1

Introduction¹

On September 30, 2015, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Roundtable on Population Health Improvement hosted a workshop to explore the basic and translational research needs for population health science and to discuss specific research priorities and actions to foster population health improvement. The vision of the roundtable is for a strong, healthful, and productive society that cultivates human capital and equal opportunity, said George Isham, senior advisor at HealthPartners and co-chair of the roundtable, in his introductory remarks. This vision rests on the recognition that outcomes such as improved life expectancy, better quality of life, and health for all are shaped by interdependent social, economic, environmental, genetic, behavioral, and health care factors. As such, population health science is not a single discipline but an interdisciplinary field involving cross-sector collaborations to address complex population health problems with multifactorial interventions (Bachrach et al., 2015). As discussed by Adler and colleagues, “The growing field of population health research can contribute to the movement for population health action,” and “A population health movement will be most effective if it integrates both

___________________

¹ The planning committee’s role was limited to planning the workshop, and the Proceedings of a Workshop was prepared by the rapporteur as a factual account of what occurred at the workshop. Statements, recommendations, and opinions expressed are those of individual presenters and participants and have not been endorsed or verified by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. They should not be construed as reflecting any group consensus.

research and action, and finds new ways to ensure that each informs the other” (Adler et al., 2013, p. 1).

WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES

The Roundtable on Population Health Improvement sponsors workshops for its members, stakeholders, and the public to discuss issues of importance for improving our nation’s health. The workshop agenda was developed by an independent planning committee chaired by Paula Lantz, professor and associate dean for Research and Policy Engagement at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, and included Lila Finney Rutten, Michelle Frisco, Robert Kaplan, Phyllis Meadows, Bobby Milstein, Kathleen Mullan Harris, and Lisa Simpson (see Box 1-1). Lantz explained that the workshop was designed to

• provide frameworks for understanding population health research and its role in shaping and having an effect on population health;
• identify individual and institutional facilitators and challenges regarding the production, communication, and use of research for population health improvement; and
• identify key areas for future research critical to the advancement of population health improvement.

ORGANIZATION OF THE WORKSHOP AND PROCEEDINGS

This Proceedings of a Workshop summarizes the presentations and discussions that took place at the workshop Advancing the Science to Improve Population Health. The workshop began with a keynote presentation on an ecosocial approach to framing health equity (Chapter 2), followed by a background presentation on research designs and frameworks for population health improvement (Chapter 2). The first panel discussion focused on population health research in practice (Chapter 3). In preparation for the workshop, the planning committee conducted a brief survey of population health research needs and priorities, the results of which were presented (summarized in Chapter 4 with more detailed results provided in Appendix D). In the second panel discussion, speakers representing local health departments, consumers, the federal government, and the private sector provided their perspectives on research priorities (Chapter 5). After the presentations, participants broke into five small groups for facilitated discussions on a research agenda for population health. Participants were asked to identify several top research priorities based on their own experiences and what they heard over the course of the workshop discussions. Attendees then reconvened in plenary session, and the group facilitators reported on their groups’ discussions (Chapter 6).

This page intentionally left blank.