The establishment of policy is key to the implementation of actions for health. We review the nature of policy and the definition and directions of health policy. In doing so, we explicitly cast a health political science gaze on setting parameters for researching policy change for health. A brief overview of core theories of the policy process for health promotion is presented, and illustrated with empirical evidence.The key arguments are that (a) policy is not an intervention, but drives intervention development and implementation; (b) understanding policy processes and their pertinent theories is pivotal for the potential to influence policy change; (c) those theories and associated empirical work need to recognise the wicked, multi-level, and incremental nature of elements in the process; and, therefore, (d) the public health, health promotion, and education research toolbox should more explicitly embrace health political science insights.The rigorous application of insights from and theories of the policy process will enhance our understanding of not just how, but also why health policy is structured and implemented the way it is.

The past few years have seen the emergence of claims that the political determinants of health do not get due consideration and a growing demand for better insights into public policy analysis in the health research field. Several public health and health promotion researchers are calling for better training and a stronger research culture in health policy. The development of these studies tends to be more advanced in health promotion than in other areas of public health research, but researchers are still commonly caught in a naïve, idealistic and narrow view of public policy. This article argues that the political science discipline has developed a specific approach to public policy analysis that can help to open up unexplored levers of influence for public health research and practice and that can contribute to a better understanding of public policy as a determinant of health. It describes and critiques the public health model of policy analysis, analyzes political science's specific approach to public policy analysis, and discusses how the politics of research provides opportunities and barriers to the integration of political science's distinctive contributions to policy analysis in health promotion.

This article explores the innovative practices of actors specifically mandated to support interactions between academic researchers and their partners from the community during public health participatory research. Drawing on the concept of translation as developed in actor-network theory and found in the literature on knowledge transfer and the sociology of intermediate actors, we build a theorybased model of the translation practices developed by these actors at the interface between community and university. We refine this model by using it to analyse material from two focus groups comprising participants purposively selected because they work at the nexus between research and practice. Our model of translation practices includes cognitive (dealing with the contents of the research), strategic (geared to facilitating the research process and balancing power relationships among the partners) and logistic practices (the hands-on tasks of coordination). Combined, these three types of translation practices demonstrate that actors working at the interface in participatory research contribute to multidirectional exchanges and the co-construction of knowledge among research partners. Beyond the case of participatory research, theorising translation practices helps understand how knowledge is produced at the interface between academic and experiential (or lay) knowledge.

Action on the social determinants of health (SDH) through intersectoral policymaking is often suggested to promote health and health equity. This paper argues that the process of intersectoral policymaking influences how the SDH are construed and acted upon in municipal policymaking. We discuss how the intersectoral policy process legitimates certain practices in the setting of Danish municipal health promotion and the potential impact this can have for long-term, sustainable healthy public policy. Based on ethnographic fieldwork, we show how the intention of intersectoriality produces a strong concern for integrating health into non-health sectors to ensure productive collaboration. To encourage this integration, health is often framed as a means to achieve the objectives of non-health sectors. In doing so, the intersectoral policy process tends to favor smaller-scale interventions that aim to introduce healthier practices into various settings, e.g. creating healthy school environments for increased physical activity and healthy eating. While other more overarching interventions on the health impacts of broader welfare policies (e.g. education policy) tend to be neglected. The interventions hereby neglect to address more fundamental SDH. Based on these findings, we argue that intersectoral policymaking to address the SDH may translate into a limited approach to action on so-called 'intermediary determinants' of health, and as such may end up corrupting the broader SDH. Further, we discuss how this corruption affects the intended role of non-health sectors in tackling the SDH, as it may impede the overall success and long-term sustainability of intersectoral efforts.

The introduction of the notion of 'Healthy Public Policy' in the Ottawa Charter is considered a relevant response to the emerging social-political context of the 1970s and 1980s. It also remains an important, yet volatile, argument for the consideration of policy impact on health. In our analysis, however, those that continued to argue for Healthy Public Policies and those who should develop them have remained naïve about the profound political dimensions of this exercise. Applying insights from the political sciences, we argue that greater levels of connectedness and commitment across civil society, and governance integration between sectors and levels of politicking and action are required for the further success of health integrated policies. The role of communities and the key communicative drivers of the Ottawa Charter (enable, mediate and advocate) need to be strengthened in more astute strategies.