Responsibility for evidence-based policy in cardiovascular disease in rural communities: implications for persistent rural health inequalities
Laura Alston A B D , Lisa Bourke C , Melanie Nichols A and Steven Allender AA The Global Obesity Centre (GLOBE), Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, Vic. 3220, Australia. Email: melanie.nichols@deakin.edu.au; steven.allender@deakin.edu.au
B Deakin Rural Health, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Vic. 3220, Australia.
C Department of Rural Health, The University of Melbourne, 49 Graham Street, PO Box 6500, Shepparton, Vic. 3632, Australia. Email: bourke@unimelb.edu.au
D Corresponding author. Email: laura.alston@deakin.edu.au
Australian Health Review 44(4) 527-534 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH19189
Submitted: 21 August 2019 Accepted: 2 December 2019 Published: 5 June 2020
Journal Compilation © AHHA 2020 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to understand, from the perspective of policy makers, who holds the responsibility for driving evidence-based policy to reduce the high burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in rural Australia.
Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted with policy makers at the local, state and federal government levels in Australia (n = 21). Analysis was conducted using the Conceptual Framework for Understanding Rural and Remote Health to understand perceptions of policy makers around who holds the key responsibility in driving evidence-based policy.
Results At all levels of government, there were multiple examples of disconnect in the understanding of who is responsible for driving the generation of evidence-based policy to reduce CVD in rural areas. Policy makers suggested that the rural communities themselves, health services, health professionals, researchers and the health sector as a whole hold large responsibilities in driving evidence-based policy to address CVD in rural areas. Within government, there was also a noticeable disconnect, with local participants feeling it was the federal government that held this responsibility; however, federal government participants suggested this was largely a local government issue. Overall, there seemed to be a lack of responsibility for CVD policy, which is reflected in a lack of action in rural areas.
Conclusion There was a lack of clarity about who is responsible for driving evidence-based policy generation to address the high burden of CVD in Australia, providing one possible explanation for the lack of policy action. Clarity among policy makers over shared roles and leadership for policy making must be addressed to overcome the current burden of CVD in rural communities.
What is known about the topic? Rural health inequalities, such as the increased burden of CVD in rural Australia are persistent. Such health inequalities are unjust, with global theory suggesting political processes have facilitated, in part, the inequalities. With similar examples observed internationally in rural areas, little is known about the influence of the perspectives of policy makers regarding who is responsible for addressing health issues in rural areas, in the government context.
What does this paper add? This paper provides empirical evidence, for all levels of government in Australia, that there is a lack of clarity in policy roles and responsibilities to address the unequal burden of CVD in rural Australia, at all levels of government. The paper provides evidence to support the urgent need for clarity within government around policy stakeholder roles. Without such clarity, it is unlikely that national-level progress in addressing rural health inequalities will be achieved in the near future.
What are the implications for practitioners? Addressing ambiguity around who is responsible for the development of evidence-based policy to address the high burden of CVD in rural areas must be a high priority to ensure health disparities do not persist for future Australian generations. The results reported here are highly relevant to the Australian context, but also reflect similar findings internationally, namely that a lack of clarity among policy stakeholders appears to contribute to reduced action in addressing preventable health inequalities in disadvantaged populations. This paper provides evidence for policy makers and public health professionals to advocate for clear policy roles and direction in rural Australia.
References
[1] Roth GA, Johnson C, Abajobir A, Abd-Allah F, Abera SF, Abyu G, Ahmed M, Aksut B, Alam T, Alam K, Alla F, Alvis-Guzman N, Amrock S, Ansari H, Ärnlöv J, Asayesh H, Atey TM, Avila-Burgos L, Awasthi A, Banerjee A, Barac A, Bärnighausen T, Barregard L, Bedi N, Belay Ketema E, Bennett D, Berhe G, Bhutta Z, Bitew S, Carapetis J, et al Global, regional, and national burden of cardiovascular diseases for 10 causes, 1990 to 2015. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 70 1–25.| Global, regional, and national burden of cardiovascular diseases for 10 causes, 1990 to 2015.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28527533PubMed |
[2] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Heart, stroke and vascular diseases. 2019. Available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports-data/health-conditions-disability-deaths/heart-stroke-vascular-diseases/overview [verified 22 February 2020].
[3] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. How many Australians have cardiovascular disease? 2019. Available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/heart-stroke-vascular-disease/cardiovascular-health-compendium/contents/how-many-australians-have-cardiovascular-disease [verified 13 September 2019].
[4] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Rural, regional and remote health: indicators of health status and determinants of health. Canberra: AIHW; 2008.
[5] Phillips A. Health status differentials across rural and remote Australia. Aust J Rural Health 2009; 17 2–9.
| Health status differentials across rural and remote Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19161493PubMed | 19161493PubMed |
[6] Alston L, Peterson KL, Jacobs JP, Allender S, Nichols M. Quantifying the role of modifiable risk factors in the differences in cardiovascular disease mortality rates between metropolitan and rural populations in Australia: a macrosimulation modelling study. BMJ Open 2017; 7 e018307
| Quantifying the role of modifiable risk factors in the differences in cardiovascular disease mortality rates between metropolitan and rural populations in Australia: a macrosimulation modelling study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29101149PubMed | 29101149PubMed |
[7] Puska P. Why did North Karelia—Finland work? Is it transferrable? Glob Heart 2016; 11 387–91.
| Why did North Karelia—Finland work? Is it transferrable?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27938823PubMed | 27938823PubMed |
[8] Barnidge EK, Radvanyi C, Duggan K, Motton F, Wiggs I, Baker EA, Brownson RC. Understanding and addressing barriers to implementation of environmental and policy interventions to support physical activity and healthy eating in rural communities. J Rural Health 2013; 29 97–105.
| Understanding and addressing barriers to implementation of environmental and policy interventions to support physical activity and healthy eating in rural communities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23289660PubMed | 23289660PubMed |
[9] Puska P. Fat and heart disease: yes we can make a change – the case of North Karelia (Finland). Ann Nutr Metab 2009; 54 33–8.
| Fat and heart disease: yes we can make a change – the case of North Karelia (Finland).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19641348PubMed | 19641348PubMed |
[10] Moodie AR, Tolhurst P, Martin JE. Australia’s health: being accountable for prevention. Med J Aust 2016; 204 223–5.
| Australia’s health: being accountable for prevention.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27031394PubMed | 27031394PubMed |
[11] Szreter S, Woolcock M. Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. Int J Epidemiol 2004; 33 650–67.
| Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15282219PubMed | 15282219PubMed |
[12] Alston L, Nichols M, Allender S. Policy makers’ perceptions of the high burden of heart disease in rural Australia: implications for the implementation of evidence-based rural health policy. PLoS One 2019; 14 e0215358
| Policy makers’ perceptions of the high burden of heart disease in rural Australia: implications for the implementation of evidence-based rural health policy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30990865PubMed | 30990865PubMed |
[13] Farmer J, Bourke L, Taylor J, Marley JV, Reid J, Bracksley S, Johnson N. Culture and rural health. Aust J Rural Health 2012; 20 243–7.
| Culture and rural health.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22998197PubMed | 22998197PubMed |
[14] Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Upshur RE. Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Soc Sci Med 2004; 58 207–17.
| Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 14572932PubMed | 14572932PubMed |
[15] Walker SC, Lyon AR, Aos S, Trupin EW. The consistencies and vagaries of the Washington State Inventory of Evidence-Based Practice: the definition of ‘evidence-based’ in a policy context. Adm Policy Ment Health 2017; 44 42–54.
| The consistencies and vagaries of the Washington State Inventory of Evidence-Based Practice: the definition of ‘evidence-based’ in a policy context.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25894313PubMed | 25894313PubMed |
[16] Wutzke S, Roberts N, Willis C, Best A, Wilson A, Trochim W. Setting strategy for system change: using concept mapping to prioritise national action for chronic disease prevention. Health Res Policy Syst 2017; 15 69
| Setting strategy for system change: using concept mapping to prioritise national action for chronic disease prevention.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28784177PubMed | 28784177PubMed |
[17] Bourke L, Humphreys JS, Wakerman J, Taylor J. Understanding rural and remote health: a framework for analysis in Australia. Health Place 2012; 18 496–503.
| Understanding rural and remote health: a framework for analysis in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22418016PubMed | 22418016PubMed |
[18] Bourke L, Humphreys JS, Wakerman J, Taylor J. Understanding drivers of rural and remote health outcomes: a conceptual framework in action. Aust J Rural Health 2012; 20 318–23.
| Understanding drivers of rural and remote health outcomes: a conceptual framework in action.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23181816PubMed | 23181816PubMed |
[19] Australian Government. How government works. 2019. Available at: https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/how-government-works [verified 29 June 2019].
[20] Parliament of Victoria. Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. Melbourne: Victorian State Government; 2008.
[21] Parliament of New South Wales. The roles and responsibilities of local, state and federal governments. 2019. Available at: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/about/Pages/The-Roles-and-Responsibilities-of-Federal-State-a.aspx [verified 29 June 2019].
[22] Australian Federal Government. National partnership agreement on preventative health. Implementation overview. 2009. Available at: http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/health/_archive/national_overview.pdf [verified 29 June 2019].
[23] Crotty M. Foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. Sydney: Allen & Unwin; 1998.
[24] Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. New York: SAGE; 2013.
[25] Terry D, Glenister K, Bourke L. Repurpose, reuse, and recycle: the current challenge of rural and regional data. Partyline 2015; 53 50–1.
[26] Foucault M. Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. In: Gordon C, editor. New York: Pantheon Books; 1980. pp. 1–108.
