The importance of 'place' and its influence on rural and remote health and well-being in Australia.

AIMS: This article explores the crucial role of 'place' as an ecological, social and cultural determinant of health and well-being, with a focus on the benefits and challenges of living rurally and remotely in Australia. CONTEXT: The health system, including health promotion, can contribute actively to creating supportive environments and places that foster health and well-being among individuals residing in rural and remote locations. For First Nations peoples, living on Country, and caring for Country and its people, are core to Indigenous worldviews, and the promotion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and well-being. Their forced removal from ancestral lands has been catastrophic. For all people, living in rural and remote areas can deliver an abundance of the elements that contribute to a 'liveable' community, including access to fresh air, green and blue space, agricultural employment, tight-knit communities, a sense of belonging and identity, and social capital. However, living remotely also can limit access to employment opportunities, clean water, affordable food, reliable transport, social infrastructure, social networks and preventive health services. 'Place' is a critical enabler of maintaining a healthy life. However, current trends have led to a reduction in local services and resources, and increased exposure to the impacts of climate change. APPROACH: This commentary suggests ideas and strategies through which people in rural and remote locations can strengthen the liveability, resilience and identity of their communities, and regain access to essential health care and health promotion services and resources. CONCLUSION: Recommended strategies include online access to education, employment and telehealth; flexible provision of social infrastructure; and meaningful and responsive university-health service partnerships.

What is the meaning of urban liveability for a city in a low-to-middle-income country? Contextualising liveability for Bangkok, Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Creating 'liveable' cities has become a priority for various sectors, including those tasked with improving population health and reducing inequities. Two-thirds of the world's population will live in cities by 2050, with the most rapid urbanisation in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). However, there is limited guidance about what constitutes a liveable city from a LMIC perspective, with most of the evidence relating to high-income countries, such as Australia. Existing liveability frameworks include features such as public transport, affordable housing, and public open space; however, these frameworks may not capture all of the liveability considerations for cities in LMIC contexts. OBJECTIVES: This case study formed a multi-sectoral partnership between academics, policymakers (Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Victorian (Australia) Department of Health and Human Services), and a non-government organisation (UN Global Compact - Cities Programme). This study aimed to: 1) conceptualise and prioritise components of urban liveability within the Bangkok, Thailand context; 2) identify alignment to or divergence from other existing liveability tools; and 3) identify potential indicators and data sources for use within a Pilot Bangkok Liveability Framework. METHODS: The Urban Liveability Workshop involving technical leaders from the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and a rapid review of liveability literature informed the conceptualisation of liveability for Bangkok. The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Working Group and key informants in Bangkok provided input into the liveability framework. Indicators identified for Bangkok were mapped onto existing liveability tools, including the UN Global Compact CityScan. RESULTS: Findings revealed commonalities with the Australian liveability definition, as well as new potential indicators for Bangkok. The resulting Pilot Bangkok Liveability Framework provides a structure for measuring liveability in Bangkok that can be implemented by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration immediately, pending appropriate data acquisition and licensing. The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Working Group and key informants identified core issues for implementation, including limited spatial data available at the district-level or lower. CONCLUSIONS: This study conceptualised urban liveability for Bangkok, a city in a LMIC context, with potential for adjustment to other cities. Future work should leverage opportunities for using open source data, building local capacity in spatial data expertise, and knowledge sharing between cities.

Evaluation of population health short courses: implications for developing and evaluating population health professional development initiatives.

Population health as an approach to planning is key to improving the health and well-being of whole populations and to reduce inequities within and between population groups. The Victorian Department of Health North and West Metropolitan Region, in collaboration with The University of Melbourne (School of Population Health), have delivered four annual population health short courses. The short courses were designed to equip participants with knowledge and skills to implement population health approaches upon their return to their workplaces. For three consecutive years, online surveys (n=41) and semi-structured interviews (n=35), underpinned by participatory and realist evaluation approaches, were conducted to obtain the perceptions and experiences of the population health short course participants. Evaluation findings indicate that participants' understanding of population health concepts increased; however, there were mixed outcomes in assisting participants' implementation of population health approaches upon their return to their workplaces. A core list of perceived requirements, enablers and barriers emerged at an individual, organisational and system level as influencing the capability of participants to implement population health approaches. Evaluation recommendations and actions taken to revise short course iterations are presented, providing evidence that the evaluation approaches were appropriate and increased the use of evaluation learnings. Implications of evaluation findings for professional development practice (i.e. shift from a 'Course' as a one-off event to a Population Health 'Program' of inter-dependent components) and evaluation (i.e. participatory realist evaluation approaches) are presented.

Developing a research and practice tool to measure walkability: a demonstration project.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Growing evidence shows that higher-density, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods encourage active transport, including transport-related walking. Despite widespread recognition of the benefits of creating more walkable neighbourhoods, there remains a gap between the rhetoric of the need for walkability and the creation of walkable neighbourhoods. Moreover, there is little objective data to benchmark the walkability of neighbourhoods within and between Australian cities in order to monitor planning and design intervention progress and to assess built environment and urban policy interventions required to achieve increased walkability. This paper describes a demonstration project that aimed to develop, trial and validate a 'Walkability Index Tool' that could be used by policy makers and practitioners to assess the walkability of local areas; or by researchers to access geospatial data assessing walkability. The overall aim of the project was to develop an automated geospatial tool capable of creating walkability indices for neighbourhoods at user-specified scales. METHODS: The tool is based on open-source software architecture, within the Australian Urban Research Infrastructure Network (AURIN) framework, and incorporates key sub-component spatial measures of walkability (street connectivity, density and land use mix). RESULTS: Using state-based data, we demonstrated it was possible to create an automated walkability index. However, due to the lack of availability of consistent of national data measuring land use mix, at this stage it has not been possible to create a national walkability measure. The next stage of the project is to increase useability of the tool within the AURIN portal and to explore options for alternative spatial data sources that will enable the development of a valid national walkability index. CONCLUSION: AURIN's open-source Walkability Index Tool is a first step in demonstrating the potential benefit of a tool that could measure walkability across Australia. It also demonstrates the value of making accurate spatial data available for research purposes. SO WHAT?: There remains a gap between urban policy and practice, in terms of creating walkable neighbourhoods. When fully implemented, AURIN's walkability tool could be used to benchmark Australian cities against which planning and urban design decisions could be assessed to monitor progress towards achieving policy goals. Making cleaned data readily available for research purposes through a common portal could also save time and financial resources.

Building Capacity in Monitoring Urban Liveability in Bangkok: Critical Success Factors and Reflections from a Multi-Sectoral, International Partnership.

Cities are widely recognised as important settings for promoting health. Nonetheless, making cities more liveable and supportive of health and wellbeing remains a challenge. Decision-makers' capacity to use urban health evidence to create more liveable cities is fundamental to achieving these goals. This paper describes an international partnership designed to build capacity in using liveability indicators aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and social determinants of health, in Bangkok, Thailand. The aim of this paper is to reflect on this partnership and outline factors critical to its success. Partners included the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, the UN Global Compact-Cities Programme, the Victorian Government Department of Health and Human Services, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, and urban scholars based at an Australian university. Numerous critical success factors were identified, including having a bilingual liaison and champion, establishment of two active working groups in the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, and incorporating a six-month hand-over period. Other successful outcomes included contextualising liveability for diverse contexts, providing opportunities for reciprocal learning and knowledge exchange, and informing a major Bangkok strategic urban planning initiative. Future partnerships should consider the strategies identified here to maximise the success and longevity of capacity-building partnerships.

Evidence-Informed Planning for Healthy Liveable Cities: How Can Policy Frameworks Be Used to Strengthen Research Translation?

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: A compelling body of research demonstrates associations between urban design and health, but this research is often not reflected in urban policies. This article reviews the literature on the science and practice of translating health research into urban policy and planning. Two Australian case studies demonstrate how policy frameworks can help guide evidence-based planning for healthy urban environments. RECENT FINDINGS: To influence city planning, health researchers need to undertake policy-relevant research and understand policymaking processes. Policy frameworks can assist researchers to tailor research evidence and research translation strategies to the political and policymaking context. Strong links between urban policymakers and health researchers can help bridge the knowledge-policy divide. Policy frameworks can help researchers to identify and capitalise on windows of opportunity for evidence-based policy change. Doing so increases the likelihood of public health evidence informing urban policies that will create healthy liveable cities.

Transforming Health Professionals into Population Health Change Agents.

BACKGROUND: With the recognition that professional education has not kept pace with the challenges facing the health and human service system, there has been a move to transformative education and learning professional development designed to expand the number of enlightened and empowered change agents with the competence to implement changes at an individual, organisation and systems level. DESIGN AND METHODS: Since 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services in Victoria, Australia, in collaboration with The University of Melbourne's School of Population and Global Health, has delivered seven population health short courses aimed to catalyse participants' transformation into population health change agents. This paper presents key learnings from a combination of evaluation data from six population health short courses using a transformative learning framework from a 2010 independent international commission for health professionals that was designed to support the goals of transformative and interdependent health professionals. Participatory realist evaluation approaches and qualitative methods were used. RESULTS: Evaluation findings reveal that there were mixed outcomes in facilitating participants' implementation of population health approaches, and their transformation into population health agents upon their return to their workplaces. Core enablers, barriers and requirements, at individual, organisational and system levels influence the capability of participants to implement population health approaches. The iterative and systemic evolution of the population health short courses, from a one off event to a program of inter-dependent modules, demonstrates sustained commitment by the short course developers and organisers to the promotion of transformative population health learning outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To leverage this commitment, recognising that professional development is not an event but part of an ongoing transformative process, suggestions to further align recognition of population health professional development programs are presented. Significance for public healthWith decreasing health and wellbeing of whole populations, increasing inequities among specific population groups, health professional educators are increasingly turning their attention to population health. This has implications for implementing evidence into practice. Professional development short courses are being conducted to equip participants (health service managers, health promotion managers and coordinators, health planners, population health planners and senior executives) with knowledge, skills and tools to implement population health approaches and transform them into population health change agents. The findings of this study indicate there were mixed outcomes in facilitating participants' implementation of population health approaches and their transformation into population health agents upon their return to their workplaces. The study findings informed the evolution of the short courses, from a one off event to a program of interdependent modules, and further reveal that professional development is not an event but part of an on-going transformative process,suggestions to further align recognition of population health professional development programs are presented.

Urban liveability: emerging lessons from Australia for exploring the potential for indicators to measure the social determinants of health.

It has long been recognised that urban form impacts on health outcomes and their determinants. There is growing interest in creating indicators of liveability to measure progress towards achieving a wide range of policy outcomes, including enhanced health and wellbeing, and reduced inequalities. This review aimed to: 1) bring together the concepts of urban 'liveability' and social determinants of health; 2) synthesise the various liveability indicators developed to date; and 3) assess their quality using a health and wellbeing lens. Between 2011 and 2013, the research team reviewed 114 international academic and policy documents, as well as reports related to urban liveability. Overall, 233 indicators were found. Of these, 61 indicators were regarded as promising, 57 indicators needed further development, and 115 indicators were not useful for our purposes. Eleven domains of liveability were identified that likely contribute to health and wellbeing through the social determinants of health. These were: crime and safety; education; employment and income; health and social services; housing; leisure and culture; local food and other goods; natural environment; public open space; transport; and social cohesion and local democracy. Many of the indicators came from Australian sources; however most remain relevant from a 'global north' perspective. Although many indicators were identified, there was inconsistency in how these domains were measured. Few have been validated to assess their association with health and wellbeing outcomes, and little information was provided for how they should be applied to guide urban policy and practice. There is a substantial opportunity to further develop these measures to create a series of robust and evidence-based liveability indices, which could be linked with existing health and wellbeing data to better inform urban planning policies within Australia and beyond.