Which of the following framework implementation methods is considered the boldest method

1. Walt G, Shiffman J, Schneider H, Murray SF, Brugha R, Gilson L. ‘Doing’ health policy analysis: methodological and conceptual reflections and challenges. Health Policy Plan. 2008;23(5):308–317. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czn024. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

2. Sabatier P. The Need for Better Theories. In: Sabatier P, ed. Theories of the Policy Process. Colorado: Westview Press; 2007:3-20.

3. de Leeuw E, Clavier C, Breton E. Health policy--why research it and how: health political science. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:55. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-12-55. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

4. Colebatch H, Hoppe R, Noordegraaf M. Understanding Policy Work. In: Colebatch H, Hoppe R, Noordegraaf M, ed. Working for Policy. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; 2010:11-25.

5. Carey G. Re-Conceptualising Public Health Interventions in Government: A Response to Recent Commentaries. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(9):569–570. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.91. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

6. Colebatch H, Hoppe R, Noordegraaf M. The Lessons for Policy Work. Working for Policy. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; 2010:227-243.

7. Kokkinen L, Shankardass K, O’Campo P, Muntaner C. Taking health into account in all policies: raising and keeping health equity high on the political agenda. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017;71(8):745–746. doi: 10.1136/jech-2016-207736. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Farquharson K. A Different Kind of Snowball: Identifying Key Policymakers. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(4):345–353. doi: 10.1080/1364557042000203116. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Signal LN, Bowers SG, Edwards R. et al. Process, pitfalls and profits: lessons from interviewing New Zealand policy-makers. Health Promot Int. 2016 doi: 10.1093/heapro/daw065. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Donaldson SI. Program Theory-Driven Evaluation Science: Strategies and Applications. New York: Psychology Press, Taylor and Francis Group; 2007.

11. Mayne J. Contribution analysis: An approach to exploring cause and effect. ILAC Brief. http://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/ILAC_Brief16_Contribution_Analysis.pdf. Published 2008.

12. Poland B, Frohlich K, Cargo M. Context as a Fundamental Dimension of Health Promotion Program Evaluation. Health Promotion Practices in the Americas. New York: Springer Science+Business Media; 2008:299-317.

13. Blamey A, Mackenzie M. Theories of change and realistic evaluation peas in a pod or apples and oranges? Evaluation. 2007;13(4):439–455. doi: 10.1177/1356389007082129. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Carey G, Friel S. Understanding the role of public administration in implementing action on the social determinants of health and health inequities. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(12):795–798. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.185. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. Freiler A, Muntaner C, Shankardass K. et al. Glossary for the implementation of Health in All Policies (HiAP) J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67(12):1068–1072. doi: 10.1136/jech-2013-202731. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

16. Hendriks AM, Kremers SP, Gubbels JS, Raat H, de Vries NK, Jansen MW. Towards health in all policies for childhood obesity prevention. J Obes. 2013;2013:632540. doi: 10.1155/2013/632540. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

17. Weiss CH. How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Eval Rev. 1997;21(4):501–524. doi: 10.1177/0193841x9702100405. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

18. Mayne J. Contribution analysis: coming of age? Evaluation. 2012;18(3):270–280. doi: 10.1177/1356389012451663. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Delahais T, Toulemonde J. Applying contribution analysis: Lessons from five years of practice. Evaluation. 2012;18(3):281–293. doi: 10.1177/1356389012450810. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

20. Funnell S, Rogers P. Purposeful Program Theory: Effective use of the theories of change and logic models. San Francisco: John Wiley Sons; 2011.

21. Hunt J, Shackley S. Reconceiving science and policy: academic, fiducial and bureaucratic knowledge. Minerva. 1999;37(2):141–164. doi: 10.1023/A:1004696104081. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Considine M. Making Public Policy: Institutions, Actors, Strategies. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2005.

23. Government of South Australia. South Australia’s Strategic Plan, Creating opportunity. Adelaide: Government of South Australia; 2010.

24. Lawless AP, Williams C, Hurley C, Wildgoose D, Sawford A, Kickbusch I. Health in All Policies: evaluating the South Australian approach to intersectoral action for health. Can J Public Health. 2012;103(7 Suppl 1):eS15–eS19. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Government of South Australia. The South Australian approach to Health in All Policies: background and practical guide, Version 2. http://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/cb6fa18043aece9fb510fded1a914d95/HiAPBackgroundPracticalGuide-v2.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=cb6fa18043aece9fb510fded1a914d95. Accessed January 9, 2013. Published 2011.

26. World Health Organization. Health in all policies: Helsinki statement. Framework for country action. Geneva: WHO; 2014.

27. Ståhl T, Wismar M, Ollila E, Lahtinen E, Leppo K. Health in All Policies: Prospects and Potentials. Finland: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policy; 2006.

28. Baum F, Lawless A, Delany T. et al. Evaluation of Health in All Policies: concept, theory and application. Health Promot Int. 2014;29(Suppl 1):i130–142. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dau032. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

29. Carey G, Crammond B, Keast R. Creating change in government to address the social determinants of health: how can efforts be improved? BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1087. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1087. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Donaldson SI, Lipsey MW. Roles for theory in contemporary evaluation practice: Developing practical knowledge. In: Shaw IF, Greene JC, Mark MM. The SAGE Handbook of Evaluation. SAJE; 2006.

31. Judge K, Bauld L. Strong theory, flexible methods: Evaluating complex community-based initiatives. Crit Public Health. 2001;11(1):19–38. doi: 10.1080/09581590010028237. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

32. Stame N. Theory-based evaluation and types of complexity. Evaluation. 2004;10(1):58–76. doi: 10.1177/1356389004043135. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

33. Leeuw F, Vaessen J. Mind the gap: perspectives on policy evaluation and the social sciences. Paper presented at: Transaction Publishers; 2009.

34. Rogers PJ. Using Programme Theory to Evaluate Complicated and Complex Aspects of Interventions. Evaluation. 2008;14(1):29–48. doi: 10.1177/1356389007084674. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

35. Rogers PJ, Weiss CH. Theory-based evaluation: Reflections ten years on: Theory-based evaluation: past, present, and future. New Directions for Evaluation. 2007;(114):63–81. doi: 10.1002/ev.225. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

36. Weiss CH. Which links in which theories shall we evaluate? New Directions for Evaluation. 2000;(87):35–45. doi: 10.1002/ev.1180. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. Lawless A, Freeman T, Bentley M, Baum F, Jolley G. Developing a good practice model to evaluate the effectiveness of comprehensive primary health care in local communities. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15:99. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-15-99. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

38. Birckmayer JD, Weiss CH. Theory-based evaluation in practice.What do we learn? . Eval Rev. 2000;24(4):407–431. doi: 10.1177/0193841x0002400404. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

39. Quigley R. Role of Health Impact Assessment in Health in All Policies In: Kickbusch I, Buckett K. Implementing Health in All Polcies. Adelaide: Government of South Australia; 2010:101-107.

40. Delany T, Harris P, Williams C. et al. Health Impact Assessment in New South Wales & Health in All Policies in South Australia: differences, similarities and connections. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:699. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-699. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

41. Mannheimer LN, Lehto J, Ostlin P. Window of opportunity for intersectoral health policy in Sweden--open, half-open or half-shut? Health Promot Int. 2007;22(4):307–315. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dam028. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

42. Ollila E. Health in All Policies: from rhetoric to action. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(6 Suppl):11–18. doi: 10.1177/1403494810379895. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

43. Exworthy M. Policy to tackle the social determinants of health: using conceptual models to understand the policy process. Health Policy Plan. 2008;23(5):318–327. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czn022. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. Ezzy D. Qualitative analysis: Practice and Innovation. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen Unwin; 2002.

45. Pollitt C. Context: What kind of missing link? In: Pollitt C, ed. Context in Public Policy and Management - The missing link? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2013. 415-422 [Google Scholar]

46. Clark J. Contexts: forms of agency and action. In: Pollitt C, ed. Context in Public Policy and Management: The Missing Link? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2013:22-34.

47. Williams C, Lawless A, Parkes H. The South Australian Health in All Policies model: The developmental phase. Public Health Bulletin South Australia. 2008;5(1):30–34. [Google Scholar]

48. Sabatier PA. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci. 1988;21(2-3):129–168. doi: 10.1007/bf00136406. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

49. Newman L, Ludford I, Williams C, Herriot M. Applying Health in All Policies to obesity in South Australia. Health Promot Int. 2016;31(1):44–58. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dau064. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

50. Noordegraaf M. Academic Accounts of Policy Experience. In: Colebatch H, Hoppe R, Noordegraaf M, eds. Working for Policy. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; 2010:45-67.

51. Sabatier P, Jenkins-Smith HC. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Bolder, CO: Westview Press; 1993.

52. Jenkins-Smith HC, Nohrstedt D, Weible CM, Sabatier PA. The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In: Sabatier PA. Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 2014:3.

53. Howlett M, Ramesh M, Perl A. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.

54. Lowndes V, Roberts M. Why Institutions Matter - The new Institutionalism in Policitical Science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013.

55. Scott WR. Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications; 2013.

56. Marsh D. Comparing policy networks. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press; 1998.

57. Kingdon J. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. 2nd ed. Boston: Longman; 2011.

58. Giddens A. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press; 1984.

59. Giddens A. Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford University Press; 1991.

60. Solar O, Irwin A. A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.

61. Delany T, Lawless A, Baum F. et al. Health in All Policies in South Australia: what has supported early implementation? Health Promot Int. 2016;31(4):888–898. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dav084. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

62. Dwyer J, Silburn K, Wilson G. National Strategies for Improving Indigenous Health and Health Care. Canberra: Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health; 2004.

63. Greenhalgh T, Humphrey C, Hughes J, Macfarlane F, Butler C, Pawson R. How do you modernize a health service? A realist evaluation of whole-scale transformation in london. Milbank Q. 2009;87(2):391–416. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00562.x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

64. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist synthesis: an introduction. ESRC Research Methods Programme. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4351/46e6e6617491ff1c4b32b76e0a534c86d6c7.pdf?_ga=2.34585889.1692440165.1505184365-112133799.1505184365. Published 2004.

65. Stake R. The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry. In: Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P, eds. Case Study Method: Key Issues, Key Texts. London: SAGE Publications; 2000:19-26.

66. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. The Only Generalization is: There is No Generalization. In: Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P, eds. Case Study Method: Key Issues, Key Texts. London: SAGE publications; 2000:27-44.

Page 2

HiAP Activities and Associated Roles

Activities and Pertinent Participant Quotes	Mechanisms
Policy entrepreneurs The Thinker in Residence and the importance of that because at that time we were also hosting Fred Hansen’s residency … So the notion of risk taking, if you like, was there in communicating across partners… across government through the Thinkers in Residency program (Research workshop 1).	– Promote the potential and visibility of HiAP– Promote the benefits of inter-sectoral action Revitalise initiative – Maintain HiAP on policy agenda
Intermediaries I think the key thing that got the ball rolling was that I had a supportive mindset of the people that I worked with but I guess it’s also that trust they had in me as well, that ‘if you think this is worth pursuing we’ll give you a go, see where it goes’ (Research workshop 1). I think there was some of the people who – it resonated with them, that there was this relationship between the work and wellbeing (Research workshop 2).	– Participate in early adoption of HiAP– ‘Champion’ HiAP– Transport and transmit HiAP ideas and practices within and across sectors – Watch for windows of opportunity
Relationship building and maintenance Another thing that I think was really helpful was the relationship building and by that you built credibility (Research workshop 1). They’re in there listening. They’re looking for the alignment, they’re not in there telling ‘this is what you need to be doing’ (Research workshop 1).	– Informal and formal discussions– Persistence in relationship building– Negotiation – Explore diversity and common ground
Dedicated HiAP unit I don’t think any of this would have happened unless there was a dedicated unit and the resources to go with it (Research workshop 1). It’s the competence of those that are actually trying to implement the theory … So it’s the fact it’s a dedicated resource and the nature of that resource that’s really important (Research workshop 1). You do need somebody, or a set of people working in the space that has an in depth understanding around determinants, public health, interventions, programs, how to create change, that new public health, all of that stuff (Research workshop 2).	– Raises awareness– Mobilises stakeholders and resources– Negotiates roles, expectations– Provides leadership– ‘Shepherds’ participants– Facilitates creation of shared goals and co-benefits– Brings health expertise and skills in inter-sectoral collaboration– Watch for and use windows of opportunity – Develops understanding of partners’ agenda and core business
Health lens analysis They were pretty rigorous in their statistical analysis, they were thorough in their research. They were empathetic in the way that they engaged. They were good at brokering and facilitating with other groups that we needed to work with (Research workshop 1). I think it’s important that there’s an understanding of what their policy area is in terms of its linkages to the social determinants of health and wellbeing (Research workshop 2).	– Sharing information– Identify opportunities for cooperation– Articulate links between health lens analysis focus and health outcomes– Gather evidence– Explore options – Plan policy action
Central mandate for action It does need that high level backing though, doesn’t it, because otherwise it ends up being the people who are converted already? (Research workshop 1). SASP [the SA Strategic Plan] was already there and all you needed to do was put a health lens over it and you know you’re ahead of the field (Research workshop 2).	– Link HiAP work to existing policy framework and government priorities – Supports entry of Health into other sectors – Provides legitimation for Health and partners to act
Other HiAP initiatives Seeing the opportunity through communications that HiAP had put out … overtly stating they wanted relationships with local government and seeing the opportunity (Research workshop 1).	– Acts to promote awareness of HiAP principles and extend considerations of health and equity into other sectors– ‘Health in Planning’ initiative – Local Government engagement
Accountability and reporting One of the things in favour of participating in the HiAP project was the fact that it was at that point reporting up to a body that I thought would have some influence for change (Research workshop 1). One of the other things that I think really helped us was the Eat Well Be Active Strategy and that that actually had a section at the back that said what [Department of Planning] had committed to, so that was I think a real achievement from Health’s perspective (Research workshop 1).	– Link HiAP work to existing process for other cross government initiatives– Briefing of senior management– Chief Executive approval of proposals for HLA and recommendations from HLA– Legislative requirement eg, SA Public Health Act – Various State level health promotion and disease prevention plans