Relationship of social factors including trust, control over life decisions, problems with transport and safety, to psychological distress in the community

PURPOSE: Psychological distress encompasses anxiety and depression with the previous studies showing that psychological distress is unequally distributed across population groups. This paper explores the mechanisms and processes which may affect the distribution of psychological distress, including a range of individual and community level socioeconomic determinants. METHODS: Representative cross-sectional data was collected for respondents aged 16+ from July 2008 to June 2009, as a part of the South Australian Monitoring and Surveillance System (SAMSS) using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI). Univariate and multivariate analyses (n = 5,763) were conducted to investigate the variables that were associated with psychological distress. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of psychological distress was 8.9%. In the multivariate model, females, those aged 16–49, respondents single with children, unable to work or unemployed, with a poorer family financial situation, earning $20,000 or less, feeling safe in their home some or none of the time, feeling as though they have less then total control over life decisions and sometimes experiencing problems with transport, were significantly more likely to experience psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: This paper has demonstrated the relationship between low-income, financial pressure, less than optimal safety and control, and high-psychological distress. It is important that the groups highlighted as vulnerable be targeted in policy, planning, and health promotion and prevention campaigns

Health Impact Assessment in New South Wales & Health in All Policies in South Australia: differences, similarities and connections

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background: Policy decisions made within all sectors have the potential to influence population health and equity. Recognition of this provides impetus for the health sector to engage with other sectors to facilitate the development of policies that recognise, and aim to improve, population outcomes. This paper compares the approaches implemented to facilitate such engagement in two Australian jurisdictions. These are Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in New South Wales (NSW) and Health in All Policies (HiAP) in South Australia (SA). Methods: The comparisons presented in this paper emerged through collaborative activities between stakeholders in both jurisdictions, including critical reflection on HIA and HiAP practice, joint participation in a workshop, and the preparation of a discussion paper written to inform a conference plenary session. The plenary provided an opportunity for the incorporation of additional insights from policy practitioners and academics. Results: Comparison of the approaches indicates that their overall intent is similar. Differences exist, however, in the underpinning principles, technical processes and tactical strategies applied. These differences appear to stem mainly from the organisational positioning of the work in each state and the extent to which each approach is linked to government systems. Conclusions: The alignment of the HiAP approach with the systems of the SA Government increases the likelihood of influence within the policy cycle. However, the political priorities and sensitivities of the SA Government limit the scope of HiAP work. The implementation of the HIA approach from outside government in NSW means greater freedom to collaborate with a range of partners and to assess policy issues in any area, regardless of government priorities. However, the comparative distance of HIA from NSW Government systems may reduce the potential for impact on government policy. The diversity in the technical and tactical strategies that are applied within each approach provides insight into how the approaches have been tailored to suit the particular contexts in which they have been implemented. Keywords: Health in all policies, Health impact assessment, Healthy public polic

From causes to solutions - insights from lay knowledge about health inequalities

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This paper reports on a qualitative study of lay knowledge about health inequalities and solutions to address them. Social determinants of health are responsible for a large proportion of health inequalities (unequal levels of health status) and inequities (unfair access to health services and resources) within and between countries. Despite an expanding evidence base supporting action on social determinants, understanding of the impact of these determinants is not widespread and political will appears to be lacking. A small but growing body of research has explored how ordinary people theorise health inequalities and the implications for taking action. The findings are variable, however, in terms of an emphasis on structure versus individual agency and the relationship between being 'at risk' and acceptance of social/structural explanations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This paper draws on findings from a qualitative study conducted in Adelaide, South Australia, to examine these questions. The study was an integral part of mixed-methods research on the links between urban location, social capital and health. It comprised 80 in-depth interviews with residents in four locations with contrasting socio-economic status. The respondents were asked about the cause of inequalities and actions that could be taken by governments to address them.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Although generally willing to discuss health inequalities, many study participants tended to explain the latter in terms of individual behaviours and attitudes rather than social/structural conditions. Moreover, those who identified social/structural causes tended to emphasise individualized factors when describing typical pathways to health outcomes. This pattern appeared largely independent of participants' own experience of advantage or disadvantage, and was reinforced in discussion of strategies to address health inequalities.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Despite the explicit emphasis on social/structural issues expressed in the study focus and framing of the research questions, participants did not display a high level of knowledge about the nature and causes of place-based health inequalities. By extending the scope of lay theorizing to include a focus on solutions, this study offers additional insights for public health. Specifically it suggests that a popular constituency for action on the social determinants of health is unlikely to eventuate from the current popular understandings of possible policy levers.</p

Non-response to a life course socioeconomic position indicator in surveillance: comparison of telephone and face-to-face modes

© 2008 Chittleborough et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background Measurement of socioeconomic position (SEP) over the life course in population health surveillance systems is important for examining differences in health and illness between different population groups and for monitoring the impact of policies and interventions aimed at reducing health inequities and intergenerational disadvantage over time. While face-to-face surveys are considered the gold standard of interviewing techniques, computer-assisted telephone interviewing is often preferred for cost and convenience. This study compared recall of parents' highest level of education in telephone and face-to-face surveys. Methods Questions about father's and mother's highest education level were included in two representative population health surveys of South Australians aged 18 years and over in Spring 2004. A random sample selected from the electronic white pages (EWP) responded to a computer-assisted telephone interview (n = 2999), and a multistage clustered area sample responded to a face-to-face interview (n = 2893). A subsample of respondents in the face-to-face sample who owned a telephone that was listed in the EWP (n = 2206) was also compared to the telephone interview sample. Results The proportion of respondents who provided information about their father's and mother's highest education level was significantly higher in the face-to-face interview (86.3% and 87.8%, respectively) than in the telephone interview (80.4% and 79.9%, respectively). Recall was also significantly higher in the subsample of respondents in the face-to-face interview who had a telephone that was listed in the EWP. Those with missing data for parents' education were more likely to be socioeconomically disadvantaged regardless of the survey mode. Conclusion While face-to-face interviewing obtained higher item response rates for questions about parents' education, survey mode did not appear to influence the factors associated with having missing data on father's or mother's highest education level

Is peer review useful in assessing research proposals in Indigenous health? A case study

Background: There has been considerable examination and critique of traditional (academic) peer review processes in quality assessment of grant applications. At the same time, the use of traditional research processes in Indigenous research has been questioned. Many grant funding organisations have changed the composition of their peer review panels to reflect these concerns but the question remains do these reforms go far enough? In this project we asked people working in areas associated with Aboriginal health research in a number of capacities, their views on the use of peer review in assessing Indigenous research proposals. Methods: In semi-structured interviews we asked 18 individuals associated with an Australian Indigenous research funding organisation to reflect on their experience with peer review in quality assessment of grant applications. We also invited input from a steering group drawn from a variety of organisations involved in Aboriginal research throughout Australia and directly consulted with three Aboriginal-controlled health organisations. Results: There was consensus amongst all participants that traditional academic peer review is inappropriate for quality assessment in Indigenous research. Many expressed the view that using a competitive grant review system in Aboriginal health was counterintuitive, since good research transfer is based on effective collaboration. The consensus within the group favoured a system which built research in a collaborative manner incorporating a variety of different stakeholders in the process. In this system, one-off peer review was still seen as valuable in the form of a "critical friend" who provided advice as to how to improve the research proposal. Conclusion: Peer review in the traditional mould should be recognised as inappropriate in Aboriginal research. Building research projects relevant to policy and practice in Indigenous health may require a shift to a new way of selecting, funding and conducting research.Jackie Street, Fran Baum and Ian P.S. Anderso

What makes health impact assessments successful? Factors contributing to effectiveness in Australia and New Zealand

Background: While many guidelines explain how to conduct Health Impact Assessments (HIAs), less is known about the factors that determine the extent to which HIAs affect health considerations in the decision making process. We investigated which factors are associated with increased or reduced effectiveness of HIAs in changing decisions and in the implementation of policies, programs or projects. This study builds on and tests the Harris and Harris-Roxas' conceptual framework for evaluating HIA effectiveness, which emphasises context, process and output as key domains. Methods: We reviewed 55 HIA reports in Australia and New Zealand from 2005 to 2009 and conducted surveys and interviews for 48 of these HIAs. Eleven detailed case studies were undertaken using document review and stakeholder interviews. Case study participants were selected through purposeful and snowball sampling. The data were analysed by thematic content analysis. Findings were synthesised and mapped against the conceptual framework. A stakeholder forum was utilised to test face validity and practical adequacy of the findings. Results: We found that some features of HIA are essential, such as the stepwise but flexible process, and evidence based approach. Non-essential features that can enhance the impact of HIAs include capacity and experience; 'right person right level'; involvement of decision-makers and communities; and relationships and partnerships. There are contextual factors outside of HIA such as fit with planning and decision making context, broader global context and unanticipated events, and shared values and goals that may influence a HIA. Crosscutting factors include proactive positioning, and time and timeliness. These all operate within complex open systems, involving multiple decision-makers, levels of decision-making, and points of influence. The Harris and Harris-Roxas framework was generally supported. Conclusion: We have confirmed previously identified factors influencing effectiveness of HIA and identified new factors such as proactive positioning. Our findings challenge some presumptions about 'right' timing for HIA and the rationality and linearity of decision-making processes. The influence of right timing on decision making needs to be seen within the context of other factors such as proactive positioning. This research can help HIA practitioners and researchers understand and identify what can be enhanced within the HIA process. Practitioners can adapt the flexible HIA process to accommodate the external contextual factors identified in this report

Public health

Public health is crucial for the promotion and protection of health. Links between preventive action and improved health status (eg, in the case of smoking-related cancers, the decline in sudden infant death syndrome and rates of cardiovascular disease) present strong arguments for increased investment in public health infrastructure. The Public Health Education and Research Program has ensured a well-trained public health workforce to support national, state and local initiatives.<br /