Advancing Action on Health Equity Through a Sociolegal Model of Health.

Policy Points Health actors can use the law more strategically in the pursuit of health and equity by addressing governance challenges (e.g., fragmented and overlapping mandates between health and nonhealth institutions), employing a broader rights-based discourse in the public health policy process, and collaborating with the access to justice movement. Health justice partnerships provide a road map for implementing a sociolegal model of health to reduce health inequities by strengthening legal capacities for health among the health workforce and patients. This in turn will enable them to resolve health issues with legal solutions, to dismantle service silos, and to drive systemic policy and law reform. CONTEXT: In the field of public health, the law and legal systems remain a poorly understood and substantially underutilized tool to address unfair or unjust societal conditions underpinning health inequities. The aim of our article is to demonstrate the value of expanding from a social model of health to a sociolegal model of health and empowering health actors to use the law more strategically in the pursuit of health equity. METHODS: We propose a modified version of the framework for the social determinants of health (SDoH) equity developed by the 2008 World Health Organization Commission on the Social Determinants of Health by conceptually integrating the functions of the law as identified by the 2019 Lancet-O'Neill Institute Commission on Global Health and Law. FINDINGS: Access to justice provides a critical intersection between social models of public health and work in the justice fields. Addressing the inequities produced through the policies and institutions governing society unites the causes of those seeking to enhance access to justice and those seeking to reduce health inequities. Health justice partnerships (HJPs) are an example of a sociolegal model of health in action. Through the resolution of health issues with legal solutions at the individual level, the dismantling of service silos at the institutional level, and policy and law reform at the systemic level, HJPs demonstrate how the law can be used as a tool to reduce social and health inequities. CONCLUSIONS: Greater attention to law as a tool for health creates space for increased collaboration among legal and health scholars, practitioners, and advocates, particularly those working in the areas of the social determinants of health and access to justice, and a promising avenue for reducing health inequities.

Legal Needs Arising in Mental Health Settings and Staff Capability and Support to Respond.

Introduction: Legal issues are known to affect and be affected by mental health. But to what extent do legal issues surface in mental health settings and what do staff feel they need to support clients experiencing these issues? These questions were explored by a national mental health service interested in the potential for health justice partnership with local community based legal services. Methods: A survey of 999 frontline staff of a national mental health organisation. 146 staff (15%) responded from 70 service sites across Australia, including peer support workers (47%), support workers (20%), team leaders (17%) and clinicians (15%). Results: Staff identified a wide range of legal issues experienced by their clients (commonly referred to by staff as consumers), most commonly credit, debt and social security issues, housing, family law and family violence. Two-thirds (67%) of respondents indicated that they spent around 50% or more of their time 'responding to these types of issues'. Respondents indicated that they need more support to address legal issues facing their clients, particularly more knowledge of other services, connections with professionals in other organisations and connections with community. They also felt they could benefit from additional processes, tools, and resources, and time to manage their case load. Originality: While there is an emerging field of research exploring the legal capability of citizens, this study explores what mental health service staff feel they need to support consumers experiencing legal issues that can interact with mental health.

Identifying and responding to family adversity in Australian community and primary health settings: a multi-site cross sectional study.

Background: Unaddressed family adversity has potentially modifiable, negative biopsychosocial impacts across the life course. Little is known about how Australian health and social practitioners identify and respond to family adversity in community and primary health settings. Objective: To describe, in two Australian community health services: (1) the number of adversities experienced by caregivers, (2) practitioner identification of caregivers experiencing adversity, (3) practitioner response to caregivers experiencing adversity, and (4) caregiver uptake of referrals. Methods: Survey of caregivers of children aged 0-8 years attending community health services in Victoria and New South Wales (NSW). Analysis described frequencies of caregiver self-reported: (1) experiences of adversity, (2) practitioner identification of adversity, (3) practitioner response to adversity, and (4) referral uptake. Analyses were sub-grouped by three adversity domains and site. Results: 349 caregivers (Victoria: n = 234; NSW: n = 115) completed the survey of whom 88% reported experiencing one or more family adversities. The median number of adversities was 4 (2-6). Only 43% of participants were directly asked about or discussed an adversity with a practitioner in the previous 6 months (Victoria: 30%; NSW: 68%). Among caregivers experiencing adversity, 30% received direct support (Victoria: 23%; NSW: 43%), and 14% received a referral (Victoria: 10%; NSW: 22%) for at least one adversity. Overall, 74% of caregivers accepted referrals when extended. Conclusion: The needs of Australian families experiencing high rates of adversity are not systematically identified nor responded to in community health services. This leaves significant scope for reform and enhancement of service responses to families experiencing adversity.

Integrated Child and Family Hub models for detecting and responding to family adversity: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation in two sites.

INTRODUCTION: Integrated community healthcare Hubs may offer a 'one stop shop' for service users with complex health and social needs, and more efficiently use service resources. Various policy imperatives exist to implement Hub models of care, however, there is a dearth of research specifically evaluating Hubs targeted at families experiencing adversity. To contribute to building this evidence, we propose to co-design, test and evaluate integrated Hub models of care in two Australian community health services in low socioeconomic areas that serve families experiencing adversity: Wyndham Vale in Victoria and Marrickville in New South Wales. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multisite convergent mixed-methods study will run over three phases to (1) develop the initial Hub programme theory through formative research; (2) test and, then, (3) refine the Hub theory using empirical data. Phase 1 involves co-design of each Hub with caregivers, community members and practitioners. Phase 2 uses caregiver and Hub practitioner surveys at baseline, and 6 and 12 months after Hub implementation, and in-depth interviews at 12 months. Two stakeholder groups will be recruited: caregivers (n=100-200 per site) and Hub practitioners (n=20-30 per site). The intervention is a co-located Hub providing health, social, legal and community services with no comparator. The primary outcomes are caregiver-reported: (i) identification of, (ii) interventions received and/or (iii) referrals received for adversity from Hub practitioners. The study also assesses child, caregiver, practitioner and system outcomes including mental health, parenting, quality of life, care experience and service linkages. Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed by examining change in proportions/means from baseline to 6 months, from 6 to 12 months and from baseline to 12 months. Service linkages will be analysed using social network analysis. Costs of Hub implementation and a health economics analysis of unmet need will be conducted. Thematic analysis will be employed to analyse qualitative data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Royal Children's Hospital and Sydney Local Health District ethics committees have approved the study (HREC/62866/RCHM-2020). Participants and stakeholders will receive results through meetings, presentations and publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN55495932.