A prospective evaluation of first people’s health promotion program design in the goulburn-murray rivers region

Abstract

BackgroundAboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (ACCOs) provide community-focussed and culturally safe services for First Peoples in Australia, including crisis intervention and health promotion activities, in a holistic manner. The ecological model of health promotion goes some way towards describing the complexity of such health programs. The aims of this project were to: 1) identify the aims and purpose of existing health promotion programs conducted by an alliance of ACCOs in northern Victoria, Australia; and 2) evaluate the extent to which these programs are consistent with an ecological model of health promotion, addressing both individual and environmental determinants of health.MethodsThe project arose from a long history of collaborative research. Three ACCOs and a university formed the Health Promotion Alliance to evaluate their health promotion programs. Local community members were trained in, and contributed to developing culturally sensitive methods for, data collection. Information on the aims and design of 88 health promotion activities making up 12 different programs across the ACCOs was systematically and prospectively collected.ResultsThere was a wide range of activities addressing environmental and social determinants of health, as well as physical activity, nutrition and weight loss. The design of the great majority of activities had a minimal Western influence and were designed within a local Aboriginal cultural framework. The most common focus of the activities was social connectedness (76 %). Physical activity was represented in two thirds of the activities, and nutrition, weight loss and culture were each a focus of about half of the activities. A modified coding procedure designed to assess the ecological nature of these programs showed that they recruited from multiple settings; targeted a range of individual, social and environmental determinants; and used numerous and innovative strategies to achieve change.ConclusionFirst Peoples’ health promotion in the Goulburn-Murray Rivers region encompasses a broad range of social, cultural, lifestyle and community development activities, including reclaiming and strengthening cultural identity and social connectedness as a response to colonisation.

You wouldn't eat 16 teaspoons of sugar—so why drink it? Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander responses to the LiveLighter sugary drink campaign

“…However, the convenience sample did include a wide range of age groups and parents. Despite these limitations, this study adds to the body of evidence about community‐led, strength‐based health promotion for Aboriginal people in Victoria . This is important as our study found that SSB consumption among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people appears to be significantly higher in Victoria compared to other states and territories.…”

Factors influencing contraceptive use or non-use among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

“…Rather partners of communities should be guided by the communities themselves. For example, ecological frameworks have been successfully utilised in a number of health promotion programs run in Victoria in collaboration with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health organisations [41], and could potentially be useful in the context of contraceptive practices.…”

Evaluating health service outcomes of public involvement in health service design in high-income countries: a systematic review

“…There were no definitions or conceptualisation of public involvement in almost half of articles ( n = 43, 46.2%) [ 40 – 82 ]. Where reported, public participant numbers ranged from 4 [ 83 ], to an estimated 1200 [ 84 ], though no numbers were given in 13 articles (14.0%) [ 45 , 47 , 49 , 58 , 69 , 72 – 74 , 77 , 85 – 88 ], and incomplete or estimated numbers were provided in a further 25 (26.9%) [ 40 , 43 , 44 , 50 , 51 , 56 , 57 , 61 – 63 , 66 , 76 , 82 , 84 , 89 – 99 ]. Some authors provided demographic data of public participants, such as age, gender, medical condition and/or race, however, there was no detail provided in more than half of articles ( n = 52, 55.9%) [ 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 43 – 51 , 55 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 63 , 66 , 68 , 69 , 71 – 74 , 77 , 79 , 81 – 88 , 93 , 95 – 110 ].…”

“…Evaluation of the reported outcome was outlined in less than half of studies ( n = 39, 43.3%) [ 38 , 41 – 45 , 47 – 50 , 53 , 54 , 56 – 59 , 61 , 65 , 66 , 68 – 71 , 80 , 81 , 83 – 85 , 87 , 92 , 93 , 99 , 102 , 105 , 107 , 109 , 110 , 123 , 131 ] (Additional file 2 ). Some evaluations were reported additionally [ 59 , 70 , 107 ] or exclusively [ 50 , 53 , 61 , 66 , 71 , 76 , 81 , 83 , 85 , 102 , 123 , 131 ] in separate publications.…”