Mapping “Health Politics”: Two Conceptual Traditions, 1976–2025

Background: Health outcomes and inequalities are shaped by political processes, yet the vocabulary used to describe this relationship—“health politics,” “politics of health,” “politics of public health,” “politics of health policy,” and “political determinants of health” (PDoH)—is applied inconsistently and has not been systematically examined.Objectives: To map how “politics” is conceptualized when these focal terms are used across the health and social science literature, and to clarify how PDoH relates to the broader health-politics vocabulary.Methods: In this scoping review, we searched Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed for articles published between 1976 and 2025 and conducted a term-in-use analysis of 457 included records (329 using politics-of-X terms; 128 using PDoH). Using directed qualitative content analysis, two independent coders classified the dominant conceptualization of each focal term into seven categories (policy process; governance and accountability; interest group politics; critical power analysis; social movements; political economy and welfare state; and ethics and normative reasoning), with almost perfect inter-rater agreement (screening κ = 0.94; primary-category κ = 0.90).Results: Conceptual usage was dominated by policy process (31.3%) and critical power analysis (26.9%), which together accounted for 58.2% of records, with the remaining categories comparatively sparse. The politics-of-X and PDoH corpora shared this conceptual core in nearly equal proportion (each ≈ 58%) but differed in emphasis: PDoH was more often framed through critical power analysis and structurally oriented categories (political economy, governance), whereas politics-of-X terms more often invoked actor- and process-centered framings. Multiple correspondence analysis recovered two interpretive axes, contrasting structural/critical with agential/process usage and conceptual with applied usage.Conclusions: “Health politics” operates not as a single bounded concept but as a label organized around two loosely connected conceptual traditions—an applied, process-centered one and a critical, structurally oriented one—while PDoH sits within this structure as a critically and structurally inflected specialization rather than a departure from it. The resulting mid-range typology offers a shared vocabulary for more cumulative research on the political drivers of health.