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.

Action on the social determinants for advancing health equity in the time of COVID-19: perspectives of actors engaged in a WHO Special Initiative.

Since the 2008 publication of the reports of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health and its nine knowledge networks, substantial research has been undertaken to document and describe health inequities. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the need for a deeper understanding of, and broader action on, the social determinants of health. Building on this unique and critical opportunity, the World Health Organization is steering a multi-country Initiative to reduce health inequities through an action-learning process in 'Pathfinder' countries. The Initiative aims to develop replicable and reliable models and practices that can be adopted by WHO offices and UN staff to address the social determinants of health to advance health equity. This paper provides an overview of the Initiative by describing its broad theory of change and work undertaken in three regions and six Pathfinder countries in its first year-and-a-half. Participants engaged in the Initiative describe results of early country dialogues and promising entry points for implementation that involve model, network and capacity building. The insights communicated through this note from the field will be of interest for others aiming to advance health equity through taking action on the social determinants of health, in particular as regards structural determinants.

How can Health in All Policies approaches support the transition to the well-being economy?

Health in All Policies approaches support the integration of health considerations into the policies of traditionally siloed governance systems. These siloed systems are often ignorant of the fact that health is created outside of the health system and starts long before you see a health professional. Thus, the purpose of Health in All Policies approaches is to raise the importance of the broad-based impacts on health from these public policies and to implement healthy public policy that delivers human rights for all. This approach requires significant adjustments to current economic and social policy settings. A well-being economy similarly aspires to create policy incentives that increase the importance of social and non-monetized outcomes, such as increased social cohesion environmental sustainability and health. These outcomes can evolve deliberately alongside economic benefits and are impacted by economic and market activities. The principles and functions underpinning Health in All Policies approaches, such as joined-up policy making can be helpful to transition towards a well-being economy. Governments will need to move beyond the currently held principle of "economic growth and profit above all else" if countries are to tackle growing societal inequity and catastrophic climate changes. Rapid digitization and globalization have further entrenched the focus on monetary economic outcomes rather than other aspects of human welfare. This has created an increasingly difficult context within which to prioritize social policies and efforts aimed to achieve primarily social and not profit-oriented goals. In the face of this larger context, alone, Health in All Policies approaches will not bring about the needed transformation to achieve healthy populations and economic transition. However, Health in All Policies approaches do offer lessons and a rationale that is aligned with, and can support the transition to, a well-being economy. Transforming current economic approaches to a well-being economy is imperative to achieve equitable population health, social security and climate sustainability.

Reviving health promotion in South Australia: The role of ideas, actors and institutional forces.

Globally health promotion has remained marginalized while biomedical health systems have maintained and even increased their dominance. During 2019-2021 we drew on the local and historical knowledge of actors from multiple sectors through semi-structured interviews and focus groups, to assess the implications of the withdrawal of the state from health promotion in a suburban region of South Australia. Institutional theory enabled in-depth analysis of the ideas, actors, and institutional forces at play in the institutional field, and how these elements come together to maintain the dominance of medicine. We found that the ideas, actors and institutional forces supporting health promotion in the study region have weakened and fragmented. This has happened as biomedicine has increased its dominance in the region's health system, mirroring international trends. The results point to a withdrawal of state and federal governments from health promotion, which has led to severe gaps in leadership and governance, and locally, to a decline in capacity and resources. The state health department reallocated resources to focus on individual behavioural change rather than more structural factors affecting health. While some activities aimed at the social determinants of health or community development strategies remained, these had minimal institutional support. The establishment of a state government wellbeing agency in 2020 prompted an exploration to determine whether the agency and the international wellbeing movement presents an opportunity for a revival of more comprehensive health promotion.

Health promotion has a rich history in South Australia. However, since government withdrew funding and institutional support, health promotion has become increasingly fragmented, unco-ordinated and targeted towards individual behaviour change activities. Analysis of the role of ideas, actors, and institutional forces, such as government policies, found that biomedical approaches to health and health care increasingly dominate the health system and health policy environment in the state and Australia wide. The establishment of a state government wellbeing agency in 2020 prompted optimism from participants that the government may once again take a leadership role in reviving health promotion and prevention strategies.

Australia in 2030: what is our path to health for all?

CHAPTER 1: HOW AUSTRALIA IMPROVED HEALTH EQUITY THROUGH ACTION ON THE SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH: Do not think that the social determinants of health equity are old hat. In reality, Australia is very far away from addressing the societal level drivers of health inequity. There is little progressive policy that touches on the conditions of daily life that matter for health, and action to redress inequities in power, money and resources is almost non-existent. In this chapter we ask you to pause this reality and come on a fantastic journey where we envisage how COVID-19 was a great disruptor and accelerator of positive progressive action. We offer glimmers of what life could be like if there was committed and real policy action on the social determinants of health equity. It is vital that the health sector assists in convening the multisectoral stakeholders necessary to turn this fantasy into reality. CHAPTER 2: ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER CONNECTION TO CULTURE: BUILDING STRONGER INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE WELLBEING: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have long maintained that culture (ie, practising, maintaining and reclaiming it) is vital to good health and wellbeing. However, this knowledge and understanding has been dismissed or described as anecdotal or intangible by Western research methods and science. As a result, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture is a poorly acknowledged determinant of health and wellbeing, despite its significant role in shaping individuals, communities and societies. By extension, the cultural determinants of health have been poorly defined until recently. However, an increasing amount of scientific evidence supports what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have always said - that strong culture plays a significant and positive role in improved health and wellbeing. Owing to known gaps in knowledge, we aim to define the cultural determinants of health and describe their relationship with the social determinants of health, to provide a full understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander wellbeing. We provide examples of evidence on cultural determinants of health and links to improved Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and wellbeing. We also discuss future research directions that will enable a deeper understanding of the cultural determinants of health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. CHAPTER 3: PHYSICAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH: HEALTHY, LIVEABLE AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES: Good city planning is essential for protecting and improving human and planetary health. Until recently, however, collaboration between city planners and the public health sector has languished. We review the evidence on the health benefits of good city planning and propose an agenda for public health advocacy relating to health-promoting city planning for all by 2030. Over the next 10 years, there is an urgent need for public health leaders to collaborate with city planners - to advocate for evidence-informed policy, and to evaluate the health effects of city planning efforts. Importantly, we need integrated planning across and between all levels of government and sectors, to create healthy, liveable and sustainable cities for all. CHAPTER 4: HEALTH PROMOTION IN THE ANTHROPOCENE: THE ECOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH: Human health is inextricably linked to the health of the natural environment. In this chapter, we focus on ecological determinants of health, including the urgent and critical threats to the natural environment, and opportunities for health promotion arising from the human health co-benefits of actions to protect the health of the planet. We characterise ecological determinants in the Anthropocene and provide a sobering snapshot of planetary health science, particularly the momentous climate change health impacts in Australia. We highlight Australia's position as a major fossil fuel producer and exporter, and a country lacking cohesive and timely emissions reduction policy. We offer a roadmap for action, with four priority directions, and point to a scaffold of guiding approaches - planetary health, Indigenous people's knowledge systems, ecological economics, health co-benefits and climate-resilient development. Our situation requires a paradigm shift, and this demands a recalibration of health promotion education, research and practice in Australia over the coming decade. CHAPTER 5: DISRUPTING THE COMMERCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH: Our vision for 2030 is an Australian economy that promotes optimal human and planetary health for current and future generations. To achieve this, current patterns of corporate practice and consumption of harmful commodities and services need to change. In this chapter, we suggest ways forward for Australia, focusing on pragmatic actions that can be taken now to redress the power imbalances between corporations and Australian governments and citizens. We begin by exploring how the terms of health policy making must change to protect it from conflicted commercial interests. We also examine how marketing unhealthy products and services can be more effectively regulated, and how healthier business practices can be incentivised. Finally, we make recommendations on how various public health stakeholders can hold corporations to account, to ensure that people come before profits in a healthy and prosperous future Australia. CHAPTER 6: DIGITAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH: THE DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION: We live in an age of rapid and exponential technological change. Extraordinary digital advancements and the fusion of technologies, such as artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things and quantum computing constitute what is often referred to as the digital revolution or the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0). Reflections on the future of public health and health promotion require thorough consideration of the role of digital technologies and the systems they influence. Just how the digital revolution will unfold is unknown, but it is clear that advancements and integrations of technologies will fundamentally influence our health and wellbeing in the future. The public health response must be proactive, involving many stakeholders, and thoughtfully considered to ensure equitable and ethical applications and use. CHAPTER 7: GOVERNANCE FOR HEALTH AND EQUITY: A VISION FOR OUR FUTURE: Coronavirus disease 2019 has caused many people and communities to take stock on Australia's direction in relation to health, community, jobs, environmental sustainability, income and wealth. A desire for change is in the air. This chapter imagines how changes in the way we govern our lives and what we value as a society could solve many of the issues Australia is facing - most pressingly, the climate crisis and growing economic and health inequities. We present an imagined future for 2030 where governance structures are designed to ensure transparent and fair behaviour from those in power and to increase the involvement of citizens in these decisions, including a constitutional voice for Indigenous peoples. We imagine that these changes were made by measuring social progress in new ways, ensuring taxation for public good, enshrining human rights (including to health) in legislation, and protecting and encouraging an independent media. Measures to overcome the climate crisis were adopted and democratic processes introduced in the provision of housing, education and community development.

To what extent can the activities of the South Australian Health in All Policies initiative be linked to population health outcomes using a program theory-based evaluation?

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.

Ideas, actors and institutions: lessons from South Australian Health in All Policies on what encourages other sectors' involvement.

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.

Correction to: Ideas, actors and institutions: lessons from South Australian Health in All Policies on what encourages other sectors' involvement.

After publication of the article [1], it has been brought to our attention that Table 1 has been formatted poorly in the original version so that the columns are not aligned with their corresponding information. The correct version of the table is presented below. The original version of the article has now been revised.

Applying Health in All Policies to obesity in South Australia.

Public policy strategies impact on population health by acting on the effectiveness, availability and distribution of the social determinants of health. Reducing obesity and promoting healthy weight is a key focus of governments, health promoters and researchers, and can benefit from a systems approach with 'upstream' policy action beyond the health sector. Although the literature identifies many areas for hypothetical non-health policy action, and in particular relating to food and activity environments, few have identified practical, politically viable and relatively cost-free processes by which non-health sectors would want to commit to such action. This article details how the Government of South Australia used the Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach in the SA HiAP Healthy Weight Project. It mapped the core business and policy directions of 44 state departments against research on 'what works' to address obesity. Negotiations then developed high-level policy commitments to address factors promoting healthy weight which predominantly changed ways of working rather than requiring new expenditure and also assisted departments in meeting their own goals; departmental chief executives endorsed the commitments. By starting from departmental documents, and not restricting the project to departments with more 'obvious' obesity prevention potential, we gained commitment to a broader range of policy actions than identified elsewhere; for example, for prisons, environment and botanic gardens, housing and vocational education. The SA HiAP Healthy Weight Project provides one example of a workable, evidence-based systems approach to increase commitment to practical and politically viable opportunities across government to address the non-health environments supporting healthy weight.

Health Impact Assessment in New South Wales & Health in All Policies in South Australia: differences, similarities and connections.

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.

Evaluation of Health in All Policies: concept, theory and application.

This article describes some of the crucial theoretical, methodological and practical issues that need to be considered when evaluating Health in All Policies (HiAP) initiatives. The approaches that have been applied to evaluate HiAP in South Australia are drawn upon as case studies, and early findings from this evaluative research are provided. The South Australian evaluation of HiAP is based on a close partnership between researchers and public servants. The article describes the South Australian HiAP research partnership and considers its benefits and drawbacks in terms of the impact on the scope of the research, the types of evidence that can be collected and the implications for knowledge transfer. This partnership evolved from the conduct of process evaluations and is continuing to develop through joint collaboration on an Australian National Health & Medical Research Council grant. The South Australian research is not seeking to establish causality through statistical tests of correlations, but instead by creating a 'burden of evidence' which supports logically coherent chains of relations. These chains emerge through contrasting and comparing findings from many relevant and extant forms of evidence. As such, program logic is being used to attribute policy change to eventual health outcomes. The article presents the preliminary program logic model and describes the early work of applying the program logic approach to HiAP. The article concludes with an assessment of factors that have accounted for HiAP being sustained in South Australia from 2008 to 2013.

Making the most of open windows: establishing health in all policies in South Australia.

Significant improvements in population health are likely to arise when the social determinants ofhealth are addressed. This creates a challenge for health systems, as the policy levers to influence the determinants largely lie outside of their direct control. Health agencies have been attempting to develop responses that affect these policy levers with mixed success. Success often requires particular conditions or "windows of opportunity" to be present before even small systemic change can be made. The government of South Australia has developed a practical, policy-oriented response to address the determinants of health--Health in All Policies--and has been successfully working across government for the past five years, using a policy learning process to implement this approach. This article will focus on how the South Australian Health in All Policies initiative started and the conditions that enabled South Australia to establish a centralized governance structure, harness a group of cross-sector policy entrepreneurs, and conduct health lens projects across a range of policy issues. The authors will comment on the nature of these conditions and their relevance for other governments struggling to reduce the burden of chronic disease and growing health budgets by addressing the social determinants of health.