

I chose not to use the Equity analytical dimension in this analysis as the impact of e-cigarettes on vulnerable populations had not been discussed extensively in the literature thus it would not have contributed substantially to the analysis.

Data collection methods

A literature review was completed to serve as the scientific basis for many of the conclusions from the analysis. These papers were found by searching the literature from databases such as MEDLINE and PubMed. I used key terms such as “e-cigarettes”, “policy” and “tobacco renormalization” among many others. I also used grey literature, legislation in Canada (provincial and municipal) and position statements from other organizations to inform my analysis.

Lessons learned

The NCCHPP’s framework is a practical tool that guided this analysis for real-world applications. It was not limited to specific policy theories and allowed the conclusions to be made logically rather than through subjective interpretation. The framework was multidimensional which fostered a well-rounded analysis. I find this framework gave my conclusions credibility. My analytical experience was limited before I used this framework. After this project, I feel I can confidently assess policies and their potential consequences.

My advice for public health colleagues who are considering using the NCCHPP’s analytical framework would be to ensure you are using peer-reviewed evidence when doing so. It is acceptable in my opinion to use grey literature or other sources; however, peer-reviewed evidence will provide a stronger foundation for your arguments when applying this framework. Although I did not include equity in my analysis, I did justify it based on the current evidence.

Impact on public policies, programs and/or interventions

I presented my capping project at the National Conference on Tobacco or Health in Ottawa in 2016. It was very well received by the audience. My paper was submitted to a representative from Health Canada who was working formulating e-cigarette policies at the time. Currently legislation is in development that is in concordance with the main recommendations of my analysis. It should be noted, however, that I have not yet heard back from Health Canada as to whether they have used my analysis. My analysis was also shared with a policy representative at the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association.

To learn more:

Chavda, S. (2016). An analysis of federal regulatory options for e-cigarettes. Presentation made on March 1st, 2016 at the National Conference on Tobacco or Health [PowerPoint slides].

Example 5: Facilitating a Deliberative Process Focused on Interventions for Promoting Healthy Lifestyles and Preventing Obesity
Translation of an example presented by:

Yann Le Bodo, Research Officer, Plateforme d’évaluation en prévention de l’obésité [PEPO—platform for the evaluation of obesity prevention], Centre de recherche de l’Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec – Université Laval [CRIUCPQ – UL—research centre, university institute of cardiology and pneumology of Québec City at Laval University]
Chantal Blouin, Researcher, Direction du développement des individus et des communautés, Institut national de santé publique du Québec [INSPQ—Québec’s public health institute]
Nathalie Dumas, Sociologist, research and communications, contractual research officer
Philippe De Wals, Scientific director, PEPO, CRIUCPQ – UL
Johanne Laguë, Assistant director of scientific programming and quality, Direction du développement des individus et des communautés, INSPQ

Context of use

The NCCHPP’s analytical framework was used in the context of a deliberative process integral to the “Comment faire mieux?” [CFM—how can we do better?] project. This project was coordinated jointly by the Plateforme d’évaluation en prévention de l’obésité [the platform for the evaluation of obesity prevention] at the Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec – Université Laval [the university institute of cardiology and pneumology of Québec City at Laval University] and the Institut national de santé publique du Québec [Québec’s public health institute]. The project, which was carried out in 2014-2015, had two main objectives:

  • Establish a portrait of the Québec experience in promoting healthy eating habits and physical activity and in preventing obesity since 2006: this objective was fulfilled through a documentary search and a synthesis report spotlighting 166 public interventions in Québec and 120 international recommendations.

  • Identify avenues for improving the implementation of current or future interventions: this objective was fulfilled through a deliberative process. It was at this point that the NCCHPP’s analytical framework was used.

Subsequently, the CFM project team formulated 50 avenues for improvement, taking into account both the synthesis report and the results of the deliberative process.

Adaptations made

In the context of the CFM project, in addition to the NCCHPP’s six analytical criteria associated with the effects (effectiveness, unintended effects, equity) and the applicability of interventions (cost, feasibility, acceptability), we considered two cross-cutting criteria: the sustainability of interventions and their evaluability.

These eight criteria were used in a flexible manner during the deliberative process: they were not systematically assessed when a proposal was made, but participants were invited to refer to these criteria when expressing their views and, afterward, when prioritizing the proposals that had been formulated.

Data collection methods

The CFM deliberative process brought together a group of 25 participants representing a diversity of stakeholders (experts, representatives of different government departments and of civil society organizations), who were invited based on criteria such as experience in health promotion, scientific excellence and experience with decision-making processes. The process involved two steps:

  • A forum held over two days (December 2014) during which the content of the synthesis report prepared by the CFM project team structured exchanges. This report had been shared with the participants prior to the forum, along with an abridged version, as recommended by the NCCHPP’s Method for Synthesizing Knowledge About Public Policies. The participants appreciated this tool as it fostered reflection. At the forum, the six criteria of the NCCHPP’s framework were presented. Participants were able to refer to these criteria when expressing their views, as were the facilitators when summarizing the discussions. Throughout the design and implementation of the deliberative process, the CFM project team also benefited from the advice of an expert from the McMaster Health Forum.

  • At the forum’s conclusion, the participants and facilitators agreed on the need to prioritize the proposals that had been formulated. Therefore, an online survey was conducted among the 25 participants in the forum so that they could express their views regarding a list of proposals generated by the CFM project team based on the suggestions made at the meeting. Respondents were invited to refer to the criteria in the NCCHPP’s framework along with the cross-cutting criteria of sustainability and evaluability; definitions of these various criteria were available for reference throughout the survey.

Lessons learned

Given the very flexible manner in which the NCCHPP’s framework was used in the context of this project, its use posed no real difficulties. However a more systematic use of the framework would probably have required some reflection concerning the relevance and feasibility of using tools for collecting or analyzing data that would allow for a criterion-based analysis of each proposal.

Early integration of this analytical framework and clarification, in the early stages of project design, of how it might be used likely increases the benefits of its use. In our case, the deliberative process made it possible to enrich the knowledge contained in the synthesis report by drawing on the experience of participants. Owing to the scope of the criteria considered in the NCCHPP’s analytical framework, the discussions focused on a wide range of considerations, making it possible to truly take into account the Québec context when developing proposals. Thus, this process enabled the CFM project to achieve its objective of offering decision makers and concerned actors priority courses of action for promoting healthy lifestyles that are both consistent with and complementary to measures already in place in Québec.

Impact on public policies, programs and/or interventions

The CFM project resulted in the publication of a document including 50 courses of action (to consult this work, please refer to the section heading To learn more). This document was presented at several events and distributed to many stakeholders in Québec in 2016. It may have contributed to the broad-based momentum that supported a renewal of commitments in the area of health prevention and promotion in 2016 in Québec, but its impact has not been formally evaluated. Whether the document was a contributing factor or one indicator among many, it is nevertheless a positive indication that many of the courses of action that emerged during the CFM project are congruent with the Politique gouvernementale de prévention en santé, the provincial policy for prevention and health which was presented by the Québec government at the end of 2016. Some courses of action also tie in with proposals from other organizations, such as those proposing the redevelopment of school infrastructures to promote healthy eating and physical activity among youth.

To learn more

Complete work and summary:

  • Le Bodo, Y., Blouin, C., Dumas, N., Laguë, J., & De Wals, P. (2016). L’Expérience québécoise en promotion des saines habitudes de vie et en prévention de l’obésité: comment faire mieux? Québec, Canada: Presses de l’Université Laval. Retrieved from:


  • Blouin, C., Robitaille, É., Le Bodo, Y., Dumas, N., De Wals, P., & Laguë, J. (2017). Aménagement du territoire et politiques favorables à un mode de vie physiquement actif et à une saine alimentation au Québec. Lien social et Politiques, 2017(78), 19-48.
  • Le Bodo, Y., Blouin, C., Dumas, N., De Wals, P., & Laguë, J. (2017). The Quebec experience in promoting healthy lifestyles and preventing obesity: How can we do better? Obesity Reviews, 18(9), 967-986.
Example 6: Embedding the Framework Within an Organizational Policy Development and Decision-Making Tool

An example presented by:

Cora Janzenin motion Consultant, Population and Public Health, former Saskatoon Health Region
Dr. Julie Kryzanowski, Deputy Medical Health Officer, Population and Public Health, former Saskatoon Health Region
Jill Aussant, Public Health Nutritionist, Population and Public Health, former Saskatoon Health Region
Carolyn Chu, Senior Public Health Nutritionist, Population and Public Health, former Saskatoon Health Region
Tanya Dunn-Pierce, Health Promotion Department Manager, Population and Public Health, former Saskatoon Health Region
Context of use
The former Saskatoon Health Region is now part of the Saskatchewan Health Authority which includes Population and Public Health (PPH) as well as a variety of healthcare services and portfolios. The Health Promotion Department (HPD) is within PPH, and our intent was to create a policy development and decision-making tool for our management team (which currently consists of a Manager and Medical Health Officer (MHO) dyad) and staff to vet and prioritize options for working on healthy public policy. PPH previously developed and currently uses a policy framework (i.e., PPH Policy Framework). HPD’s Policy Development and Decision-Making Tool (also known as the vetting tool) integrates the PPH Policy Framework and assists our staff and management to determine the connection of the policy direction being considered to achieve PPH’s and HPD’s goals in relation to the context of our work priorities.
The NCCHPP framework is also embedded within the HPD’s Policy Development and Decision-Making Tool and enables staff to identify and describe the policy direction they recommend (based on the analysis of the six dimensions) to the Manager/MHO dyad for their approval.

Adaptations made

We did not adapt the NCCHPP’s analytical framework. However, we use it in conjunction with other resources and tools:

1. As our staff work with the HPD Policy Development and Decision-Making Tool they are encouraged to apply the PPH Policy Framework and consider the following factors:

  • How the policy being considered aligns with the department’s priorities and approaches;
  • How the policy connects to PPH’s health status reports and Chief MHO Calls to Action;
  • How the policy aligns with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action;

2. Other suggested tools for practitioners such as:

Data collection methods

We have not used the NCCHPP’s framework in our “day to day” work yet. It does look like a thorough framework and we anticipate that we will collect data to analyze the policy directions and options when working through our vetting tool. We anticipate that we will use group brainstorming, consultation with experts and deliberative processes most often.

Lessons learned

We familiarized ourselves with the NCCHPP’s framework by reading the Practical Guide and completing the Online Course. It is a helpful tool to conceptualize the dimensions of policy development.  We really liked the combination of analysis related to the effectiveness of the policy as well as the considerations for implementation and strategy development (for instance, feasibility).

Our recommendation for public health colleagues would be: use the NCCHPP’s framework in a way that fits your organization. We integrated it into our vetting tool to add another layer of analysis.

Impact on public policies, programs and/or interventions

We are at the early stages of implementing the HPD Policy Development and Decision-Making Tool. A workshop for HPD staff was conducted to orient the staff to the tool and have them work through using the tool with policies related to their areas of work. Feedback was collected from staff, and the tool, along with the standard work document, is now ready for implementation.

Next steps

  • Trialing a few policies using the policy vetting tool (e.g., Complete Streets and Respectful Workplace policy);
  • Feedback from Managers;
  • Once approved, guiding staff to know about the tools contained within the HPD Policy Development and Decision-Making Tool such as the NCCHPP analytical framework.

To learn more