Search

Purpose: Mentally Healthy WA developed and implemented the Mentally Healthy Schools Framework in 2010 in response to demand from schools wanting to promote the community-based Act-Belong-Commit mental health promotion message within a school setting. Schools are an important setting for mental health promotion, therefore, the Framework encourages schools to adopt a whole-of-school approach to mental health promotion based on the World Health Organisation's Health Promoting Schools framework. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach: A process evaluation was conducted consisting of six-monthly activity reports from 13 participating Western Australian schools. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with key school contacts in November 2011 with nine schools who had signed partner agreements prior to July 2011. Findings: The schools valued promoting the mentally healthy message and the majority felt the programme was implemented successfully. More intensive implementation was facilitated by a proactive and enthusiastic school "champion" who had influence over other staff, and who did not have too many competing priorities. Factors inhibiting implementation included a lack of effective time management, lack of whole school commitment, and evaluation demands. Originality/value: Act-Belong-Commit is a positive, proactive message making it easier for teachers to talk about mental health with their students. For schools reporting implementation success, the Mentally Healthy Schools Framework raised the profile of mental health in the school setting and fostered a sense of belonging among students.

This paper provides a framework for examining the general issue of public health authorities' collaboration with industry. The framework distinguishes between industry involvement in the development of public health policy and the implementation of policy-driven interventions. A distinction is also made between industries marketing products conducive to good health versus products that impact negatively on public health (e.g. alcohol and energy-dense, nutrition-poor food and beverage industries). Drawing on concepts with respect to the effectiveness of military coalitions, it is argued that a common goal (i.e. 'unity of object') is a prerequisite for optimal co-operation (i.e. 'unity of effort') between collaborators in any sphere of activity. However, this vital precondition does not exist in the public health arena because the end goals of industry and those of public health are fundamentally different, if not opposed (i.e. profits to owners/shareholders versus the social good). It is argued that because of this fundamental disjunct between industry profit goals and the public good, unity of effort will always be compromised in any form of collaboration with industry, and particularly where public health policies and interventions are designed to negatively impact on product consumption. Hence, while industry can be asked to co-operate in implementing public health policy initiatives, industry should never be involved in developing policy initiatives. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Australian Press Council, the print media self-regulation body in Australia that receives and adjudicates complaints by the public, states that upheld adjudications are to be published with 'due prominence'. The Council defines 'due prominence' as publishing the adjudication such that it is 'likely to be read by those who saw the offending material'. In 2010 the Council upheld a complaint about misleading material that occurred on the front page of a newspaper. The complaint included that the misleading front page material triggered a large number of insulting letters about the person in that story which the newspaper published the following day. The newspaper published the upheld adjudication (no. 1468) on the letters page even though the primary offending material occurred on the front page. Rather than seek re-publication in a more prominent location, the Australian Press Council accepted the newspaper's placement as satisfying their 'due prominence' requirement. Given the apparent inconsistency between publication of the adjudication on the letters page and the 'likely to be read by' definition of due prominence, we provided 100 adult newspaper readers with brief details of the upheld complaint and the definition of due prominence and asked where in the paper the adjudication should be published. Contrary to the Council's acceptance of the location of the newspaper's publication of the adjudication, the vast majority of newspaper readers (88%) responded with the front page (62%) or the first three pages (26%). This discrepancy is discussed in the context of the efficacy of self-regulation and the ethical standards of bodies charged with ethical governance. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]