Introduction
Health policy is approached not only as the regulation and delivery of health services but also as a multidimensional field encompassing economic, social, and political factors (Williams & Jackson, 2005; Umberson & Montez, 2010). In recent years, three main axes have emerged in the literature: the rising burden of aging and chronic diseases (Prince et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2017), the effects of social determinants and structural inequalities on health (Hardeman et al., 2022), and the importance of new methodological approaches in evidence-based policymaking processes (Tunis et al., 2003; Dalglish et al., 2020).
In particular, the growing prevalence of long-term health problems such as chronic diseases, dementia, and obesity necessitates measures that go beyond traditional health policies. Within this framework, social policies, environmental regulations, and economic decisions are emphasized as being directly linked to health (Nestle & Jacobson, 2000; Wang et al., 2021). Moreover, health policy research is argued to require discussions not only on policy content but also on processes and evidence-generation methods (Brownson, Chriqui, & Stamatakis, 2009; Verguet, Kim, & Jamison, 2016).
This report aims to thematically reveal the trends in the health policy literature. The key contribution of the study is to systematically evaluate the abstracts of publications in the Web of Science database classified as “articles” with “health policy” in their title, thereby examining the focal points, methodological diversity, and policy implications of the literature within an integrated framework.
Methodology
This study was conducted using the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database. In the search strategy, the phrase “health policy” was restricted to appear only in article titles (Title field), and the results were limited to the document type “Article.” Documents categorized as “Book Chapter,” “Proceeding Paper,” and “Retracted Publication” were excluded. The first 50 articles retrieved constituted the initial dataset of this report.
During preprocessing, author details, title, abstract, publication year, journal, and DOI information of each article were tabulated. Articles lacking abstracts (7 in total) were excluded, and the evaluation was carried out on 43 abstracts.
The analysis followed a qualitative content analysis approach. Abstracts were read line by line, and recurring concepts, themes, and policy areas were coded. The codes were grouped under three overarching categories:
- Policy Content: Health issues, target groups, and thematic foci
- Policy Process and Governance: Decision-makers, institutions, actors, and governance dynamics
- Evidence and Method Use: Research designs, analytical approaches, and evidence-generation methods
Subsequently, the codes and themes were converted into an “evidence matrix,” and a problem–intervention–evidence–implication chain was constructed for each article. This allowed comparisons and synthesis across studies, thereby analytically reporting the main focal points of the literature.
The study is limited to articles with the phrase “health policy” in the title. Therefore, relevant studies contributing to the field but not carrying this phrase in their title were excluded. Furthermore, the review relied only on abstracts; full texts were not included.
Findings
In this study, abstracts of 43 articles classified as “health policy” in the Web of Science database were analyzed. The results highlighted three main categories: (i) policy content, (ii) policy process and governance, and (iii) evidence and method use.
Policy Content
The burden of aging and chronic diseases emerged as a strong sub-theme. Prince et al. (2015) emphasized that people aged 60+ accounted for 23% of the global disease burden, highlighting the importance of appropriate policies for older populations. Xu et al. (2017) examined the economic costs of dementia in China, demonstrating the necessity of prevention and integrated care at the national level.
Social determinants and inequalities also featured prominently. Williams and Jackson (2005) traced racial health inequalities back to socioeconomic and environmental factors, while Hardeman et al. (2022) argued that effective anti-racist policies cannot be developed without accurately measuring structural racism. Umberson and Montez (2010) underscored the impact of social relationships across the life course, emphasizing their relevance for health policy.
Nutrition and obesity policies were also salient. Nestle and Jacobson (2000) argued that obesity is associated less with individual behavior and more with environmental factors. Wang et al. (2021) analyzed the obesity epidemic in China and underlined the importance of the “Healthy China 2030” strategy.
Policy Process and Governance
Findings also showed that health policies are shaped not only by content but also by process and governance dimensions. Fernandez and Gould (1994) noted that actors’ positions in communication networks determine their influence, while Saltman and Ferroussier-Davis (2000) highlighted the need to redefine the role of the state in health through the concept of “stewardship.”
Pandemics provided important case examples. Schwarzinger et al. (2010) linked low H1N1 vaccine acceptance in France to safety concerns and insufficient involvement of physicians. Raoofi et al. (2020) analyzed Iran’s COVID-19 experience, pointing to managerial delays and equipment shortages as key policy failures. Sharon (2021) critically examined how Apple and Google, through digital contact tracing apps, became new actors in global health policy, raising debates on independence and legitimacy.
Evidence and Method Use
Evidence generation and use in health policy stood out as another strong theme. Tunis et al. (2003) emphasized the lack of practical clinical trials, while Brownson et al. (2009) categorized policy evidence into process, content, and outcomes. Dalglish et al. (2020) introduced the READ approach for systematic analysis of policy documents.
Verguet et al. (2016) proposed extended cost-effectiveness analysis, demonstrating that policies should account not only for health outcomes but also for financial protection and equity. Zhang et al. (2011) emphasized the importance of power calculations in interrupted time series analyses, and Arora et al. (2019) suggested that Google Trends data could serve as a complementary tool in health policy research.
Overall Assessment
The findings reveal that health policy literature clusters around three dimensions: content, process, and evidence use. At the content level, chronic diseases, obesity, and social inequalities dominate; at the process level, governance, crisis management, and actor positions prove decisive; and at the evidence level, methodological diversity and contextual use of evidence emerge as fundamental.
Discussion and Conclusion
This report demonstrates that the health policy literature has developed along three critical dimensions: the need for multisectoral approaches, governance capacity, and methodological innovation. At the content level, challenges such as chronic diseases, aging, and obesity cannot be solved by medical interventions alone; they require large-scale interventions spanning education, environment, economy, and social policies (Prince et al., 2015; Nestle & Jacobson, 2000; Wang et al., 2021).
At the process level, the positions of actors within policy networks, the role of the state, and crisis management capacity directly affect policy success (Fernandez & Gould, 1994; Saltman & Ferroussier-Davis, 2000; Raoofi et al., 2020). The COVID-19 experience has revealed the importance of trust-building and reopened debates about the role of technological actors (Sharon, 2021).
At the evidence level, methodological innovations are striking. Practical clinical trials (Tunis et al., 2003), extended cost-effectiveness analysis (Verguet et al., 2016), and interrupted time series analyses (Zhang et al., 2011) expand the scope of health policy research and bring policymaking closer to evidence-based practice.
Overall, future research in health policy is expected to focus on three areas: (i) life-course and multisectoral approaches, (ii) strengthening governance and legitimacy, and (iii) producing context-sensitive evidence through innovative methodologies. These directions are likely to enhance the contribution of health policies to public health.
Table: Evidence Matrix: Health Policy Literature (First 43 Articles)
| Theme | Policy Problem | Policy Response / Intervention | Evidence Source | Key Findings | Policy Implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aging and chronic disease burden | 23% of global DALYs in 60+; heavier burden in low- and middle-income countries | Prevention, age-appropriate care, multimorbidity management | Prince et al., 2015 (Lancet) | Cardiovascular 30.3%, cancer 15.1%, chronic respiratory 9.5% | Health systems should be restructured around aging populations |
| Life-course health policy | Childhood-origin risk factors | Life-course approach, early investment | Forrest & Riley, 2004 (Health Affairs) | Childhood interventions reduce later morbidity | Policy focus should shift toward a “life-course” approach |
| Dementia and cost | Rapid aging and rise of dementia in China | National action plan, integrated care | Xu et al., 2017 (WHO Bull.) | 1990: $0.9 billion, 2030: $114 billion | Long-term financing and integration of social care needed |
| Social relationships and health | Health risks of social isolation | Policies supporting social ties | Umberson & Montez, 2010 (JHSB) | Relationships have both positive and negative effects | Social ties should be a focus of public health policy |
| Racial inequality | Health gaps in the U.S. | Reducing inequality via housing, education, income policies | Williams & Jackson, 2005 (Health Affairs) | Neighborhood conditions and segregation as key drivers | Health policy must cover “non-health” sectors |
| Measuring structural racism | Mis-measurement of racism weakens policy design | New quantitative-qualitative methods, historical & geographical context | Hardeman et al., 2022 (Health Affairs) | Proposed anti-racist measurement methodology | Measurement tools directly affect policy |
| Definition of rural | “Rural” means different things at different scales | Choosing appropriate taxonomy for policy | Hart et al., 2005 (AJPH) | Demographic and cultural differences are critical | Misdefinition leads to misaligned policies |
| Pandemic policies | Low H1N1 vaccine acceptance | Trust-building, involvement of family physicians | Schwarzinger et al., 2010 (PLOS ONE) | Acceptance 17%; safety concerns dominant | Risk communication should be mediated by physicians |
| COVID-19 (Iran) | Equipment shortages, delayed decisions | Whole-of-government approach | Raoofi et al., 2020 (Arch Iran Med.) | Managerial delays increased spread | Rapid decision-making and integrated approach required |
| Digital contact tracing | Privacy concerns and big tech influence | Apple/Google API, privacy-focused design | Sharon, 2021 (Ethics Inf. Tech.) | Tech companies becoming political actors | Policy legitimacy and independence must be safeguarded |
| Violence prevention | Violence epidemic in the U.S. | Prevention-first, multidisciplinary collaboration | Mercy et al., 1993 (Health Affairs) | Proposed preventive public health approach | Sustainable, cross-disciplinary efforts needed |
| Evidence-based policy | RCT-focused evidence insufficient | Pragmatic clinical trials | Tunis et al., 2003 (JAMA) | Decision-maker-oriented design is critical | Funding and priority mechanisms are required |
| Policy evidence domains | Evidence as process, content, and outcomes | Data communication, policy monitoring | Brownson et al., 2009 (AJPH) | Policy-evidence interaction is three-dimensional | Clinical evidence alone is not enough |
| Document analysis | Policy documents are overlooked | READ method | Dalglish et al., 2020 (Health Policy & Planning) | Systematic approach to policy document analysis | Policy discourses must also be analyzed |
| Policy and politics | Evidence use depends on political/institutional context | Centralization, donors, bureaucracy | Liverani et al., 2013 (PLOS ONE) | 56 studies systematically reviewed | Political institutions shape evidence use |
| Problem representation | How problems are framed in policy | WPR approach | Bacchi, 2016 (SAGE Open) | Representation shapes available solutions | Success/failure depends on representation |
| Time-series analysis | Measuring policy effects | ITS simulations | Zhang et al., 2011 (J Clin Epidemiol) | Power calculations critical for small effects | Researchers should simulate before study design |
| Digital data | Google Trends | Search patterns in health research | Arora et al., 2019 (Health Policy) | Real-time but risk of bias | Useful complement, insufficient alone |
| Extended CEA | Health + financial protection + distributional equity | ECEA approach | Verguet et al., 2016 (Pharmacoeconomics) | Four-dimensional evaluation proposed | Policy should be multi-objective |
| Pharmaceutical policy | Lack of R&D for tropical diseases | PPP, incentives, public obligation | Trouiller et al., 2002 (Lancet) | Only 16 new drugs in 25 years | International commitments required |
| BPA and risk | Endocrine-disrupting chemicals | Bans, precautionary principle | Erler & Novak, 2010 (J Pediatr Nursing) | Risks like early puberty | Urgent chemical regulation required |
| Vaccine policies and innovation | Uptake incentives influence innovation | Social welfare analysis | Finkelstein, 2004 (QJE) | 2.5 times more clinical trials | Incentive design is critical |
| CHW programs | Primary care workforce | WHO guidelines (training, pay, supervision) | Cometto et al., 2018 (Lancet Global Health) | 15 systematic reviews, 96 stakeholder inputs | CHWs must be integrated into health systems |
| Oral health policy (Brazil) | Integration of oral health into SUS | Brasil Sorridente | Pucca Jr. et al., 2015 (J Dent Res) | Expanded networks and financing | Institutionalization resistant to political cycles needed |
| General health innovation (Brazil) | Inequality and progress within the national system | SUS and social determinants | Victora et al., 2011 (Lancet) | Health improved but inequalities persist | Policy-politics alignment is necessary |
| Breast cancer screening (Finland) | Effectiveness of screening | National screening program | Hakama et al., 1997 (BMJ) | Mortality reduced but limited | Resource allocation & quality of life should be considered |
| Obesity U.S. | Individual-level approaches insufficient | Environmental, multisectoral policies | Nestle & Jacobson, 2000 (PHR) | Fast food, car dependency as factors | Taxes and planning tools are needed |
| Obesity China | Rapidly rising prevalence | Healthy China 2030 strategy | Wang et al., 2021 (Lancet Diabetes) | Half of adults obese/overweight | Multi-stakeholder leadership required |
| Mental health & criminal justice | Higher crime risk among those with mental illness | Criminological frameworks | Fisher et al., 2006 (Admin Policy Ment Health) | Three models proposed | Services should be designed to reduce crime risk |
| Governance and influence | Mediation in the policy arena | Network position and neutrality | Fernandez & Gould, 1994 (AJS) | Representative positions increase influence | Network structure determines policy power |
| Stewardship | Direction of state authority | WHO stewardship concept | Saltman & Ferroussier-Davis, 2000 (WHO Bull.) | Normative + economic efficiency dimensions | The role of the state must be repositioned |
References:
Arora, V. S., McKee, M., & Stuckler, D. (2019). Google Trends: Opportunities and limitations in health and health policy research. Health Policy, 123(3), 338–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.01.001
Brownson, R. C., Chriqui, J. F., & Stamatakis, K. A. (2009). Understanding evidence-based public health policy. American Journal of Public Health, 99(9), 1576–1583. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.156224
Dalglish, S. L., Khalid, H., & McMahon, S. A. (2020). Document analysis in health policy research: the READ approach. Health Policy and Planning, 35(10), 1424–1431. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czaa064
Fernandez, R. M., & Gould, R. V. (1994). A dilemma of state power: Brokerage and influence in the national-health policy domain. American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1455–1491. https://doi.org/10.1086/230451
Forrest, C. B., & Riley, A. W. (2004). Childhood origins of adult health: A basis for life-course health policy. Health Affairs, 23(5), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.23.5.155
Hardeman, R. R., Homan, P. A., Chantarat, T., Davis, B. A., & Brown, T. H. (2022). Improving the measurement of structural racism to achieve antiracist health policy. Health Affairs, 41(2), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01489
Nestle, M., & Jacobson, M. F. (2000). Halting the obesity epidemic: A public health policy approach. Public Health Reports, 115(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/phr/115.1.12
Prince, M. J., Wu, F., Guo, Y., Gutierrez Robledo, L. M., O’Donnell, M., Sullivan, R., & Yusuf, S. (2015). The burden of disease in older people and implications for health policy and practice. Lancet, 385(9967), 549–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61347-7
Raoofi, A., Takian, A., Sari, A. A., Olyaeemanesh, A., Haghighi, H., & Aarabi, M. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic and comparative health policy learning in Iran. Archives of Iranian Medicine, 23(4), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.34172/aim.2020.02
Saltman, R. B., & Ferroussier-Davis, O. (2000). The concept of stewardship in health policy. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78(6), 732–739.
Schwarzinger, M., Flicoteaux, R., Cortarenoda, S., Obadia, Y., & Moatti, J. P. (2010). Low acceptability of A/H1N1 pandemic vaccination in French adult population: Did public health policy fuel public dissonance? PLoS ONE, 5(4), e10199. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010199
Sharon, T. (2021). Blind-sided by privacy? Digital contact tracing, the Apple/Google API and big tech’s newfound role as global health policy makers. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(Suppl 1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09547-x
Tunis, S. R., Stryer, D. B., & Clancy, C. M. (2003). Practical clinical trials: Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA, 290(12), 1624–1632. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.12.1624
Umberson, D., & Montez, J. K. (2010). Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(1_suppl), S54–S66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510383501
Verguet, S., Kim, J. J., & Jamison, D. T. (2016). Extended cost-effectiveness analysis for health policy assessment: A tutorial. PharmacoEconomics, 34(9), 913–923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0414-z
Wang, Y., Zhao, L., Gao, L., Pan, A., & Xue, H. (2021). Health policy and public health implications of obesity in China. Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 9(7), 446–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00118-2
Williams, D. R., & Jackson, P. B. (2005). Social sources of racial disparities in health. Health Affairs, 24(2), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.24.2.325
Xu, J., Wang, J., Wimo, A., Fratiglioni, L., & Qiu, C. (2017). The economic burden of dementia in China, 1990–2030: Implications for health policy. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 95(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.15.167726
Zhang, F., Wagner, A. K., & Ross-Degnan, D. (2011). Simulation-based power calculation for designing interrupted time series analyses of health policy interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(11), 1252–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.02.007