Bridging policy and implementation science: operationalising political and structural determinants for health policy implementation evaluation.

IF 3.5
Sarah Forberger, Biljana Meshkovska, Lucia A Reisch, Aleksandra Luszczynska, Hajo Zeeb
{"title":"Bridging policy and implementation science: operationalising political and structural determinants for health policy implementation evaluation.","authors":"Sarah Forberger, Biljana Meshkovska, Lucia A Reisch, Aleksandra Luszczynska, Hajo Zeeb","doi":"10.1186/s43058-026-01137-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite their critical role in shaping public health policy implementation, key political and structural determinants within implementation frameworks are often poorly defined, underreported, or treated as background rather than as core implementation variables. Existing implementation science frameworks acknowledge these determinants, they lack systematic, operationalised guidance for reporting them, resulting in limited explanatory power, poor comparability, and an overemphasis on individual-level factors.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This paper aims to improve reporting standards in public health policy implementation evaluation by defining key political and structural determinants and proposing their operationalisation within established implementation frameworks.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The synthesis drew on seven systematic and scoping reviews and three in-depth case studies from the PEN, ASTRA, and STOP projects, covering nutrition, physical activity, and tobacco control. We consolidated predefined, theory-informed extraction categories from the underlying reviews, together with recurring reporting gaps, into overarching reporting dimensions. We then contextualised and refined these dimensions using evidence from the three case studies across diverse governance levels and socio-political settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We consolidated and operationalised eight core reporting dimensions: (1) policy objectives and scope, (2) actors, power, and competence, (3) legal status and jurisdiction, (4) policy instruments (regulatory, economic, communicative, behavioural), (5) implementation strategies (centralised vs. decentralised, coordination mechanisms), (6) resources (financial, human, material, and implementation costs), (7) equity impact and (8) policy lifecycle. The dimensions specify political and structural information relevant to policy implementation evaluation and provide a structured basis for more systematic and transparent reporting across diverse policy contexts. The operationalisation is designed to complement and to be integrated into established implementation frameworks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Systematic and transparent reporting of political and structural determinants is essential for understanding the success or failure of policy implementation. The proposed operationalisation offers researchers and evaluators a practical approach to strengthen public health policy implementation evaluations. Designed for integration into frameworks such as CFIR and CICI, it may help identify leverage points, support adaptive policy design, and contribute to more effective, equitable, and sustainable public health interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13678997/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation science communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-026-01137-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite their critical role in shaping public health policy implementation, key political and structural determinants within implementation frameworks are often poorly defined, underreported, or treated as background rather than as core implementation variables. Existing implementation science frameworks acknowledge these determinants, they lack systematic, operationalised guidance for reporting them, resulting in limited explanatory power, poor comparability, and an overemphasis on individual-level factors.

Objective: This paper aims to improve reporting standards in public health policy implementation evaluation by defining key political and structural determinants and proposing their operationalisation within established implementation frameworks.

Methods: The synthesis drew on seven systematic and scoping reviews and three in-depth case studies from the PEN, ASTRA, and STOP projects, covering nutrition, physical activity, and tobacco control. We consolidated predefined, theory-informed extraction categories from the underlying reviews, together with recurring reporting gaps, into overarching reporting dimensions. We then contextualised and refined these dimensions using evidence from the three case studies across diverse governance levels and socio-political settings.

Results: We consolidated and operationalised eight core reporting dimensions: (1) policy objectives and scope, (2) actors, power, and competence, (3) legal status and jurisdiction, (4) policy instruments (regulatory, economic, communicative, behavioural), (5) implementation strategies (centralised vs. decentralised, coordination mechanisms), (6) resources (financial, human, material, and implementation costs), (7) equity impact and (8) policy lifecycle. The dimensions specify political and structural information relevant to policy implementation evaluation and provide a structured basis for more systematic and transparent reporting across diverse policy contexts. The operationalisation is designed to complement and to be integrated into established implementation frameworks.

Conclusion: Systematic and transparent reporting of political and structural determinants is essential for understanding the success or failure of policy implementation. The proposed operationalisation offers researchers and evaluators a practical approach to strengthen public health policy implementation evaluations. Designed for integration into frameworks such as CFIR and CICI, it may help identify leverage points, support adaptive policy design, and contribute to more effective, equitable, and sustainable public health interventions.

衔接政策和执行科学:将卫生政策执行评估的政治和结构决定因素付诸实施。
背景:尽管在制定公共卫生政策实施方面发挥着关键作用,但实施框架内的关键政治和结构决定因素往往定义不清,报告不足,或被视为背景而不是核心实施变量。现有的实施科学框架承认这些决定因素,它们缺乏报告这些决定因素的系统的、可操作的指导,导致解释力有限、可比性差以及过度强调个人层面的因素。目的:本文旨在通过定义关键的政治和结构决定因素并建议在既定的实施框架内实施这些决定因素,提高公共卫生政策实施评估的报告标准。方法:该综合研究借鉴了来自PEN、ASTRA和STOP项目的7个系统和范围综述以及3个深入的案例研究,涵盖营养、身体活动和烟草控制。我们将预定义的、有理论依据的、从基础评审中提取的类别,连同反复出现的报告差距,整合到总体报告维度中。然后,我们使用来自不同治理水平和社会政治环境的三个案例研究的证据,对这些维度进行了背景化和细化。结果:我们整合并实施了八个核心报告维度:(1)政策目标和范围,(2)参与者、权力和能力,(3)法律地位和管辖权,(4)政策工具(监管、经济、沟通、行为),(5)实施策略(集中与分散、协调机制),(6)资源(财政、人力、物力和实施成本),(7)公平影响,(8)政策生命周期。这些维度指定了与政策实施评估相关的政治和结构信息,并为跨不同政策背景进行更系统和透明的报告提供了结构化基础。实施的目的是补充和纳入既定的执行框架。结论:系统和透明地报告政治和结构决定因素对于了解政策实施的成功或失败至关重要。拟议的运作为研究人员和评估人员提供了一种加强公共卫生政策执行评估的实际方法。它旨在将其纳入CFIR和CICI等框架,有助于确定杠杆点,支持适应性政策设计,并有助于更有效、公平和可持续的公共卫生干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书