Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

The community sector performs an important function in providing emergency food relief, yet food insecurity is often a chronic issue due to poverty and social exclusion. Progressive food provision models present opportunities to improve voluntary food relief services that are dominant in many countries. Informed by research with clients indicating a preference for blended service models that go beyond food provision, two government agencies partnered with a social enterprise and academics to pilot a social supermarket model. This research article (a) briefly summarizes international evidence on social supermarkets' characteristics and offerings, (b) describes a process used to collaboratively develop a social supermarket incorporating universal access and social supports, and (c) presents a rubric defining elements of a social supermarket. Applicable to other community sector settings, the rubric emphasizes dignified access and service, plus opportunities for social support and connection, which are important elements in pathways out of food insecurity.

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 policy

Chronic food insecurity persists in high-income countries, leading to an entrenched need for food relief. In Australia, food relief services primarily focus on providing food to meet immediate need. To date, there has been few examples of a vision in the sector towards client outcomes and pathways out of food insecurity. In 2016, the South Australian Government commissioned research and community sector engagement to identify potential policy actions to address food insecurity. This article describes the process of developing a co-designed South Australian Food Relief Charter, through policy–research–practice collaboration, and reflects on the role of the Charter as both a policy tool and a declaration of a shared vision. Methods used to develop the Charter, and resulting guiding principles, are discussed. This article reflects on the intentions of the Charter and suggests how its guiding principles may be used to guide collective actions for system improvement. Whilst a Charter alone may be insufficient to create an integrated food relief system that goes beyond the provision of food, it is a useful first step in enabling a culture where the sector can have a unified voice to advocate for the prevention of food insecurity.