Ben J. Smith

The WHO Health Promotion Glossary was written to facilitate understanding, communication and cooperation among those engaged in health promotion at the local, regional, national and global levels. Two editions of the Glossary have been released, the first in 1986 and the second in 1998, and continued revision of the document is necessary to promote consensus regarding meanings and to take account of developments in thinking and practice. In this update 10 new terms that are to be included in the Glossary are presented. Criteria for the inclusion of terms in the Glossary are that they differentiate health promotion from other health concepts, or have a specific application or meaning when used in relation to health promotion. The terms defined here are: burden of disease; capacity building; evidence-based health promotion; global health; health impact assessment; needs assessment; self-efficacy; social marketing; sustainable health promotion strategies, and; wellness. WHO will continue to periodically update the Health Promotion Glossary to ensure its relevance to the international health promotion community.

BACKGROUND: Although community engagement (CE) is widely used in health promotion, components of CE models associated with improved health are poorly understood. This study aimed to examine the magnitude of the impact of CE on health and health inequalities among disadvantaged populations, which methodological approaches maximise the effectiveness of CE, and components of CE that are acceptable, feasible, and effective when used among disadvantaged populations. DESIGN: The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We carried out methodological assessments of the included studies using rating scales. The analysis focussed on model synthesis to identify the key CE components linked to positive study outcomes and comparative analysis between positive study outcomes, processes, and quality indicators of CE. RESULTS: Out of 24 studies that met our inclusion criteria, 21 (87.5%) had positively impacted health behaviours, public health planning, health service access, health literacy, and a range of health outcomes. More than half of the studies (58%) were of good quality, whereas 71% and 42% of studies showed good community involvement in research and achieved high levels of CE, respectively. Key CE components that affected health outcomes included real power-sharing, collaborative partnerships, bidirectional learning, incorporating the voice and agency of beneficiary communities in research protocol, and using bicultural health workers for intervention delivery. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that CE models can lead to improved health and health behaviours among disadvantaged populations if designed properly and implemented through effective community consultation and participation. We also found several gaps in the current measurement of CE in health intervention studies, which suggests the importance of developing innovative approaches to measure CE impact on health outcomes in a more rigorous way.

The effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic upon human health, economic activity and social engagement have been swift and far reaching. Emerging evidence shows that the pandemic has had dramatic mental health impacts, bringing about increased anxiety and greater social isolation due to the physical distancing policies introduced to control the disease. In this context, it is possible to more deeply appreciate the health consequences of loneliness and social isolation, which researchers have argued are enduring experiences for many people and under-recognised contributors to public health. In this paper, we examine the social and psychological consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a focus on what this has revealed about the need to better understand and respond to social isolation and loneliness as public health priorities. Social isolation and loneliness are understood to be distinct conditions, yet each has been found to predict premature mortality, depression, cardiovascular disease and cognitive decline. Estimates of the prevalence and distribution of social isolation and loneliness vary, possibly ranging from one-in-six to one-in-four people, and the lack of knowledge about the extent of these conditions indicates the need for population monitoring using standardised methods and validated measures. Reviews of the evidence relating to social isolation and loneliness interventions have found that befriending schemes, individual and group therapies, various shared activity programs, social prescription by healthcare providers, and diverse strategies using information and communication technologies have been tried. There remains uncertainty about what is effective for different population groups, particularly for prevention and for addressing the more complex condition of loneliness. In Australia, a national coalition - Ending Loneliness Together - has been established to bring together researchers and service providers to facilitate evidence gathering and the mobilisation of knowledge into practice. Research-practice partnerships and cross-disciplinary collaborations of this sort are essential for overcoming the public health problems of loneliness and social isolation that have pre-existed and will endure beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: To evaluate the reliability and validity of a brief physical activity assessment tool suitable for doctors to use to identify inactive patients in the primary care setting. Methods: Volunteer family doctors (n = 8) screened consenting patients (n = 75) for physical activity participation using a brief physical activity assessment tool. Inter-rater reliability was assessed within one week (n = 71). Validity was assessed against an objective physical activity monitor (computer science and applications accelerometer; n = 42). Results: The brief physical activity assessment tool produced repeatable estimates of ‘‘sufficient total physical activity’’, correctly classifying over 76% of cases (k 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.72). The validity coefficient was reasonable (k 0.40, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.69), with good percentage agreement (71%). Conclusions: The brief physical activity assessment tool is a reliable instrument, with validity similar to that of more detailed self report measures of physical activity. It is a tool that can be used efficiently in routine primary healthcare services to identify insufficiently active patients who may need physical activity advice.