Critiquing Food Security Inter‐governmental Partnership Approaches in Victoria, Australia

Slade, Christine; Baldwin, Claudia

doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12216

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two thirds of studies ( n = 38) employed a quantitative methodology, utilizing a survey or audit [1,2,7,16,34,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81], while the remainder ( n = 18) were qualitative. Thirteen studies used interviews [41,67,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91], four studies employed focus groups [48,92,93,94], and one utilized photo voice [95].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring and Understanding Food Insecurity in Australia: A Systematic Review

McKay

Haines

Dunn

2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of Australians seeking food aid has increased in recent years; however, the current variability in the measurement of food insecurity means that the prevalence and severity of food insecurity in Australia is likely underreported. This is compounded by infrequent national health surveys that measure food insecurity, resulting in outdated population-level food insecurity data. This review sought to investigate the breadth of food insecurity research conducted in Australia to evaluate how this construct is being measured. A systematic review was conducted to collate the available Australian research. Fifty-seven publications were reviewed. Twenty-two used a single-item measure to examine food security status; 11 used the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM); two used the Radimer/Cornell instrument; one used the Household Food and Nutrition Security Survey (HFNSS); while the remainder used a less rigorous or unidentified method. A wide range in prevalence and severity of food insecurity in the community was reported; food insecurity ranged from 2% to 90%, depending on the measurement tool and population under investigation. Based on the findings of this review, the authors suggest that there needs to be greater consistency in measuring food insecurity, and that work is needed to create a measure of food insecurity tailored for the Australian context. Such a tool will allow researchers to gain a clear understanding of the prevalence of food insecurity in Australia to create better policy and practice responses.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring and Understanding Food Insecurity in Australia: A Systematic Review

McKay

Haines

Dunn

2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Food insecurity - inadequate access to healthy, affordable and culturally appropriate food – has physical and mental health implications impacting both individuals and wider society. Australia’s reported prevalence of household food insecurity ranges from between 4% [ 2 ] and 18% [ 3 ] with the burden disproportionately worn by low socioeconomic status children, people who are unemployed or on low incomes, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, single-parent households, people with a disability and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse populations [ 4 ]. Despite growing evidence of their short-comings, Australia’s dominant response to household food insecurity remains government social welfare payments, and charity-operated emergency food relief.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Problems, policy and politics – perspectives of public health leaders on food insecurity and human rights in Australia

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To achieve zero hunger targets set within the United Nations’ Agenda 2030, high-income countries such as Australia must reconsider current efforts to improve food security. This study aimed to; explore perspectives from public health nutrition experts on the usefulness of drawing on the international human right to food, and associated mechanisms, to address food insecurity; identify potential roles of key stakeholders in Australia to implement a rights-based approach; and examine barriers and enablers to achieving the right to food in Australia. Methods Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with key informants (> 10 years professional experience). Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase approach to thematic analysis was employed to analyse data, using Kingdon’s multiple streams framework (1984) to examine interactive variables which affect policy-making processes. Results Thirty interviews took place, with most participants representing academia (n = 16), majority had 10–14 years of experience (n = 12) and almost one quarter (n = 7) were in senior leadership roles. Participants believed that framing food insecurity as a human rights issue could be effective when communicating with some audiences, however alternative rhetoric is more popular and potentially more effective. Citizens, government, food industry, non-profit sector, research/tertiary and legal institutions were described as playing critical roles. Barriers to progress were identified as lack of awareness and acknowledgement of the problem, prioritisation of the private sector, lack of political will and domestic laws, and an inefficient/ineffective charitable food sector. Participants identified various enablers and opportunities for implementing a rights-based approach such as grass-roots advocacy efforts to raise awareness of the issue, integrating human rights into government frameworks and community projects and the political will to support action aligned with sustainable development. Conclusions Human rights language and mechanisms have the potential to trigger genuine commitment to addressing food insecurity however should be used with caution. Australia’s public health workforce requires increased capacity to implement a human-rights approach and framing such efforts to align with sustainable development may achieve greater political action. Trial registration Ethics approval was received from the Deakin University Human Research Ethics committee (project ID HEAG 168_2018).

show abstract

“…As it is difficult to change the mindset of stakeholders at the beginning of collaboration, focus should remain on getting everyone around the table to reduce health inequalities, as opposed to focusing on policy process such as an integrated process (Storm et al, 2016). In achieving focus within discussion, the role of leaders is presented where leadership has been shown to play a vital role in the effectiveness of collaboration through communication, the facilitation of meetings, negotiation, networking, conflict resolution and maintaining values (Crosby & Bryson, 2010;Roussos & Fawcett, 2000;Slade & Baldwin, 2016). Leaders could emanate as government leadership, opinion leaders, project leaders, organisational leaders, formal decision-makers, community leaders, or religious and cultural leaders (Whelan, Love, Millar, Allender, & Bell, 2018).…”

Section: Research Question 2: What Are the Views Of Stakeholders Regamentioning

confidence: 99%

Food and Nutrition Public Policy in Australia: A diversity of views amongst stakeholders

Stanley¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advancing food and nutrition public policy in Australia is essential to halt the increasing prevalence of obesity and associated non-communicable diseases. Developing policy in this space however, is often contentious due to the entrenched views of stakeholders from a variety of interest groups. The aim of this research was to explore where the views of stakeholders are convergent and divergent on the issue, analyse the strategies used by stakeholders to influence the development of public policy, and ultimately, make recommendations to optimise the development of food and nutrition public policies. Structured interviews were undertaken with a purposeful sample of 76 stakeholders who were categorised into the following interest groups: government, public health sector, consumer groups, food and beverage industry, and academia. Interviewees were asked about their views on 1) food and nutrition public policy; 2) a variety of policy principles e.g. collaboration and transparency; and, 3) strategies to influence policy e.g. advocacy. Following transcription, the interviews were analysed using a combination of computational linguistics analysis, content analysis, descriptive and inferential statistics, and thematic analysis.

show abstract

Critiquing Food Security Inter‐governmental Partnership Approaches in Victoria, Australia

Cited by 3 publications

References 34 publications

Measuring and Understanding Food Insecurity in Australia: A Systematic Review

Measuring and Understanding Food Insecurity in Australia: A Systematic Review

Problems, policy and politics – perspectives of public health leaders on food insecurity and human rights in Australia

Food and Nutrition Public Policy in Australia: A diversity of views amongst stakeholders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About