Suchergebnisse

A crucial objective of the Australian Government's Closing the Gap program is to improve Aboriginal health, and to achieve morbidity and mortality rates similar to those for non-Indigenous Australians. Reducing public health risks due to drinking water of unknown quality will help to close the gap. Factors such as hardness, taste, colour and odour of water may influence perceptions of risk and quality. Increased contact and familiarity with a hazard is associated with individuals becoming desensitised and habituated to its presence, so that their risk judgements may reflect their behavioural experiences. Consumption of water of unknown quality, such as rainwater, instead of treated town water in Australian Aboriginal communities may be a community norm, a part of a community's culture or a result of lack of trust in government water suppliers. Partnerships between service providers and communities can ensure that the service is responsive to community needs, is conducted in a culturally appropriate manner and is beneficial to the community. Governance of drinking water in Aboriginal communities cannot be comprehensive without active engagement of the communities involved, and greater understanding of cultural issues, perceptions and behaviours towards drinking water quality. This Perspective article reviews the literature to shed light on the need to consider New South Wales (NSW) Aboriginal perceptions about drinking water and its acceptability. We urge more dialogue and research, and a policy focus that includes partnerships with discrete NSW Aboriginal communities to develop a deeper understanding of perceptions of drinking water and encourage consumption of safe water. © 2016 Jaravani et al.

Judd, JA orcid:0000-0001-8441-5008 ; Ten years have passed since the release of the final report of the World Health Organization (WHO) Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH),1 a landmark document that provided a global blue-print for the health promotion community and the stakeholders we work with. Three overarching recommendations were outlined, improving daily living conditions; tackling the in equitable distribution of power, money and resources; and measuring and understanding the problem and assessing the impact of action.1 The extent to which progress has been, and continues to be, made is contested. This editorial briefly reflects on what has been achieved over the past decade —in broad terms—about action on the social determinants of health (SDH) in Australia. We deliberately take a balanced view by highlighting the weaknesses and strengths in what has been achieved by governments, non-government organisations,research institutions, peak bodies and civil society. We also reflection the ongoing role that the Australian Health Promotion Association (AHPA) has played in advancing our understanding about, and action on, the SDH.

Judd, JA orcid:0000-0001-8441-5008; Mccalman, JR orcid:0000-0002-3022-3980 ; Background: Health promotion by and with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter Indigenous) Australians is critically important given a wide gap in health parity compared to other Australians. The development and implementation of step-by-step guides, instruments, packages, frameworks or resources has provided a feasible and low-resource strategy for strengthening evidence-informed health promotion practice. Yet there has been little assessment of where and how these tools are implemented or their effectiveness. This paper reviews the characteristics, implementation and effects of Indigenous health promotion tools. Methods. Indigenous health promotion tools were identified through a systematic literature search including a prior scoping study, eight databases, references of other reviews and the authors' knowledge (n = 1494). Documents in the peer reviewed and grey literature were included if they described or evaluated tools designed, recommended or used for strengthening Indigenous Australian health promotion. Eligible publications were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and documented tools classified according to their characteristics, implementation and effects. Quality was appraised using the Dictionary for Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) and Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tools for quantitative and qualitative studies respectively. Results: The review found that Indigenous health promotion tools were widely available. Of 74 publications that met inclusion criteria, sixty (81%) documented tools developed specifically for the Indigenous Australian population. All tools had been developed in reference to evidence; but only 22/74 (30%) publications specified intended or actual implementation, and only 11/74 (15%) publications evaluated impacts of the implemented tools. Impacts included health, environmental, community, organisational and health care improvements. The quality of impact evaluations was strong for only five (7%) studies. Conclusions: The small number and generally moderate quality of implementation and evaluation studies means that little is known about how tools work to strengthen Indigenous health promotion practice. The findings suggest that rather than continuing to invest in tool development, practitioners, policy makers and researchers could evaluate the implementation and effects of existing tools and publish the results. There is a need for long-term investment in research to review the current use of health promotion tools and the factors that are likely to enhance their implementation. © 2014 McCalman et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. ; Associated Grant:Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health (CRCATSIH). The Cooperative Research Centres program is an Australian Government Initiative