Search results

We analysed Australian government strategic policy documents related to the "Closing the Gap" (CTG) strategy in early childhood circa 2008-2018 to explore the extent to which Indigenous rights are named and recognised in written policy. Our analysis of the policies was informed by Bacchi's What's the Problem approach and showed inconsistency in the recognition of Indigenous rights. These rights are sometimes undermined and ignored, sometimes implied and sometimes named and recognised. Silences within the CTG strategy are discussed and reveal the ongoing nature of colonisation and deficit framing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities. Findings from this research are relevant for the current era of the "Closing the Gap" strategy.

Despite evidence showing the importance of social determinants of Indigenous health and Indigenous rights for health and equity, they are not always recognised within policy. This scoping review identified research on public policy and Indigenous health through a systematic search. Key themes identified included the impact of ongoing colonisation; the central role of government in realising rights; and the difficulties associated with the provision of mainstream services for Indigenous Peoples, including tokenism towards Indigenous issues and the legacy of past policies of assimilation. Our approach to problem representation was guided by Bacchi (2009). Findings from the review show social determinants of Indigenous health and Indigenous rights may be acknowledged in policy rhetoric, but they are not always a priority for action within policy implementation.

Despite evidence showing the importance of social determinants of Indigenous health and Indigenous rights for health and equity, they are not always recognised within policy. This scoping review identified research on public policy and Indigenous health through a systematic search. Key themes identified included the impact of ongoing colonisation; the central role of government in realising rights; and the difficulties associated with the provision of mainstream services for Indigenous Peoples, including tokenism towards Indigenous issues and the legacy of past policies of assimilation. Our approach to problem representation was guided by Bacchi (2009). Findings from the review show social determinants of Indigenous health and Indigenous rights may be acknowledged in policy rhetoric, but they are not always a priority for action within policy implementation.

AbstractIndigenous peoples in Australia and similar colonised countries are subject to racism and systemic socioeconomic disadvantages, resulting in worse health outcomes compared to non‐Indigenous counterparts. Such inequities persist despite governments' attempts to reduce them. Since 2008, Australian governments have committed to a national 'Closing the Gap' (CTG) to reduce inequities in health, education, and employment outcomes between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other Australians, but with limited success. We applied policy theory and a cultural safety framework developed for the research to analyse stakeholder perceptions of CTG policy implementation between 2008 and 2019. We identified policy‐shaping ideas and policy incoherence in the environment surrounding CTG policy that obstructed culturally safe policy. Top‐down, prescriptive modes of implementation were also a barrier. However, Indigenous‐led policy partnerships and community‐controlled services in the health sector have met principles of cultural safety. Identifying these strengths and weaknesses points to ways in which implementation of CTG policies can be improved to achieve cultural safety and reduce Indigenous health inequities. These results may hold lessons for similar countries such as the United States, New Zealand, and Canada.

The 2007 Australian Northern Territory Emergency Response policy was harmful to the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We thematically analysed 72 speech acts and reports from the three prominent perspectives: a Northern Territory government inquiry report, the Federal government, and an Aboriginal civil society coalition to examine how framings during the policy agenda setting phase constrained or supported scope for equitable health outcomes. The report authors and the coalition emphasised colonisation and other social determinants of Indigenous health. The Federal government used a discourse of pathology and white sovereignty. Our findings highlighted the need for Indigenous voice in policy making, and the need to address colonial assumptions underpinning policy framings to achieve Indigenous health equity.

AbstractThe establishment of Primary Health Networks (PHNs) was accompanied by assignment of responsibility for funding for primary mental healthcare. To ensure this funding is spent in line with government priorities, the Federal government developed a planning document with established priorities and guidance documents for how the planning document should be completed. This paper examines how these documents shape service delivery through enabling some activities and excluding others and identifies the assumptions that underpin these documents. Data were drawn from discourse and content analysis of completed planning documents from the PHNs and of the guidance documents and from reflection upon mental health planning from 55 interviews with key personnel from six PHNs. Service delivery is shaped by outcome measures that promote service access, cost‐effectiveness and clinical effectiveness, contributing to service options that favour self‐management for mild mental illness and clinical (but not social) services for people with severe mental illness. There is also limited scope for mental health promotion with prevention activities focused upon populations identified by the government as being at‐risk. This occurs to the detriment of other at‐risk populations.

OBJECTIVE: While there is urgent need for policymaking that prioritises health equity, successful strategies for advancing such an agenda across multiple policy sectors are not well known. This study aims to address this gap by identifying successful strategies to advance a health equity agenda across multiple policy domains. DESIGN: We conducted in-depth qualitative case studies in three important social determinants of health equity in Australia: employment and social policy (Paid Parental Leave); macroeconomics and trade policy (the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement); and welfare reform (the Northern Territory Emergency Response). The analysis triangulated multiple data sources included 71 semistructured interviews, document analysis and drew on political science theories related to interests, ideas and institutions. RESULTS: Within and across case studies we observed three key strategies used by policy actors to advance a health equity agenda, with differing levels of success. The first was the use of multiple policy frames to appeal to a wide range of actors beyond health. The second was the formation of broad coalitions beyond the health sector, in particular networking with non-traditional policy allies. The third was the use of strategic forum shopping by policy actors to move the debate into more popular policy forums that were not health focused. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides nuanced strategies for agenda-setting for health equity and points to the need for multiple persuasive issue frames, coalitions with unusual bedfellows, and shopping around for supportive institutions outside the traditional health domain. Use of these nuanced strategies could generate greater ideational, actor and institutional support for prioritising health equity and thus could lead to improved health outcomes.

As the oldest continuous living civilizations in the world, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have strength, tenacity, and resilience. Initial colonization of the landscape included violent dispossession and removal of people from Country to expand European land tenure and production systems, loss of knowledge holders through frontier violence, and formal government policies of segregation and assimilation designed to destroy ontological relationships with Country and kin. The ongoing manifestations of colonialism continue to affect food systems and food knowledges of Aboriginal peoples, and have led to severe health inequities and disproportionate rates of nutrition-related health conditions. There is an urgent need to collaborate with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to address nutrition and its underlying determinants in a way that integrates Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' understandings of food and food systems, health, healing, and well-being. We use the existing literature to discuss current ways that Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are portrayed in the literature in relation to nutrition, identify knowledge gaps that require further research, and propose a new way forward. Curr Dev Nutr 2020;4:nzaa080.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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. ; Abstract Background Worldwide, there are competing norms driving health system changes and reorganisation. One such norm is that of health systems' responsibilities for population health as distinct from a focus on clinical services. In this paper we report on a case study of population health planning in Australian primary health care (PHC) organisations (Medicare Locals, 2011–2015). Drawing on institutional theory, we describe how institutional forces, ideas and actors shaped such planning. Methods We reviewed the planning documents of the 61 Medicare Locals and rated population health activities in each Medicare Local. We also conducted an online survey and 50 interviews with Medicare Local senior staff, and an interview and focus group with Federal Department of Health staff. Results Despite policy emphasis on population health, Medicare Locals reported higher levels of effort and capacity in providing clinical services. Health promotion and social determinants of health activities were undertaken on an ad hoc basis. Regulatory conditions imposed by the federal government including funding priorities and time schedules, were the predominant forces constraining population health planning. In some Medicare Locals, this was in conflict with the normative values and what Medicare Locals felt ought to be done. The alignment between the governmental and the cultural-cognitive forces of a narrow biomedical approach privileged clinical practice and ascribed less legitimacy to action on social determinants of health. Our study also shed light on the range of PHC actors and how their agency influenced Medicare Locals' performance in population health. The presence of senior staff or community boards with a strong commitment to population health were important in directing action towards population health and equity. Conclusions There are numerous institutional, normative and cultural factors influencing population health planning. The experience of Australian Medicare Locals highlights the difficulties of planning in such a way that the impact of the social determinants on health and health equity are taken into account. The policy environment favours a focus on clinical services to the detriment of health promotion informed by a social determinants focus.

Background:Insufficient progress has been made towards reducing health inequities, due in part to a lack of action on the root causes of health inequities. At present, there is a limited evidence base to guide policy decision making in this space.
Key points for discussion:This paper proposes new principles for researchers to conduct health equity policy evaluation. Four key principles are presented: (1) where to evaluate – shifting from familiar to unfamiliar terrain; (2) who to evaluate – shifting from structures of vulnerability to structures of privilege; (3) what to evaluate – shifting from simple figures to complex constructs; and (4) how to evaluate – shifting from 'gold standard' to more appropriate 'fit-for-purpose' designs. These four principles translate to modifying the policy domains investigated, the populations targeted, the indicators selected, and the methods employed during health equity policy evaluation. The development and implementation of these principles over a five-year programme of work is demonstrated through case studies which reflect the principles in practice.
Conclusions and implications:The principles are shared to encourage other researchers to develop evaluation designs of sufficient complexity that they can advance the contribution of health equity policy evaluation to structural policy reforms. As a result, policies and actions on the social determinants of health might be better oriented to achieve the redistribution of power and resources needed to address the root causes of health inequities.