People, places and public health : evaluating the benefits of civic environmentalism in an urban local government context

Recent political, economic and social trends pose threats to the sustainability both of ecosystems and of human health. Australia’s environmental management record is poor, and while by international standards Australians enjoy good health, this is variable (AIHW, 2000). Within developed nations, heart disease, depression, alcohol dependence and stroke are major health issues (Mathers et al. 2002). In Australia, mental disorder is the number one contributor to the disease burden (Vos & Mathers 2000). Recent research has highlighted the role of social capital as a key determinant of health (Kawachi et al., 1997). Despite this, Putnam (1995) observes that social connectedness and civic engagement are in decline. People have less time for leisure and for volunteering, as many juggle paid work and caring for children. Anecdotal evidence suggests that engagement in civic environmentalism has human health benefits, relating to a combination of exposure to natural environments and increased social capital (Maller, Brown, Townsend & St. Leger, 2002). This link is supported by Furnass (1996) who defines well-being as including: satisfactory human relationships, meaningful occupation, opportunities for contact with nature, creative expression, and making a positive contribution to human society. Research conducted by Deakin University confirms the efficacy of linking people and places through civic environmentalism for addressing both ecosystem sustainability and human health and wellbeing. The research has included a pilot study to explore the human health benefits of membership of a local parkland ‘Friends’ group, and a more detailed follow-up study. The aims of the pilot study included:- To identify the range of motivations for joining the Friends group;- To document members’ perceptions of the benefits gained from membership of the group;- To assess the potential for Friends groups to be used as an ‘upstream’ health promotion measure.Face-to-face interviews were conducted with eleven members of a ‘Friends’ group in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Data was analysed thematically and key findings included:- Motivations: environmental; social; and pragmatic.- General benefits: community belonging; personal satisfaction; learning opportunities; physical activity; and better environment.- Health benefits: physical health; mental health; and social support. There was unanimous support for the use of ‘Friends’ groups as a tool for health promotion.The follow-up study, in the western suburbs of Melbourne, expanded on the pilot study by measuring the group’s social capital and by collecting self-report data on levels of health service usage. Data was collected through face-to-face interviews and a questionnaire. The findings were similar to the pilot study in relation to the motivations, benefits and the health promotion potential of such groups. However, health service usage data highlighted an apparent anomaly: while respondents perceived significant health benefits, some were nevertheless utilising health services at a relatively high level. This poses some questions requiring further exploration: Is this due to the poorer baseline health of the high health service usage members compared with their fellow members? Does involvement in the group offer health benefits that enable people who would otherwise be too unhealthy to participate in community groups to continue such involvement?If this is the case, then we may do well to look to locally-based mechanisms for promoting ecological sustainability as a tool also for promoting human health. Instead of prescribing a pill, connecting people and places through engagement with a local friends group may address our health problems at the same time as addressing local environmental problems.

Are the potential benefits of a community-based participatory approach to public health research worth the potential cost?

Much of public health research is conducted in a community setting or is designed to target particular population groups. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is gaining recognition as good practice in studies of this type(Flicker et al 2007). Its merit is based on the inclusion of the community as active participants at all stages of the research process (Goodman 2006). The focus on justice and equity in this approach is seen to contribute to a range of additional potential research benefits including increased relevance and sustainability of interventions arising from the research ( Blumenthal 2004; Wallestein 2006) However, it is widely acknowledged that adoption of a consciously CBPR approach requires additional expertise. time and resources from researchers and from communities (Tanjasiri et al 2002; Massaro & Claiborne 2001; Israel et al 1998). Adoption of CBPR is also limited by existing infrastructures which are supportive of more· traditional models of research. Changes to professional development programs, funding guidelines and criteria. grant review processes and ethics requirements are needed to support increased application of this approach (Israel et al 2001). As all research resources are limited, the potential additional benefits offered by CBPR over and above a more traditional research approach need to be weighed against the potential additional costs involved. Changes to research infrastructure are unlikely to occur until the costs and
benefits of a consciously CBPR approach as compared to a more traditional research approach can be demonstrated.

This is an exploratory paper that summarises the arguments put forward to date in relation to CBPR. A research case study and an evaluation framework are then used for a conceptual analysis of differences in the potential costs and benefits of the two approaches. Firstly, the paper describes the differences between traditional and consciously CBPR approaches. The reported benefits of CBPR are then outlined, followed by a discussion of the potential costs. Finally, the potential costs are compared to the potential benefits of using a CBPR approach, using a case study of existing research.

Moving towards increased cultural competency in public health research

There has been a renewed focus in recent decades on collaborative approaches in community-based public health research and interventions. This is an important grounding for addressing the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities. But how well do we as researchers prepare for the complexities of working with CALD communities? And what sort of support do we need to meet the challenges of the task? Cultural competence refers to the extent to which researchers, practitioners and organisations have the necessary skills, knowledge, attitudes and policies to work effectively in cross-cultural situations. The shift towards cultural competence in public health is evidenced by the development of policies and guidelines by government bodies and leading research institutions in countries such as Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. This chapter will draw on these guidelines, on models of cultural competency used in welfare and health service delivery, and on collaborative research approaches. A framework for moving towards cultural competence in public health research and health promotion interventions will be discussed, drawing case study examples from the co-authors' community-based experiences. This will highlight the complexities but also the importance of adopting culturally competent strategies in public health research and health promotion interventions. The need for supporting government and funding structures will also be proposed .

Folate fortification : a case study of public health policy-making

Introducing Evidence Based Health Policy: Problems and Possibilities, Section 1: What is the Problem?, 1: Competing Rationalities: Evidence based Health Policy, 2: Beyond Two Communities, Section 2: What does Evidence Mean?, 3: Evidence based Medicine - The Medical Profession and Health Policy, 4: Mind The Gap: Assessing the Quality of Evidence for Public Health Problems, 5: Health Policy and Normative Analysis: Ethics, Evidence and Politics, 6: What is New in Health Information? Evidence for Health Consumers and Policy Making, 7: From Evidence based Medicine to Evidence based Public Health, Section 3: Policy Case Studies, 8: The Viagra Affair: Evidence as the Terrain for Competing Partners, 9: Folate Fortification: A Case Study of Public Health Policy-Making in a Food Regulation Setting, 10: The Supply and Safety of Blood and Blood Products - Evidence, Risk and Policy, 11: The Development of Nurse Practitioner Policy, 12: Creating Healthy Public Policy for Oral Health: How was the Evidence Used?, 13: Regulation of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Victoria, 14: The Victorian Primary Health Care Reforms: A Case Study of Evidence-based Policy Making, 15: Evidence-based Practice in the Australian Drug Policy Community, 16: Challenging the Evidence - Women's Health Policy in Australia, 17: Evidence and Aboriginal Health Policy, 18: The Limits to Technical Rationality in the Health Inequalities Policy Process, 19: Evidence-based policy: A Technocratic Wish in a Political World, Section 4: Is the transfer of evidence into policy possible?, 20: The Community Model of Research Transfer, 21: Getting Research Transfer into Policy and Practice in Maternity Care, 22: Improving the Research and Policy Partnership: An Agenda for Research Transfer and Governance, 23: Framing and Taming 'Wicked' Problems

Public health planning for the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games in metropolitan area health services

In addition to an increase in visitors to Sydney and movement to and from Olympic venues, many activities and attractions are planned throughout the Sydney metropolitan area for the period of the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Public health planning and strategy development has been conducted at the NSW Department of Health, area health service, public health unit, and local government levels to ensure that all possible steps have been taken to mitigate public health risk.

Workshop synopses : Pathways for public health education

The Commonwealth introduced the Public Health Education and Research Program (PHERP) initiative to support capacity building within the public health workforce, primarily through investment in Master of Public Health programs. Following the 2005 review of PHERP, a national 'Quality Agenda' was proposed to establish minimum standards in public health competencies of graduates; and Master of Public Health (MPH) graduates in particular. This 'agenda' has triggered renewed discussion on public health workforce needs, public health graduate competencies, and the capacity of the tertiary education sector to deliver these.

The Australian Network of Academic Public Health Institutions (ANAPHI) has worked with the Department of Health and Ageing on the 'Quality Agenda'. In 2008, ANAPHI convened a working group to further open up discussion among academic institutions on the public health education context to the Quality Agenda. The group held a lunchtime workshop at the 2008 Population Health Congress in Brisbane, as one of a themed pair of sessions entitled 'Public Health Professionals - Shaping our Future'. A further aim of the workshop was to identify key themes to shape the next ANAPHI Teaching and Learning Forum (September 23rd to 24th 2008, Canberra, www.anaphi.org.au).