Suchergebnisse

Context: Fairfield Local Government Area in south west of Sydney is ranked as the most disadvantaged area in Sydney and the 3rd most disadvantaged area in NSW. The people of Fairfield may be experiencing relatively high levels of disadvantage but they are rich in Electronic Gaming Machines (Pokies) with some of the highest density of electronic gaming machines not only in the state but also internationally. Gambling losses were approximately $4,000 per resident in 2015/16.Analysis: Fairfield City Council are strong advocates against any increases to gaming machines and frequently refuse applications. However, the role of health in this process is less clear. The health system deals with the negative health impacts of gambling. But it has been reported that currently, donations from gaming venues under the NSW Governments Local Impact Assessment scheme are being accepted by hospitals and community organisations. Venues need to demonstrate the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority that the increase will result in an overall positive benefit to the community. Process: This presentation explores the role of public health in addressing gambling related harm with a focus on the regulatory system. We use Fairfield as a case study to identify the current role of public health in regulatory decision making and identify opportunity for health to increase their role in reducing the harms caused by these machines. Outcomes: The presentation will identify the potential role, tools and approaches for public health in addressing gambling related harm and will provide an overview of the regulatory process.

Context: Fairfield Local Government Area in south west of Sydney is ranked as the most disadvantaged area in Sydney and the 3rd most disadvantaged area in NSW. The people of Fairfield may be experiencing relatively high levels of disadvantage but they are rich in Electronic Gaming Machines (Pokies) with some of the highest density of electronic gaming machines not only in the state but also internationally. Gambling losses were approximately $4,000 per resident in 2015/16.Analysis: Fairfield City Council are strong advocates against any increases to gaming machines and frequently refuse applications. However, the role of health in this process is less clear. The health system deals with the negative health impacts of gambling. But it has been reported that currently, donations from gaming venues under the NSW Governments Local Impact Assessment scheme are being accepted by hospitals and community organisations. Venues need to demonstrate the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority that the increase will result in an overall positive benefit to the community. Process: This presentation explores the role of public health in addressing gambling related harm with a focus on the regulatory system. We use Fairfield as a case study to identify the current role of public health in regulatory decision making and identify opportunity for health to increase their role in reducing the harms caused by these machines. Outcomes: The presentation will identify the potential role, tools and approaches for public health in addressing gambling related harm and will provide an overview of the regulatory process.

Background This paper identifies and discusses the benefits of taking a 'community grounded' approach to HIA in the context of a place based urban renewal setting and reflect on whether this is a useful approach for people and organisations wishing to undertake HIA's in similar settings. The HIA was on the redevelopment of the suburban town centre and focussed on the creation of a new multipurpose centre, improvements to a manmade pond and the relocation of sporting fields found in the area. The HIA team aimed to explore what the planned redevelopment of the local town centre area would mean for the local community and its potential health impacts upon residents. Methods The HIA followed the standard HIA steps. The HIA team took a community grounded approach where particular focus was give to engaging community members in the HIA process. This included community members being involved in the HIA working group, reference group and providing evidence for the HIA. Results The HIA report contained a series of recommendations for the redevelopment of the Airds Bradbury estate. These recommendations were presented to the Community Reference Group and were adopted by various stakeholders. Conclusions The community grounded approach influenced both how the HIA was carried out, the decisions that were made within the HIA and ultimately the finidings and recomendations. The HIA of this latest stage of the Airds-Bradbury estate redevelopment was a useful project to encourage further collaboration, dialogue and planning between redevelopment agencies, Local Government, and residents of the Airds Bradbury social housing estate.

The aim of this study was to identify a best practice method to cost the health benefits of active transport for use in infrastructure planning in New South Wales, Australia. We systematically reviewed the international literature covering the concept areas of active transport and cost and health benefits. Original publications describing a method to cost the health benefits of active transport, published in 2000–2019 were included. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were assessed against criteria identified in interviews with key government stakeholders. A total of 2993 studies were identified, 53 were assessed for eligibility, and 19 were included in the review. The most commonly studied active transport modes were cycling (n = 8) and walking and cycling (n = 6). Exposures considered were physical activity, road transport related injuries and air pollution. The most often applied economic evaluation method was cost benefit analysis (n = 8), and costs were commonly calculated by monetising health outcomes. Based on evaluation of models against the criteria, a Multistate Life Table model was recommended as the best method currently available. There is strong and increasing interest in quantifying and costing the health benefits of active transport internationally. Incorporating health-related economic benefits into existing regulatory processes such as cost benefit analyses could provide an effective way to encourage the non-health sector to include health impacts in infrastructure measures.

Context: There is a growing need for capacity building in the workforce and community to ensure equitable health outcomes in complex environments dealing with 'wicked problems'. Learning by doing (LbD) is the process of acquiring knowledge and skills through active involvement with practical real-world experience. Participants apply theory to real life problems. The Centre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation (CHETRE) has conducted LbD programs since 2009 to build capacity in: working in locationally disadvantaged communities; conducting Health Impact Assessment, and Equity Focussed Health Impact Assessment; and has recently extended the program to working in indigenous health. Programs can be targeted to: workers or planners in all areas of health, local government, and housing; private sector developers and consultants; environmental and social impact assessors; and the community and volunteer sector. Process: This workshop will comprise instructional presentations, activities and interactive group work. Learning and insights will be provided by CHETRE staff and partner organisations who have been involved in CHETRE's programs. Previous knowledge and experience of participants will also be drawn on. Outcomes: Participants will learn: what LbD is, and the key features of a LBD program; the distinguishing features and outcomes of LbD and how they differ to 'traditional' training approaches; how LbD increases understanding of the relevance and role of health equity in their work; how LbD is, and can be, applied in different contexts and; the barriers and facilitators to 1) running effective LbD programs and 2) ensuring sustainable positive program impacts or outcomes.

ObjectivesMuch of what determines health and health needs exists outside the control of the health services within the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. Local government has a broader role beyond roads, rubbish and rates in influencing the social determinants of health and its impact on their local communities. In this workshop we will work with public health practitioners who currently, or would like to, work to build health and health equity in partnership with local government(s). We will provide them with an understanding of the issues challenges and opportunities and improve their readiness for working with local government.FormatThe workshop consists of three parts. Firstly, we will present an introduction to key guidelines and strategies for working with other sectors and their applications. We will then demonstrate real world applications of intersectoral action using case studies including: Integrating health into land use planning; place-based interventions working with locationally disadvantaged communities; and health impact assessments. Finally, we will facilitate an interactive session with participants in which they can share their challenges and successes when working with councils and other non-health sector partners to build on and test top tips for working with local governmentLearning goalsThe learning outcomes of this workshop are:1) Identify important council contextual factors including barriers, facilitators, and opportunities to work with local government for health2) Build awareness of available resources for engaging with local governments3) Understand techniques to build supportive environments for changeIn addition, the workshop will provide opportunities for participants will increase their professional network and top-tips for working with councils will be tested, developed and disseminated.

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and Health in All Policies (HiAP) are policy tools used to include health considerations in decision-making processes across sectors such as transportation, education, and criminal justice that can play a role in improving health and equity. This article summarizes proceedings from an international convening of HIA and HiAP experts held in July 2019 in Barcelona, Spain. The presentations and panel discussions included different models, best practices, and lessons learned, including from government, international banks, think tanks, and academia. Participants discussed ideas from around the world for cross-sector collaboration to advance health. The convening covered the following topics: community engagement, building greater understanding of and support for HiAP, and exploring how mandates for HIA and HiAP approaches may advance health and equity.

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