Suchergebnisse

This article explores the experiences of an external evaluation team in dealing with the use of evaluation to reveal and confront hidden conflict among the program and policy staff involved in a number of community-based early childhood health services. The evaluation was political from the outset, with a number of highly invested groups of stakeholders divided into competing camps in relation to models of practice, power and control issues that arose when attempting to integrate separate services within one region. In uncovering this conflict, the evaluation became the means by which dialogue between the different stakeholders was opened up and contentious issues examined. The processes used by the evaluation team in tackling this highly charged review are discussed in an effort to raise awareness of this potential use of evaluation and to enhance practice.

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. ; Background Despite calls for the application of complex systems science in empirical studies of health promotion, there are very few examples. The aim of this paper was to use a complex systems approach to examine the key factors that influenced health promotion (HP) policy and practice in a multisectoral health system in Australia. Methods Within a qualitative case study, a schema was developed that incorporated HP goals, actions and strategies with WHO building blocks (leadership and governance, financing, workforce, services and information). The case was a multisectoral health system bounded in terms of geographical and governance structures and a history of support for HP. A detailed analysis of 20 state government strategic documents and interviews with 53 stakeholders from multiple sectors were completed. Based upon key findings and dominants themes, causal pathways and feedback loops were established. Finally, a causal loop diagram was created to visualise the complex array of feedback loops in the multisectoral health system that influenced HP policy and practice. Results The complexity of the multisectoral health system was clearly illustrated by the numerous feedback mechanisms that influenced HP policy and practice. The majority of feedback mechanisms in the causal loop diagram were vicious cycles that inhibited HP policy and practice, which need to be disrupted or changed for HP to thrive. There were some virtuous cycles that facilitated HP, which could be amplified to strengthen HP policy and practice. Leadership and governance at federal–state–local government levels figured prominently and this building block was interdependently linked to all others. Conclusion Creating a causal loop diagram enabled visualisation of the emergent properties of the case health system. It also highlighted specific leverage points at which HP policy and practice can be improved. This paper demonstrates the critical importance of leveraging leadership and governance for HP and adds urgency to the need for increased and strong advocacy efforts targeting all levels of government in multisectoral health systems.

Abstract Background This paper describes the development of a model of Comprehensive Primary Health Care (CPHC) applicable to the Australian context. CPHC holds promise as an effective model of health system organization able to improve population health and increase health equity. However, there is little literature that describes and evaluates CPHC as a whole, with most evaluation focusing on specific programs. The lack of a consensus on what constitutes CPHC, and the complex and context-sensitive nature of CPHC are all barriers to evaluation. Methods The research was undertaken in partnership with six Australian primary health care services: four state government funded and managed services, one sexual health non-government organization, and one Aboriginal community controlled health service. A draft model was crafted combining program logic and theory-based approaches, drawing on relevant literature, 68 interviews with primary health care service staff, and researcher experience. The model was then refined through an iterative process involving two to three workshops at each of the six participating primary health care services, engaging health service staff, regional health executives and central health department staff. Results The resultant Southgate Model of CPHC in Australia model articulates the theory of change of how and why CPHC service components and activities, based on the theory, evidence and values which underpin a CPHC approach, are likely to lead to individual and population health outcomes and increased health equity. The model captures the importance of context, the mechanisms of CPHC, and the space for action services have to work within. The process of development engendered and supported collaborative relationships between researchers and stakeholders and the product provided a description of CPHC as a whole and a framework for evaluation. The model was endorsed at a research symposium involving investigators, service staff, and key stakeholders. Conclusions The development of a theory-based program logic model provided a framework for evaluation that allows the tracking of progress towards desired outcomes and exploration of the particular aspects of context and mechanisms that produce outcomes. This is important because there are no existing models which enable the evaluation of CPHC services in their entirety.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ ; Background Since the WHO's Alma Ata Declaration on Primary Health Care (PHC) there has been debate about the advisability of adopting comprehensive or selective PHC. Proponents of the latter argue that a more selective approach will enable interim gains while proponents of a comprehensive approach argue that it is needed to address the underlying causes of ill health and improve health outcomes sustainably. Methods This research is based on four case studies of government-funded and run PHC services in Adelaide, South Australia. Program logic models were constructed from interviews and workshops. The initial model represented relatively comprehensive service provision in 2010. Subsequent interviews in 2013 permitted the construction of a selective PHC program logic model following a series of restructuring service changes. Results Comparison of the PHC service program logic models before and after restructuring illustrates the changes to the operating context, underlying mechanisms, service qualities, activities, activity outcomes and anticipated community health outcomes. The PHC services moved from focusing on a range of community, group and individual clinical activities to a focus on the management of people with chronic disease. Under the more comprehensive model, activities were along a continuum of promotive, preventive, rehabilitative and curative. Under the selective model, the focus moved to rehabilitative and curative with very little other activities. Conclusion The study demonstrates the difference between selective and comprehensive approaches to PHC in a rich country setting and is useful in informing debates on PHC especially in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Objectives: Health in All Policies (HiAP) has been promoted as a means of embedding concern for health impacts in the policy-making process. In South Australia, specific structures and processes to achieve this have been developed and tested. Participants: The HiAP approach is designed to engage policy officers and managers in all sectors of government. Setting: South Australia, one of six Australian states, which operates under a system of cabinet government. There are 15 government departments. Intervention: The primary mechanism of the South Australian HiAP approach is the health lens analysis (HLA)–an intersectoral, partnership process drawing on public health research methods. It has been applied to three separate public policy issues: water security, digital technology and migration. Outcomes: Evaluation findings to date suggest that the HLAs have resulted in the following: increased understanding by policy-makers of the impact of their work on health outcomes; changes in policy direction; development and dissemination of policy-relevant research; greater understanding and stronger partnerships between health and other government departments; and a positive disposition toward employing health lens analyses in future work. Conclusion: There have long been calls for intersectoral action in order to achieve public policy supportive of positive health outcomes. Evaluation to date suggests that the HLA is a promising means of moving the agenda from policy rhetoric to policy action.

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 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: This paper describes the development of a model of Comprehensive Primary Health Care (CPHC) applicable to the Australian context. CPHC holds promise as an effective model of health system organization able to improve population health and increase health equity. However, there is little literature that describes and evaluates CPHC as a whole, with most evaluation focusing on specific programs. The lack of a consensus on what constitutes CPHC, and the complex and context-sensitive nature of CPHC are all barriers to evaluation. Methods: The research was undertaken in partnership with six Australian primary health care services: four state government funded and managed services, one sexual health non-government organization, and one Aboriginal community controlled health service. A draft model was crafted combining program logic and theory-based approaches, drawing on relevant literature, 68 interview s with primary health care se rvice staff, and researcher experience. The model was then refined through an iterative process involving two to three workshops at each of the six participating primary health care services, engaging health service staff, regional health executives and central health department staff. Results: The resultant Southgate Model of CPHC in Australia model articulates the theory of change of how and why CPHC service components and activities, based on t he theory, evidence and values which underpin a CPHC approach, are likely to lead to indivi dual and population health outcome s and increased health equity. The model captures the importance of context, the mechanisms of CPHC, and the space for action services have to work within. The process of development engendered and supported collaborati ve relationships between researchers and stakeholders and the product provide d a description of CPHC as a whole and a framework for evaluation. The model was endorsed at a research symposium involving inv estigators, service staff, and key stakeholders. Conclusions: The development of a theory-based program logi c model provided a framework for evaluation that allows the tracking of progress towards desired outcomes and exploration of the particular aspects of context and mechanisms that produce outcomes. This is important because there are no existing models which enable the evaluation of CPHC services in their entirety.

Mobilising cross-sectoral action is helpful in addressing the range of social determinants that contribute to health inequities. The South Australian Health in All Policies (SA HiAP) approach was implemented from 2007 to stimulate cross-sector policy activity to address the social determinants of health to improve population wellbeing and reduce health inequities. This paper presents selected findings from a five year multi-methods research study of the SA HiAP approach and draws on data collected during interviews, observation, case studies, and document analysis. The analysis shows that SA HiAP had dual goals of facilitating joined-up government for co-benefits (process focus); and addressing social determinants of health and inequities through cross-sectoral policy activity (outcomes focus). Government agencies readily understood HiAP as providing tools for improving the process of intersectoral policy development, while the more distal outcome-focused intent of improving equity was not well understood and gained less traction. While some early rhetorical support existed for progressing an equity agenda through SA HiAP, subsequent economic pressures resulted in the government narrowing its priorities to economic goals. The paper concludes that SA HiAP's initial intentions to address equity were only partially enacted and little was done to reduce inequities. Emerging opportunities in SA, and internationally, including the UN Sustainable Development Goals, may revive interest in addressing equity.

Abstract Background The Commission on the Social Determinants of Health and the World Health Organization have called for action to address the social determinants of health. This paper considers the extent to which primary health care services in Australia are able to respond to this call. We report on interview data from an empirical study of primary health care centres in Adelaide and Alice Springs, Australia. Methods Sixty-eight interviews were held with staff and managers at six case study primary health care services, regional health executives, and departmental funders to explore how their work responded to the social determinants of health and the dilemmas in doing so. The six case study sites included an Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation, a sexual health non-government organisation, and four services funded and managed by the South Australian government. Results While respondents varied in the extent to which they exhibited an understanding of social determinants most were reflexive about the constraints on their ability to take action. Services' responses to social determinants included delivering services in a way that takes account of the limitations individuals face from their life circumstances, and physical spaces in the primary health care services being designed to do more than simply deliver services to individuals. The services also undertake advocacy for policies that create healthier communities but note barriers to them doing this work. Our findings suggest that primary health care workers are required to transverse "dilemmatic space" in their work. Conclusions The absence of systematic supportive policy, frameworks and structure means that it is hard for PHC services to act on the Commission on the Social Determinants of Health's recommendations. Our study does, however, provide evidence of the potential for PHC services to be more responsive to social determinants given more support and by building alliances with communities and social movements. Further research on the value of community control of PHC services and the types of policy, resource and managerial environments that support action on social determinants is warranted by this study's findings.

AbstractTrust has been consistently identified as an important enabling factor for joined‐up government activity to generate strong, integrated and effective social policy. Despite this, there has been comparatively little detailed analysis of the complexities and dynamics involved. This paper provides a detailed examination of how trust is built, nurtured and, in some instances, lost during joined‐up policy activity. It draws on interview and survey data that reveal the dynamics of relationships formed under the South Australian Health in All Policies initiative. The research extends the parameters of organisational analyses of trust. Previous typologies are mostly descriptive, with limited explanatory power, typically focusing on individuals and institutions separately rather than integrating these foci to consider how trust operates within whole systems. By integrating Giddens' theoretical perspectives on trust with existing typologies, the paper generates understanding about how trust operates as a resource within non‐traditional joined‐up government working relationships, serving to bridge the gap between the known and unknown, and acting as a productive resource to stimulate action within government systems that are perceived to feature high levels of risk. A model is provided to explain the interrelated dynamics of trust building, maintenance, monitoring and repair.

Background This paper examines the extent to which actors from sectors other than health engaged with the South Australian Health in All Policies (HiAP) initiative, determines why they were prepared to do so and explains the mechanisms by which successful engagement happened. This examination applies theories of policy development and implementation. Methods The paper draws on a five year study of the implementation of HiAP comprising document analysis, a log of key events, detailed interviews with 64 policy actors and two surveys of public servants. Results The findings are analysed within an institutional policy analysis framework and examine the extent to which ideas, institutional factors and actor agency influenced the willingness of actors from other sectors to work with Health sector staff under the HiAP initiative. In terms of ideas, there was wide acceptance of the role of social determinants in shaping health and the importance of action to promote health in all government agencies. The institutional environment was initially supportive, but support waned over the course of the study when the economy in South Australia became less buoyant and a health minister less supportive of health promotion took office. The existence of a HiAP Unit was very helpful for gaining support from other sectors. A new Public Health Act offered some promise of institutionalising the HiAP approach and ideas. The analysis concludes that a key factor was the operation of a supportive network of public servants who promoted HiAP, including some who were senior and influential. Conclusions The South Australian case study demonstrates that despite institutional constraints and shifting political support within the health sector, HiAP gained traction in other sectors. The key factors that encouraged the commitment of others sectors to HiAP were the existence of a supportive, knowledgeable policy network, political support, institutionalisation of the ideas and approach, and balancing of the economic and social goals of government.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). ; Mobilising cross-sectoral action is helpful in addressing the range of social determinants that contribute to health inequities. The South Australian Health in All Policies (SA HiAP) approach was implemented from 2007 to stimulate cross-sector policy activity to address the social determinants of health to improve population wellbeing and reduce health inequities. This paper presents selected findings from a five year multi-methods research study of the SA HiAP approach and draws on data collected during interviews, observation, case studies, and document analysis. The analysis shows that SA HiAP had dual goals of facilitating joined-up government for co-benefits (process focus); and addressing social determinants of health and inequities through cross-sectoral policy activity (outcomes focus). Government agencies readily understood HiAP as providing tools for improving the process of intersectoral policy development, while the more distal outcome-focused intent of improving equity was not well understood and gained less traction. While some early rhetorical support existed for progressing an equity agenda through SA HiAP, subsequent economic pressures resulted in the government narrowing its priorities to economic goals. The paper concludes that SA HiAP's initial intentions to address equity were only partially enacted and little was done to reduce inequities. Emerging opportunities in SA, and internationally, including the UN Sustainable Development Goals, may revive interest in addressing equity.

Copyright © 2018 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. 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 cited. ; Background The importance of evaluating policy processes to achieve health equity is well recognised but such evaluation encounters methodological, theoretical and political challenges. This paper describes how a program theorybased evaluation framework can be developed and tested, using the example of an evaluation of the South Australian Health in All Policies (HiAP) initiative. Methods A framework of the theorised components and relationships of the HiAP initiative was produced to guide evaluation. The framework was the product of a collaborative, iterative process underpinned by a policy-research partnership and drew on social and political science theory and relevant policy literature. Results The process engaged key stakeholders to capture both HiAP specific and broader bureaucratic knowledge and was informed by a number of social and political science theories. The framework provides a basis for exploring the interactions between framework components and how they shape policy-making and public policy. It also enables an assessment of HiAP's success in integrating health and equity considerations in policies, thereby laying a foundation for predicting the impacts of resulting policies. Conclusion The use of a program theory-based evaluation framework developed through a consultative process and informed by social and political science theory has accommodated the complexity of public policy-making. The framework allows for examination of HiAP processes and impacts, and for the tracking of contribution towards distal outcomes through the explicit articulation of the underpinning program theory.

© The Author(s) 2019. 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 This paper reports on a five-year study using a theory-based program logic evaluation, and supporting survey and interview data to examine the extent to which the activites of the South Australian Health in All Policies initiative can be linked to population health outcomes. Methods Mixed-methods data were collected between 2012 and 2016 in South Australia (144 semi-structured key informant interviews; two electronic surveys of public servants in 2013 (n = 435) and 2015 (n = 483); analysis of state government policy documents; and construction of a program logic model to shape assessment of the feasibility of attribution to population health outcomes). Results Multiple actions on social determinants of health in a range of state government sectors were reported and most could be linked through a program logic model to making some contribution to future population health outcomes. Context strongly influences implementation; not all initiatives will be successful and experimentation is vital. Successful initiatives included HiAP influencing the urban planning department to be more concerned with the health impacts of planning decisions, and encouraging the environment department to be concerned with the health impacts of its work. Conclusions The theory-based program logic suggests that SA HiAP facilitated improved population health through working with multiple government departments. Public servants came to appreciate how their sectors impact on health. Program logic is a mechanism to evaluate complex public health interventions in a way that takes account of political and economic contexts. SA HiAP was mainly successful in avoiding lifestyle drift in strategy. The initiative encouraged a range of state government departments to tackle conditions of daily living. The broader underpinning factors dictating the distribution of power, money and resources were not addressed by HiAP. This reflects HiAP's use of a consensus model which was driven by (rather than drove) state priorities and sought 'win-win' strategies.

Abstract 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.