Search

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]

Background: Co‐produced research holds enormous value within the health sciences. Yet, there can be a heavy focus on what research participants think, do and know; while the researcher's responsibility to explore and re/work their own knowledge or praxis tends to escape from view. This is reflected in the limited use of co‐production to explore broad structural distributions of health and risk(s). We argue this missed opportunity has the potential to unfold as what Berlant calls a 'cruel optimism', where something desirable becomes an obstacle to flourishing and/or produces harm. We explore challenges to involving lay populations meaningfully in health research amidst a neoliberal cultural landscape that tends to responsibilise people with problems they cannot solve. Methods and Findings: Drawing together principles from hermeneutic and feminist philosophy, we develop a novel methodology for co‐producing research about determinants of health and health risk (using a case study of alcohol consumption as an example) that centres on what researchers do, know and think during research: Women's Thought Collectives. Discussion: Keeping the constructed nature of social systems—because they shape ideas of value, expertise and knowledge—in view during co‐produced research illuminates the potential for cruel optimisms within it. Such reflexive awareness carves out starting points for researchers to engage with how social hierarchies might (tacitly) operate during the co‐production of knowledge. Our work has broad utility for diverse population groups and provides important considerations around the roles and responsibilities for reflexive co‐production of knowledge at all levels of health systems. Patient or Public Contribution: The development of these ideas was sparked by working with lay participants during the Women's Thought Collectives for Kristen Foley's doctoral research 2021–2023, but undertaken without their direct involvement—in accordance with the responsibilities of researchers in the reflexive co‐production of knowledge. Forthcoming publications will address the outcomes and processes of this work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Issue Addressed: Collaboration and partnerships across sectors are critical to the realisation of a wellbeing economy. Wellbeing SA—a government agency in South Australia—utilises a partnership mechanism under the state's public health legislation to achieve collaborative action for improved population health and wellbeing: Public Health Partner Authorities (PHPAs). Methods: The establishment and implementation of PHPAs draws strongly on the principles and practices of South Australia's Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach. This includes the utilisation of cross‐sectoral partnerships to facilitate the implementation of co‐design and co‐benefits principles to deliver policies that support improved population health and wellbeing, while simultaneously delivering other societal benefits. Partnerships also facilitate the sharing of knowledge and resources, and the creation of joint solutions to complex policy issues. Results: PHPAs have been reported to offer a valuable, evidence‐based and practical mechanism for embedding key concepts of wellbeing into the policies, practices and programs of other sectors, and provide the potential as one important tool for the formation of a wellbeing economy. Conclusions: The achievement of a wellbeing economy is dependent on collaboration within and between sectors, and through strong community engagement. Developing a joint and inclusive understanding of wellbeing and its importance as a societal goal is critical, and can only be achieved through collaborative approaches. The implementation of PHPAs in South Australia has demonstrated the importance of partnerships to address complex issues across sectors, and has identified key elements to successful partnerships. So What?: South Australia's experience in implementing PHPAs and HiAP has demonstrated how health promotion practice, policy and research that incorporate successful partnerships can support high quality, effective intersectoral collaboration for the benefit of citizens, including some lessons that may be worth considering in the development and realisation of a wellbeing economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inequity in access to palliative care and symptom relief is one of the greatest disparities in global health care. A public health approach to palliative care is underpinned by the social view of health that puts an emphasis on equity, community engagement and empowerment, a supportive policy environment, and social determinants of health. Consideration of equity in policy is critical so that it can be translated into equitable services. However, the extent to which Australian palliative care policies incorporate equity, and their translation into actual actions have not been extensively examined. This exploratory study aimed to examine the extent to which Australian federal and South Australian palliative care policies and initiatives incorporate equity, and to identify evidence gaps and research priorities that can inform equity-oriented policies and practices. Methods: We reviewed 25 federal and South Australian documents relating to palliative care published over the past five years. Documents were publicly available from the Australian Government Department of Health website. We used search filter 'Palliative care and end of life' in the Department's resource webpage to narrow down documents to those with palliative care and end of life in the document title and/or content. The initial list was discussed in the research team to ensure key documents are included. Supplementary to document review, we conducted five key informant interviews in South Australia. Interview participants were people from the policy sector, not-for-profit organisations, a funding body and a community advocacy group in South Australia who had knowledge and experience in palliative care policy, practice and research. Documents and interview transcripts were imported into the NVivo 12 software for coding. Content analysis looked at the frequencies of relevant terms, and then more detailed inductive and deductive thematic analysis was undertaken which was guided by an equity action framework. Results: Overall, we found incremental steps forward over the past few years in considering equity in Australian palliative care policies. Key themes that emerged from the study were: identifying population groups experiencing poor access to palliative care, strategies to improve access including increased awareness of palliative care, flexible models of care, building workforce capacity, and the need for greater investment in palliative care research and evaluation. Strategies to address systemic barriers as well as social, political and cultural determinants of inequity was less evident in policy documents. There was little evidence of actions to engage and empower communities. Interviews provided insight on key areas of priority for future palliative care research. Conclusions: Achieving the goal of equity in palliative care for all is complex and multifaceted. It requires strong commitment and actions at policy and government level but also in clinical practice, workforce planning and capacity building, community engagement and research investment to implement and evaluate public health approaches to palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]