Strategic directions report for the social determinants of health project

This report presents the outcomes of a project undertaken by the VACCHO Public Health Research Unit to explore ways to build capacity in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social determinants research. The project was funded by the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health.----- The project involved a series of four social determinants research workshops conducted in July and August 2009 and a collaborative forum conducted in September 2009. Invitations to participate were extended to the VACCHO membership and the nine universities in Victoria. Three workshops were held with ACCHOs (in Bendigo, Melbourne and Gippsland), and one workshop with universities (in Melbourne).----- The workshops aimed to build VACCHO’s social determinants research capacity and provide direction for VACCHO on ways to more effectively engage in Aboriginal health research. Through the workshops, VACCHO aimed to work with ACCHOs to identify research processes and issues that are equitable and sustainable, and which address the social determinants of health.----- At the workshops, participants explored questions around the priorities for the social determinants of Aboriginal health and considered the key partnerships that might be important to social determinants research.----- At the workshops with ACCHOs, participants identified key research priorities and questions in Aboriginal social determinants and health. This focus reflects the need for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community representatives to identify the priorities in health and social determinants research. Identifying these priorities is important if researchers are to respond in a meaningful way and undertake relevant research in the most urgent areas of need. At the university workshop, participants focused on identifying research process and implementation issues in social determinants research.----- The final forum brought together ACCHOs, university representatives, invited presenters and participants from justice, education and housing departments, and representatives from non-government funding organisations. The forum aimed to provide an insight into how priorities and funding decisions are made, and how research can help to ensure they are influenced by the priorities of the community. The findings from the workshops were presented at the forum and used to develop pathways for future research.

Creating change in government to address the social determinants of health: How can efforts be improved?

Background The evidence base for the impact of social determinants of health has been strengthened considerably in the last decade. Increasingly, the public health field is using this as a foundation for arguments and actions to change government policies. The Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach, alongside recommendations from the 2010 Marmot Review into health inequalities in the UK (which we refer to as the ‘Fairness Agenda’), go beyond advocating for the redesign of individual policies, to shaping the government structures and processes that facilitate the implementation of these policies. In doing so, public health is drawing on recent trends in public policy towards ‘joined up government’, where greater integration is sought between government departments, agencies and actors outside of government. Methods In this paper we provide a meta-synthesis of the empirical public policy research into joined up government, drawing out characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives. We use this thematic synthesis as a basis for comparing and contrasting emerging public health interventions concerned with joined-up action across government. Results We find that HiAP and the Fairness Agenda exhibit some of the characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives, however they also utilise ‘change instruments’ that have been found to be ineffective. Moreover, we find that – like many joined up initiatives – there is room for improvement in the alignment between the goals of the interventions and their design. Conclusion Drawing on public policy studies, we recommend a number of strategies to increase the efficacy of current interventions. More broadly, we argue that up-stream interventions need to be ‘fit-for-purpose’, and cannot be easily replicated from one context to the next.

Social determinants of health and diabetic foot disease

Background Diabetic foot disease (DFD) is the leading cause of hospitalisation and lower extremity amputation (LEA) in people with diabetes. Many studies have established the relationship between DFD and clinical risk factors, such as peripheral neuropathy and peripheral arterial disease. Other studies have identified the relationship between diabetes and non-clinical risk factors termed social determinants of health (SDoH), such as socioeconomic status. However, it appears very few studies have investigated the relationship between DFD and SDoH. This paper aims to review the existing literature investigating the relationship between DFD and the SDoH factors socioeconomic status (SES), race and geographical remoteness (remoteness). Process Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PubMed) were searched for studies reporting SES, race (including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander in Australia) and remoteness and their relationship to DFD and LEA. Exclusion criteria were studies conducted in developing countries and studies published prior to 2000. Findings Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed; 10 in Australia. Overall, 28 (58%) studies investigated LEA, 10 (21%) DFD, and 10 (21%) DFD and LEA as the DFD-related outcome. Thirty-six (75%) studies investigated the SDoH risk factor of race, 22 (46%) SES, and 20 (42%) remoteness. SES, race and remoteness were found to be individually associated with LEA and DFD in the majority of studies. Only four studies investigated interactions between SES, race and remoteness and DFD with contrasting findings. All four studies used only LEA as their investigated outcome. No Australian studies investigate the interaction of all three SDoH risk factors on DFD outcomes. Conclusions The SDoH risk factors of SES, race and GR appear to be individually associated with DFD. However, only few studies investigated the interaction of these three major SDoH risk factors and DFD outcomes with contrasting results. There is a clear gap in this area of DFD research and particularly in Australia. Until urgent future research is performed, current practice and policy does not adequately take into consideration the implication of SDoH on DFD.

Social and emotional determinants of health

- describe what is meant by socioeconomic differences in health, and the social and emotional determinants of health - understand how health inequalities are affected by the social and economic circumstances that people experience throughout their lives - discuss how factors such as living and working conditions, income, place and education can impact on health - identify actions for public health policy-makers that have the potential to make a difference in improving health outcomes within populations - appreciate the concept of social cohesion and social capital, and their role as potential protective factors in health - understand conceptual models that can assist in analysing these issues.

Meaning or measurement? Researching the social contexts of health and settlement among newly-arrived refugee youth in Melbourne, Australia

What are the most appropriate methodological approaches for researching the psychosocial determinants of health and wellbeing among young people from refugee backgrounds over the resettlement period? What kinds of research models can involve young people in meaningful reflections on their lives and futures while simultaneously yielding valid data to inform services and policy? This paper reports on the methods developed for a longitudinal study of health and wellbeing among young people from refugee backgrounds in Melbourne, Australia. The study involves 100 newly-arrived young people 12 to 18 years of age, and employs a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods implemented as a series of activities carried out by participants in personalized settlement journals. This paper highlights the need to think outside the box of traditional qualitative and/or quantitative approaches for social research into refugee youth health and illustrates how integrated approaches can produce information that is meaningful to policy makers, service providers and to the young people themselves.

Determinants of health costs due to farmers’ exposure to pesticides : an empirical analysis

It is now well known that pesticide spraying by farmers has an adverse impact on their health. This is especially so in developing countries where pesticide spraying is undertaken manually. The estimated health costs are large. Studies to date have examined farmers’ exposure to pesticides, the costs of ill-health and their determinants based on information provided by farmers. Hence, some doubt has been cast on the reliability of such studies. In this study, we rectify this situation by conducting surveys among two groups of farmers. Farmers who perceive that their ill-health is due to exposure to pesticides and obtained treatment and farmers whose ill-health have been diagnosed by doctors and who have been treated in hospital for exposure to pesticides. In the paper, cost comparisons between the two groups of farmers are made. Furthermore, regression analysis of the determinants of health costs show that the quantity of pesticides used per acre per month, frequency of pesticide use and number of pesticides used per hour per day are the most important determinants of medical costs for both samples. The results have important policy implications.

Determinants of health costs due to farmers’ exposure to pesticides: an empirical analysis

Pesticide spraying by farmers has an adverse impact on their health. However, in studies to date examining farmers’ exposure to pesticides, the costs of ill health and their determinants have been based on information provided by farmers themselves. Some doubt has therefore been cast on the reliability of these estimates. In this study, we address this by conducting surveys among two groups of farmers who use pesticides on a regular basis. The first group is made up of farmers who perceive that their ill health is due to exposure to pesticides and have obtained at least some form of treatment (described in this article as the ‘general farmer group’). The second group is composed of farmers whose ill health has been diagnosed by doctors and who have been treated in hospital for exposure to pesticides (described here as the ‘hospitalised farmer group’). Cost comparisons are made between the two groups of farmers. Regression analysis of the determinants of health costs show that the most important determinants of medical costs for both samples are the defensive expenditure, the quantity of pesticides used per acre per month, frequency of pesticide use and number of pesticides used per hour per day. The results have important policy implications.

Social processes of health and physical education teachers’ identity formation: Reproducing and changing culture

This paper examines Initial Teacher Education students’ experiences of participation in health and physical education (HPE) subject department offices and the impact on their understandings and identity formation. Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, field, and practice along with Wenger’s communities of practice form the theoretical frame used in the paper. Data were collected using surveys and interviews with student‐teachers following their teaching practicum and analysed using coding and constant comparison. Emergent themes revealed students’ participation in masculine‐dominated sports, gendered body constructions, and repertoires of masculine domination. Findings are discussed in relation to their impact on student‐teachers’ learning, identity formation, and marginalizing practices in the department offices. Implications for teacher education and HPE are explored.

Improved rural health through a collaborative model of care – qualitative findings

INTRODUCTION Health disparity between urban and rural regions in Australia is well-documented. In the Wheatbelt catchments of Western Australia there is higher incidence and rate of avoidable hospitalisation for chronic diseases. Structured care approach to chronic illnesses is not new but the focus has been on single disease state. A recent ARC Discovery Project on general practice nurse-led chronic disease management of diabetes, hypertension and stable ischaemic heart disease reported improved communication and better medical administration.[1] In our study we investigated the sustainability of such a multi-morbidities general practice –led collaborative model of care in rural Australia. METHODS A QUAN(qual) design was utilised. Eight pairs of rural general practices were matched. Inclusion criteria used were >18 years and capable of giving informed consent, at least one identified risk factor or diagnosed with chronic conditions. Patients were excluded if deemed medically unsuitable. A comprehensive care plan was formulated by the respective general practice nurse in consultation with the treating General Practitioner (GP) and patient based on the individual’s readiness to change, and was informed by available local resource. A case management approach was utilised. Shediaz-Rizkallah and Lee’s conceptual framework on sustainability informed our evaluation.[2] Our primary outcome on measures of sustainability was reduction in avoidable hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes were patients and practitioners acceptance and satisfaction, and changes to pre-determined interim clinical and process outcomes. RESULTS The qualitative interviews highlighted the community preference for a ‘sustainable’ local hospital in addition to general practice. Costs, ease of access, low prioritisation of self chronic care, workforce turnover and perception of losing another local resource if underutilised influenced the respondents’ decision to present at local hospital for avoidable chronic diseases regardless. CONCLUSIONS Despite the pragmatic nature of rural general practice in Australia, the sustainability of chronic multi-morbidities management in general practice require efficient integration of primary-secondary health care and consideration of other social determinants of health. What this study adds: What is already known on this subject: Structured approach to chronic disease management is not new and has been shown to be effective for reducing hospitalisation. However, the focus has been on single disease state. What does this study add: Sustainability of collaborative model of multi-morbidities care require better primary-secondary integration and consideration of social determinants of health.

Understanding causal relationships between the built and social environment, health and associated behaviours and risk factors

Introduction: Built environment interventions designed to reduce non-communicable diseases and health inequity, complement urban planning agendas focused on creating more ‘liveable’, compact, pedestrian-friendly, less automobile dependent and more socially inclusive cities.However, what constitutes a ‘liveable’ community is not well defined. Moreover, there appears to be a gap between the concept and delivery of ‘liveable’ communities. The recently funded NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence (CRE) in Healthy Liveable Communities established in early 2014, has defined ‘liveability’ from a social determinants of health perspective. Using purpose-designed multilevel longitudinal data sets, it addresses five themes that address key evidence-base gaps for building healthy and liveable communities. The CRE in Healthy Liveable Communities seeks to generate and exchange new knowledge about: 1) measurement of policy-relevant built environment features associated with leading non-communicable disease risk factors (physical activity, obesity) and health outcomes (cardiovascular disease, diabetes) and mental health; 2) causal relationships and thresholds for built environment interventions using data from longitudinal studies and natural experiments; 3) thresholds for built environment interventions; 4) economic benefits of built environment interventions designed to influence health and wellbeing outcomes; and 5) factors, tools, and interventions that facilitate the translation of research into policy and practice. This evidence is critical to inform future policy and practice in health, land use, and transport planning. Moreover, to ensure policy-relevance and facilitate research translation, the CRE in Healthy Liveable Communities builds upon ongoing, and has established new, multi-sector collaborations with national and state policy-makers and practitioners. The symposium will commence with a brief introduction to embed the research within an Australian health and urban planning context, as well as providing an overall outline of the CRE in Healthy Liveable Communities, its structure and team. Next, an overview of the five research themes will be presented. Following these presentations, the Discussant will consider the implications of the research and opportunities for translation and knowledge exchange. Theme 2 will establish whether and to what extent the neighbourhood environment (built and social) is causally related to physical and mental health and associated behaviours and risk factors. In particular, research conducted as part of this theme will use data from large-scale, longitudinal-multilevel studies (HABITAT, RESIDE, AusDiab) to examine relationships that meet causality criteria via statistical methods such as longitudinal mixed-effect and fixed-effect models, multilevel and structural equation models; analyse data on residential preferences to investigate confounding due to neighbourhood self-selection and to use measurement and analysis tools such as propensity score matching and ‘within-person’ change modelling to address confounding; analyse data about individual-level factors that might confound, mediate or modify relationships between the neighbourhood environment and health and well-being (e.g., psychosocial factors, knowledge, perceptions, attitudes, functional status), and; analyse data on both objective neighbourhood characteristics and residents’ perceptions of these objective features to more accurately assess the relative contribution of objective and perceptual factors to outcomes such as health and well-being, physical activity, active transport, obesity, and sedentary behaviour. At the completion of the Theme 2, we will have demonstrated and applied statistical methods appropriate for determining causality and generated evidence about causal relationships between the neighbourhood environment, health, and related outcomes. This will provide planners and policy makers with a more robust (valid and reliable) basis on which to design healthy communities.

Toward making inroads in reducing the disparity of lung health in Australian Indigenous and New Zealand Maori children

Globally, Indigenous populations, which include Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders in Australia and Māori people in New Zealand (NZ), have poorer health than their non-Indigenous counterparts. Indigenous peoples worldwide face substantial challenges in poverty, education, employment, housing and disconnection from ancestral lands. While addressing social determinants of health is a priority, solving clinical issues is equally important. Indeed, ignoring the latter until social issues improve risks further disparity as this may take generations. A systematic overview of interventions addressing social determinants of health found a striking lack of reliable evaluations.Where evidence was available, health improvement associated with interventions was modest or uncertain. 10 Thus advances in healthcare remain essential and these require the best evidence available in 11 preventing and managing common illnesses, including respiratory illnesses.

Toward making inroads in reducing the disparity of lung health in Australian Indigenous and New Zealand Maori children

Globally, Indigenous populations, which include Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders in Australia and Māori people in New Zealand (NZ), have poorer health than their non-Indigenous counterparts (1). Indigenous peoples worldwide face substantial challenges in poverty, education, employment, housing, and disconnection from ancestral lands (1). While addressing social determinants of health is a priority, solving clinical issues is equally important. Indeed, ignoring the latter until social issues improve risks further disparity as this may take generations. A systematic overview of interventions addressing social determinants of health found a striking lack of reliable evaluations (2). Where evidence was available, health improvement associated with interventions was modest or uncertain (2). Thus, advances in healthcare remain essential and these require the best evidence available in preventing and managing common illnesses, including respiratory illnesses