The document discusses frameworks for developing policies to address social determinants of health (SDH) and reduce health inequities. It examines the WHO's work addressing both social and economic determinants of health. It also analyzes Diderichsen et al.'s framework, which identifies levels of policy intervention and entry points for action on SDH. Finally, it discusses three strategic approaches for policy work on SDH: context-specific tactics, intersectoral action, and social engagement/empowerment.

1. PH01A0 An Introduction To Public Health Sciences
Answer
On a large scale, the WHO is intervening in social as well as economic determinants of
health at macro level. Using a framework for policy development may assist policy analysts
and decision-makers recognize levels of intervention as well as entry points for action on
SDH, from policies that address the basic structural determinants to methods that
concentrate on the health system as well as reduce inequalities in the results of illness
experienced by various social groups. Using a typology or else mapping of entry points for
policy intervention on SDH disparities, the evaluation judged Diderichsen and colleagues'
proposed framework to be particularly beneficial because it closely matches causality
theories. Social stratification, differential exposure or vulnerability, differential
consequences, and macro-social factors are all part of the picture (Fiorati et al., 2018).
Taking a look at these frameworks for policy action leads to a consideration of three main
strategic avenues for policy work to address SDH, emphasizing tackling health inequities:
context-specific tactics, intersectoral action, as well as social engagement and
empowerment.
Social cohesion and social capital are frequently brought up in talks on SDH. The structural
and intermediate dimensions of social capital are intertwined, and social capital has many
of the same features as both. However, a focus on social capital risks supports depoliticized
approaches to public health and the SDH, when the political aspect of the endeavor must be
explicitly part of any strategy to battle the SDH. "Linking social capital," which has spawned
new ideas about the role of government in promoting fairness, is an example of a notion
that hasn't depoliticized social capital (Pedrana et al., 2016). Fostering cooperative ties
between individuals and institutions is a critical challenge for health politics. Research
suggests that governments create flexible procedures that encourage individuals'
participation and participation.
Stratification, repercussions, and vulnerabilities are all considered in the model. Reducing
and minimizing the effects of social stratification through policy measures Policies aimed at
reducing the risks to the health of the poor. To alleviate the hardships faced by those who
are less fortunate. Efforts to reduce social, economic, and health disparities caused by
disease.

2. Finally, when it comes to policy action on SDH inequities, it is possible to recognize three
primary ways for decreasing health inequities. Targeted programs for underprivileged
neighborhoods, eliminating health gaps amid rich and poor, and speaking about the social
health gradient throughout the entire population are some examples of these approaches
Gradient-based approaches to SDH can only come from an equity-based perspective
(Exworthy & Morcillo, 2019). It's unnecessary to choose between strategies that focus on
closing health inequities, gaps, and gradients. They can complement and enhance each
other, as well.
We are looking for instances of successful intersectoral activity in jurisdictions with varying
resources levels as well as administrative capacity and describing in detail how effective
intersectoral initiatives have been sustained over time. CSDH is entrusted with identifying
these examples. The CSDH needs to explain how civil society and affected communities are
integral to the success of SDH policy (Babbel et al., 2019). As the Commission's work ends,
the SDH agenda will have ethical legitimacy and a solid base to build. Contextual
considerations, which should be explained using methods developed in social and political
science, should be considered while developing SDH policy.
A key takeaway from the CSDH framework is that policies and interventions aimed at
reducing health disparities can't just focus on intermediary factors; they must also address
the social dynamics that lead to an unequal distribution of health determinants among
populations (see Figure B). Interdepartmental policy initiatives are needed to address both
structural and intermediate factors.
References
Babbel, B., Mackenzie, M., Hastings, A., & Watt, G. (2019). How do general practitioners
understand health inequalities and do their professional roles offer scope for mitigation?
Constructions derived from the deep end of primary care. Critical Public Health, 29(2), 168-
180.
Exworthy, M., & Morcillo, V. (2019). Primary care doctors’ understandings of and strategies
to tackle health inequalities: a qualitative study. Primary Health Care Research &
Development, 20.
Fiorati, R. C., Arcêncio, R. A., Segura del Pozo, J., Ramasco-Gutiérrez, M., & Serrano-Gallardo,
P. (2018). Intersectorality and social participation as coping policies for health inequities-
worldwide. Gaceta sanitaria, 32, 304-314.
Pedrana, L., Pamponet, M., Walker, R., Costa, F., & Rasella, D. (2016). Scoping review:
national monitoring frameworks for social determinants of health and health equity. Global
health action, 9(1), 28831.