Planning for Health Equity: How Municipal Strategic Documents and Project Plans Reflect Intentions Instructed by the Norwegian Public Health Act
, Siren Hope 1, Kirsti Sarheim Anthun 1,3, Eirin Hermansen 4, John Tore Vik 4, Erik R. Sund 5,6,7, Bodil Elisabeth Valstad Aasan 5,6, Mari Sylte 1 and Ruca Maass 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This investigation applies document analysis and qualitative content analysis to understand the major themes of the public health plans of municipalities in Norway. Findings revealed a greater emphasis on cross-sectoral governance and systematic use of knowledge than on health equity. Overall, the paper introduces the topic and justification for the investigation well and describes the methodology used in sufficient detail. The results and their implications are discussed adequately. However, the reasoning for separate discussions of results from each municipality is not clear to me. Several pages are devoted to results from the municipalities, but the discussion only relates to findings across municipalities. I would suggest either further expanding upon what the results within each municipality means, or condensing these sections and focusing on the results across municipalities.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presented is of great interest. Undoubtedly, a very important topic is studied. In addition, the local character, in my opinion, makes it especially interesting. The methodological approach is well designed. However, the presentation of results is unclear.
The main problem I find is the excess of vagueness. The results of this article are not very clear and are limited to showing general questions: the number of pages of the documents, whether the HPO was developed, whether some terms are included, etc. However, reading the text, one does not really know what has been done, what makes the analysis of the documentation of a given municipality allow us to give a concrete answer to the research questions. In fact, in the research questions we are told that the operationalization processes will be studied. However, I have not seen this clearly stated. Likewise, I have not been able to see clearly and concretely "the relationships between process and outcome aims".
In short, the research is very interesting, but it is necessary for the reader to understand, with clear examples, what has been done and what makes it possible to affirm that a plan, in a municipality, links the local community to each other, improves health, etc. There is a lack of concreteness. There is a lack of concrete examples of what is claimed.
Finally, I think it would be very helpful if the authors could make an outline focused on the four research questions. In this scheme they could compare the four municipalities studied. This would also bring much greater clarity to the results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The modifications made by the authors have clarified the article and significantly improved its quality. Now, the methodology and results have lost vagueness and the logical sequence is clearer. The conclusions have also been adjusted. It is undoubtedly a good work that should be published.
