The literature available about social definitions of corruption is surprisingly discrete from that which addresses the issue of "whistleblowing" or the reporting of crime and corruption. The current study, however, empirically links the two. A survey of more than 1300 public sector employees was undertaken to explore: i) how and why public sector employees define some behaviours as corrupt; ii) factors which may hinder public sector employees taking action about corruption which they may observe at work; and iii) the link between i) and ii). The study found that within the New South Wales (NSW) public sector, views about what constitutes corruption are diverse and that this has a significant, though not exclusive, impact upon the action respondents said they would take in response to workplace corruption. The study discusses other factors which also impact upon the stated decision not to take action about corruption and suggests some possible courses of action for addressing these factors.How do people decide whether an activity they witness is corrupt, and how does this relate to their willingness to take action about that conduct? There is very little published material which addresses these questions and examines the relationship between how people define corruption and how they respond to it. In order to explore this link, literature about defining corruption, workplace crime, public opinion definitions of corruption and possible responses to corruption including whistleblowing, need to be considered collectively.

IntroductionIntegrated community healthcare Hubs may offer a ‘one stop shop’ for service users with complex health and social needs, and more efficiently use service resources. Various policy imperatives exist to implement Hub models of care, however, there is a dearth of research specifically evaluating Hubs targeted at families experiencing adversity. To contribute to building this evidence, we propose to co-design, test and evaluate integrated Hub models of care in two Australian community health services in low socioeconomic areas that serve families experiencing adversity: Wyndham Vale in Victoria and Marrickville in New South Wales.Methods and analysisThis multisite convergent mixed-methods study will run over three phases to (1) develop the initial Hub programme theory through formative research; (2) test and, then, (3) refine the Hub theory using empirical data. Phase 1 involves co-design of each Hub with caregivers, community members and practitioners. Phase 2 uses caregiver and Hub practitioner surveys at baseline, and 6 and 12 months after Hub implementation, and in-depth interviews at 12 months. Two stakeholder groups will be recruited: caregivers (n=100–200 per site) and Hub practitioners (n=20–30 per site). The intervention is a co-located Hub providing health, social, legal and community services with no comparator. The primary outcomes are caregiver-reported: (i) identification of, (ii) interventions received and/or (iii) referrals received for adversity from Hub practitioners. The study also assesses child, caregiver, practitioner and system outcomes including mental health, parenting, quality of life, care experience and service linkages. Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed by examining change in proportions/means from baseline to 6 months, from 6 to 12 months and from baseline to 12 months. Service linkages will be analysed using social network analysis. Costs of Hub implementation and a health economics analysis of unmet need will be conducted. Thematic analysis will be employed to analyse qualitative data.Ethics and disseminationRoyal Children’s Hospital and Sydney Local Health District ethics committees have approved the study (HREC/62866/RCHM-2020). Participants and stakeholders will receive results through meetings, presentations and publications.Trial registration numberISRCTN55495932.

Health actors can use the law more strategically in the pursuit of health and equity by addressing governance challenges (e.g., fragmented and overlapping mandates between health and nonhealth institutions), employing a broader rights‐based discourse in the public health policy process, and collaborating with the access to justice movement. Health justice partnerships provide a road map for implementing a sociolegal model of health to reduce health inequities by strengthening legal capacities for health among the health workforce and patients. This in turn will enable them to resolve health issues with legal solutions, to dismantle service silos, and to drive systemic policy and law reform. Context In the field of public health, the law and legal systems remain a poorly understood and substantially underutilized tool to address unfair or unjust societal conditions underpinning health inequities. The aim of our article is to demonstrate the value of expanding from a social model of health to a sociolegal model of health and empowering health actors to use the law more strategically in the pursuit of health equity. Methods We propose a modified version of the framework for the social determinants of health (SDoH) equity developed by the 2008 World Health Organization Commission on the Social Determinants of Health by conceptually integrating the functions of the law as identified by the 2019 Lancet–O'Neill Institute Commission on Global Health and Law. Findings Access to justice provides a critical intersection between social models of public health and work in the justice fields. Addressing the inequities produced through the policies and institutions governing society unites the causes of those seeking to enhance access to justice and those seeking to reduce health inequities. Health justice partnerships (HJPs) are an example of a sociolegal model of health in action. Through the resolution of health issues with legal solutions at the individual level, the dismantling of service silos at the institutional level, and policy and law reform at the systemic level, HJPs demonstrate how the law can be used as a tool to reduce social and health inequities. Conclusions Greater attention to law as a tool for health creates space for increased collaboration among legal and health scholars, practitioners, and advocates, particularly those working in the areas of the social determinants of health and access to justice, and a promising avenue for reducing health inequities.

No abstract

IntroductionThere is widespread recognition of the need to use administrative data from justice, crime, prisons and legal services to improve the evidence base on determinants and outcomes of involvement with justice systems and to improve services. There is great opportunity to use data from justice to improve health and other outcomes for clients and service users but this is a relatively unexplored area and these datasets have been neglected partly due to access concerns. This 90 minute symposium presents research and learning from data initiatives in justice settings and will explore challenges from the perspectives of researchers and the legal profession. Objectives and ApproachTalks will cover: Development of legal epidemiology and use of administrative data in this nascent field (Matthew A Jay). Examples from the presenter’s family justice research using linked data will also be presented. The UK Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ’s) Data First programme (Prof Betsy Stanko). Data First aims to unlock the potential of data already created by MoJ, by linking datasets from the justice system and beyond, and enabling accredited researchers to access the data ethically and responsibly. UK court reform and data collection: using data to monitor equality and access to justice in the move to on-line dispute resolution (Dr Natalie Byrom). Health Justice Partnerships (HJPs) in Australia (Prof Suzie Forell). HJPs bring legal help into health settings to address social issues affecting the health of patients. This will be a discussion of HJPs as an opportunity to explore the impact of legal assistance on health and the challenges and opportunities of relevant data generation. Conclusion / ImplicationsBetter use of data in justice spheres will be a difficult process requiring cross-disciplinary collaboration. But it is one that promises to bring the study and practice of law into the 21 st Century.