Search

Introduction: There is growing scientific and policy recognition that optimising health before a potential pregnancy (preconception health) improves reproductive outcomes and the lifelong health of future children. However, public awareness on this topic is low. We conducted a public consultation to develop language recommendations and identify and prioritise approaches to inform research and improve public awareness of preconception health. Methods: A public consultation was undertaken with people of any gender aged 18–50 years living in the United Kingdom who were not currently expecting a child. Public contributors were recruited through patient and public involvement, community and support groups, an existing cohort study, and an LGBTQ+ charity. An initial round of online group discussions (February/March 2021) explored public contributors' knowledge of preconception health, their recommendations for appropriate language, and ideas about public health approaches. In a subsequent discussion round (May 2021), language recommendations were refined and suggested approaches prioritised. Discussions were summarised based on notes taken by two researchers. Results: Fifty‐four people joined the initial discussion round (66% women, 21% men, 13% nonbinary or transgender; 55% aged 18–30 years, 30% 31–40 years, 15% 41–50 years). Of these, 36 people (67%) participated in the subsequent round. Very few had heard the term 'preconception health', understood what it means, or why and for whom it is important. They recommended avoiding unfamiliar terms without further explanation (e.g., preconception health, medical terms), using language that is positive, encouraging and gender‐sensitive where possible, and using messages that are specific, nonjudgmental and realistic. The phrases 'health and well‐being during the childbearing years', 'health and well‐being before pregnancy and parenthood' and 'planning for parenthood' resonated with most public contributors. School‐based education, social media campaigns and the National Health Service emerged as priority approaches/settings for raising awareness. Conclusion: This public consultation produced recommendations from a diverse group of people of reproductive age in the United Kingdom to improve language and prioritise approaches that increase public understanding of preconception health in ways that are relevant and appropriate to them. This should begin in schools and will require adaptation of curricula, alongside co‐development of public awareness campaigns and guidance for healthcare professionals. Patient or Public Contribution: This public consultation included a diverse group of members of the public. They were not involved in the original design of the project, but following the initial round of online group discussions, they contributed to the interpretation and refinement of the emerging concepts in a subsequent round of group meetings. After the consultation activity, public contributors formed a Public Advisory Group and have subsequently been involved in other studies on the same topic. Two public contributors (E.R. and F.F.) provided critical input in the preparation and revision of this manuscript and are co‐authors of the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing body of knowledge highlights the negative impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the health and well‐being of many people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) and their caregivers. The underlying reasons are not only due to biomedical factors but also ethical issues. They stem from longstanding and pervasive structural injustices and negative social attitudes that continue to devalue people with IDD and that underlie certain clinical decisions and frameworks for public‐health policies during this pandemic. Unless these fundamental ethical shortcomings are addressed, pandemic responses will continue to undermine the human rights and well‐being of people with IDD. This paper proposes an ethics framing for policy and practices regarding clinical care and public health based on Martha Nussbaum's approach to Capability Theory. Such a framework can reorient healthcare professionals and healthcare systems to support the capabilities of people with IDD to protect, recover, and promote health and well‐being. It could be applied during this pandemic and in planning for future pandemics. The paper presents some practical recommendations that follow from applying this framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsFaced with urgent threats to human health and well‐being such as climate change, calls among the academic community are getting louder to contribute more effectively to the implementation of the evidence generated by our research into public policy.As interest in knowledge translation (KT) surges, so have a number of anxieties about the field's shortcomings. Our paper is motivated by a call in the literature to render useful advice for those beginning in KT on how to advance impact at a policy level.By integrating knowledge from fields such as political science, moral psychology, and marketing, we suggest that thinking and acting like marketers, lobbyists, movements, and political scientists would help us advance on the quest to bridge the chasm between evidence and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Issue addressed: Wellbeing SA, an independent South Australian government agency, developed a Wellbeing Index for South Australia across a 12‐month period in 2021–2022 to enable the measurement of wellbeing outcomes for the state. Methods: The development of the Index was a methodical process based on two key emphases—evidence‐based action and working in partnership. The steps included a scoping of existing wellbeing measurement frameworks and then working with a broad range of partner agencies to define the purpose, scope and structure for the Index and subsequently the content (indicators, their measures and the most robust data available). Results: A Wellbeing Index for South Australia was launched in June 2022 on the Wellbeing SA website. It is structured against domains of physical, mental, social/community, Aboriginal cultural wellbeing and the underpinning determinants of wellbeing. Conclusions: The Index communicates the importance and the breadth of wellbeing outcomes addressed by the various health promotion and policy actors in South Australia and provides a sound basis for monitoring the wellbeing of the community over time. So what?: Measuring wellbeing is identified by proponents of a Wellbeing Economy as one useful mechanism, alongside legislation, policy and funding, for shaping a broader definition of a successful society. The health promotion community, and their partners, have a role to play in promoting the importance of a broad definition of wellbeing, and in identifying robust and meaningful indicators. This paper offers other jurisdictions insights into the process used, and challenges encountered, in creating the Index. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction to articles in the issue is presented on topics including an operational definition of shared decision-making for use in a wide range of healthcare contexts, problems created for shared decision-making when patients request Caesarean delivery without clinical indications, and differences between socially and individually optimal dosing strategies under conditions of vaccine scarcity.

Policy PointsAfter decades of scientific progress and growth in academic literature, there is a recognition that climate change poses a substantial threat to the health and well‐being of individuals and communities both in the United States and globally.Solutions to mitigate and adapt to climate change can have important health cobenefits.A vital component of these policy solutions is that they must also take into consideration historic issues of environmental justice and racism, and implementation of these policies must have a strong equity lens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study was to explore data and Aboriginal and non‐Aboriginal researchers' experiences and reflexivity in co‐designing research about a rural Aboriginal well‐being program to inform practice and policy. Setting: Gumbaynggirr, Birpai, Kamilaroi and Awabakal countries located in regional and rural New South Wales, Australia. Participants: Rural and regionally located research team who co‐designed processes to challenge the status quo about a critically framed, rural‐based Aboriginal well‐being research project. Design: Researchers drew on data from a research project in an interpretive cycle of collaborative Yarning. Data included 90 published articles, 12 Yarning transcripts and 26 reflective journal text sets, as well as researcher experiences and reflexivity. Results: The Duguula Gayirray (Yarning together), Yandaarray (walking together) and Duguula Nguraljili (sharing together) co‐design practice model was developed to represent key actions in the context of an Aboriginal well‐being program in a rural context. Actions were supported by seven interpersonal ways of being and were underpinned by respectful relationships between community and researchers. Discussion Duguula Gayirray, Yandaarray and Duguula Nguraljili are critical to co‐design practice and are grounded in respectful relationships. Our experiences led us to critique our perceptions of power sharing, equitable partnerships and collaborative knowledges towards opportunity for collective research co‐design. Conclusion: Duguula Gayirray, Yandaarray and Duguula Nguraljili transformed our understanding of achieving liberation from dominant western research in the context of a rurally located Australian Aboriginal well‐being program. This study contributes to progression of Aboriginal health research practice and policy recommendations, enabling real cultural change in health care with rurally located Aboriginal communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsThe focus of successful aging is on the social contexts that enable individuals to be productively engaged and secure, with an emphasis on equity. There is currently no index to measure progress towards this goal at the US state level.We developed an empirical index for the evaluation of US state adaptation to societal aging across five critical domains that support successful population aging: (1) productivity and engagement, (2) security, (3) equity, (4) cohesion, and (5) well‐being.Our index shows substantial variability over time and is not overly influenced by the performance of an individual domain. This suggests that it can be used to monitor state progress over time toward the goal of supporting successful aging.Rather than a major national trend, there are large between‐state differences and changes in our index over time. This suggests individual US state policies and programs, as well as local economic conditions, may have a substantial impact on adaptations to societal aging. Context: Although it is recognized that aspects of US state environments impact the likelihood that older adults age successfully, there is currently no reliable and comprehensive measure of contexts that best support successful aging at a state level. The current project adapts a multidimensional index previously used to assess adaptation to successful aging in developed countries and applies it to the 50 US states and the District of Columbia. Methods: We obtained data from multiple sources for all 50 US states and the District of Columbia from 2003 to 2017 in order to measure five distinct domains that define successful population aging: (1) productivity and engagement, (2) security, (3) equity, (4) cohesion, and (5) well‐being. We created a ranking of states for the year 2017 based on these domains, and also examined how individual US state rankings changed over time from 2003 to 2017. Findings: The level of adaptation to successful aging varied substantially between states and over time. The highest‐ranked states in 2017 were Vermont, Hawaii, Iowa, Colorado, and New Hampshire, and the lowest‐ranked states were Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Mississippi. Mississippi, South Carolina, Iowa, Arizona, and Delaware had the greatest improvement in their ranking over the period of 2003 to 2017. Our findings were generally robust to the weighting scheme used and were not overly influenced by any particular domain. Conclusions: The US State Index of Successful Aging can be used to monitor US state progress in promoting the well‐being and health of aging populations. Factors driving the changes in the index remain to be elucidated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]