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.

Morals, rights and practice in the human services : effective and fair decision-making in health, social care and criminal justice

Provides a synthesis of human rights theory and human services practice and offers a rights based model to aid professional decision making and practice.

Improving access to evidence-based acute stroke services: development and evaluation of a health systems model to address equity of access issues

Level 1 evidence for management of patients with stroke in a dedicated Stroke Care Unit (SCU) demonstrates improved outcomes by about 20%. It has been estimated that 21% of Australian hospitals provide an SCU and that these SCUs are mainly located in either metropolitan sites and/or in hospitals with more than 300 beds. To address equity issues related to access to SCUs, the National Stroke Foundation and the Australian Government undertook the National Stroke Units Program. One program outcome was the development of a conceptual model of acute stroke service delivery. The development process and initial evaluation of the model are described. Use of the model to increase capacity within the health care system to treat stroke is discussed.

Equity-focused health impact assessment framework

Background to the Development of the Equity-Focused HIA Framework
The equity focused health impact assessment (EFHIA) framework arises out of a two year research project funded for the most part by the Australian Government’s Public Health Education Research Program (PHERP) Innovations Grants (Round 2) scheme. This project had as its primary objective the development of a framework for health inequalities impact assessment, subsequently renamed equity focused health impact assessment. A partnership between the University of Newcastle, Deakin University and the University of New South Wales (the Project Management Steering Committee) received the funding and the Australasian Collaboration for Health Equity Impact Assessment (ACHEIA) was formed to undertake appropriate background research and to develop, pilot test, modify and disseminate the framework. The work commenced in September 2002 and concluded in October 2004. Part of the funding included a capacity building workshop in August 2004. ACT Health and the Division of Medicine at the John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, also provided financial support for the project. The August 2004 Workshop was supported by NSW Health. All participants and organisations involved in the project gave extensive in-kind support.
The aims of the workshop were to bring together an international collaboration of multidisciplinary investigators, public health experts, and key senior health managers working in national, state and local settings, to inform the further development of the framework and to provide training in its application. The initial goals of the project were to work collaboratively to develop a strategic framework to assess the health inequalities of public health-related policies, plans, strategies, decisions, programs and services. The EFHIA framework as presented at the August workshop was developed through:
1. an extensive review of the relevant literature
2. formal and informal consultation with members of ACHEIA (the international
reference group), members of the Project Management Steering Committee and
other relevant experts; and
3. testing of the draft EFHIA framework with the 5 case study partners – who applied the draft framework in a range of health settings (see
Acknowledgements).
The result of this work has been the development of an equity focused health impact assessment framework that can be used to determine the unanticipated and systemic health inequities that may exist within the decision making processes or activities of a range of organisations and sectors. The EFHIA framework provides one approach that can be used to assist decision makers to put equity and health on their agenda in a more obvious and systematic way. The framework represents a ‘moment in time’ rather than a definitive statement or ‘toolkit’ on the best way to proceed. Further practice, refinement and adjustment will be needed over many years to consolidate both HIA and EFHIA. As well as this guide to the framework, additional outputs from the project team include:
- A literature review
- A position paper
- A report on the five case studies
- An evaluation report.
With the consent of the Australian Government, a monograph will be made available to workshop participants at the end of October which contains the framework and the appropriate background papers.

Why primary health care offers a more comprehensive approach to tackling health inequities than primary care.

As governments attempt to focus more intently on how to deal with alarming measures of health disadvantage and inequities, a reformist gaze seems to have settled on the primary care sector. Simultaneously, in literature about this area, whether intended or not, primary health care and primary care are terms that are increasingly interchanged. This article argues that the slippage in language is counter-productive, first because it disguises the transformative potential of strategies and approaches that can make the fundamental changes necessary to improve health status, and second because the structures and practices of the primary care sector are not necessarily compatible with notions of comprehensive primary health care. There is much to be lost if primary health care and health promotion are disguised as primary care, and not understood for their capacity to make a difference to health inequities although of course in some circumstances, comprehensive primary health care is interdependent with services provided by primary care. In this article, characteristics of primary care and primary health care are juxtaposed to show that if the strengths and limitations of each model are understood, they can be mobilised in collaborative partnerships to deal more effectively with health inequities, than our system has so far been able to do.

Gender and health promotion: A multisectoral policy approach

Women and men are different as regards their biology, the roles and responsibilities that society assigns to them and their position in the family and community. These factors have a great influence on causes, consequences and management of diseases and ill-health and on the efficacy of health promotion policies and programmes. This is confirmed by evidence on male–female differences in cause-specific mortality and morbidity and exposure to risk factors. Health promoting interventions aimed at ensuring safe and supportive environments, healthy living conditions and lifestyles, community involvement and participation, access to essential facilities and to social and health services need to address these differences between women and men, boys and girls in an equitable manner in order to be effective. The aim of this paper is to (i) demonstrate that health promotion policies that take women's and men's differential biological and social vulnerability to health risks and the unequal power relationships between the sexes into account are more likely to be successful and effective compared to policies that are not concerned with such differences, and (ii) discuss what is required to build a multisectoral policy response to gender inequities in health through health promotion and disease prevention. The requirements discussed in the paper include i) the establishment of joint commitment for policy within society through setting objectives related to gender equality and equity in health as well as health promotion, ii) an assessment and analysis of gender inequalities affecting health and determinants of health, iii) the actions needed to tackle the main determinants of those inequalities and iv) documentation and dissemination of effective and gender sensitive policy interventions to promote health. In the discussion of these key policy elements, we use illustrative examples of good practices from different countries around the world.

Health literacy revisited : what do we mean and why does it matter?

‘Health literacy’ refers to accessing, understanding and using information to make health decisions. However, despite its introduction into the World Health Organization's Health Promotion Glossary, the term remains a confusing concept. We consider various definitions and measurements of health literacy in the international and Australian literature, and discuss the distinction between the broader concept of ‘health literacy’ (applicable to everyday life) and ‘medical literacy’ (related to individuals as patients within health care settings). We highlight the importance of health literacy in relation to the health promotion and preventive health agenda. Because health literacy involves knowledge, motivation and activation, it is a complex thing to measure and to influence. The development of health literacy policies will be facilitated by better evidence on the extent, patterns and impact of low health literacy, and what might be involved in improving it. However, the current lack of consensus of definitions and measurement of health literacy will first need to be overcome.

Predictors of the attitudinal and health outcomes of aged care nurses

This study examines the predictive capacity of the Demand-Control-Support (DCS) model in combination with organizational justice variables on attitudinal- and health-related outcomes for aged care nurses. Multiple regression analyses of aged care nurses (n=168) from a medium to large Australian healthcare organization. The DCS model explains the largest amount of variance across both the attitudinal and health outcomes with 27% of job satisfaction and 44% of organizational commitment, and 33% of psychological distress and 35% of wellbeing, respectively. Additional variance was explained by the justice variables for job satisfaction, organizational commitment and psychological distress. The addition of the organizational justice variables to the DCS model proved to be a valuable step in understanding the work conditions of aged care nurses. The inclusion of curvilinear effects clarified the potentially artefactual nature of certain interaction variables. The results provide practical implications for managers of aged care nurses in developing and maintaining levels of job control, support and fairness, as well as monitoring levels of job demands. The results particularly highlight the importance of the nurses’ supervisor.

Healthy public in all policies

The introduction of the notion of ‘Healthy Public Policy’ in the Ottawa Charter is considered a relevant response to the emerging social-political context of the 1970s and 1980s. It also remains an important, yet volatile, argument for the consideration of policy impact on health. In our analysis, however, those that continued to argue for Healthy Public Policies and those who should develop them have remained naı¨ve about the profound political dimensions of this exercise. Applying insights from the political sciences, we argue that greater levels of connectedness and commitment across civil society, and governance integration between sectors and levels of politicking and action are required for the further success of health integrated policies. The role of communities and the key communicative drivers of the Ottawa Charter (enable, mediate and advocate) need to be strengthened in more astute strategies.

Preparing health professionals to work in diabetes education and care: a situation analysis

Worldwide, the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases places enormous expectations of and responsibility on health systems. Preparing the health workforce to adequately respond to these increasing demands is a challenge of critical importance. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of how health professionals (HPs) are prepared to work in diabetes care and education. A one shot cross-sectional study was undertaken to collect the data using self-completed anonymous on-line questionnaires. The invitation to complete the questionnaire was sent to more than 3745 HPs. One thousand one hundred and sixteen responses were collected, 68% were from highincome countries and 32% from middle- and low-income countries (LMIC). Most HPs developed their knowledge and skills through work experience and self-study: very few attended a formal education program as part of their training. Thirty-six percent of LMIC respondents did not have a credential/certification in diabetes and 72% reported their organizations support them to learn about diabetes education/care. Moreover, 80% referred to the International Diabetes Federation publications when making clinical decisions or planning diabetes care. Results provide insight into how HPs are educationally prepared to work in diabetes education and care and could serve as a foundation for future research. These findings emphasize the emerging necessity to develop certified/credentialing programs for HPs, especially in LMIC.