Public Health Research & Practice 

About: Public Health Research & Practice is an academic journal published by Sax Institute. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Medicine & Public health. It has an ISSN identifier of 2204-2091. It is also open access. Over the lifetime, 361 publications have been published receiving 4074 citations.

How the COVID-19 pandemic is focusing attention on loneliness and social isolation.

Abstract: The effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic upon human health, economic activity and social engagement have been swift and far reaching Emerging evidence shows that the pandemic has had dramatic mental health impacts, bringing about increased anxiety and greater social isolation due to the physical distancing policies introduced to control the disease In this context, it is possible to more deeply appreciate the health consequences of loneliness and social isolation, which researchers have argued are enduring experiences for many people and under-recognised contributors to public health In this paper, we examine the social and psychological consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a focus on what this has revealed about the need to better understand and respond to social isolation and loneliness as public health priorities Social isolation and loneliness are understood to be distinct conditions, yet each has been found to predict premature mortality, depression, cardiovascular disease and cognitive decline Estimates of the prevalence and distribution of social isolation and loneliness vary, possibly ranging from one-in-six to one-in-four people, and the lack of knowledge about the extent of these conditions indicates the need for population monitoring using standardised methods and validated measures Reviews of the evidence relating to social isolation and loneliness interventions have found that befriending schemes, individual and group therapies, various shared activity programs, social prescription by healthcare providers, and diverse strategies using information and communication technologies have been tried There remains uncertainty about what is effective for different population groups, particularly for prevention and for addressing the more complex condition of loneliness In Australia, a national coalition - Ending Loneliness Together - has been established to bring together researchers and service providers to facilitate evidence gathering and the mobilisation of knowledge into practice Research-practice partnerships and cross-disciplinary collaborations of this sort are essential for overcoming the public health problems of loneliness and social isolation that have pre-existed and will endure beyond the COVID-19 pandemic

Health literacy and disparities in COVID-19-related knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours in Australia.

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To explore the variation in understanding of, attitudes towards, and uptake of, health advice on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the 2020 pandemic stage 3 restrictions ('lockdown') by health literacy in the Australian population. STUDY DESIGN: National cross-sectional community survey. SETTING: Australian general public. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged over 18 years (N = 4362). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge, attitudes and behaviours related to COVID-19; health literacy and sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: People with inadequate health literacy had poorer understanding of COVID-19 symptoms (49% vs 68%; p < 0.001), were less able to identify behaviours to prevent infection (59%% vs 72% p < 0.001), and experienced more difficulty finding information and understanding government messaging about COVID-19 than people with adequate health literacy. People with inadequate health literacy were less likely to rate social distancing as important (6.1 vs 6.5; p < 0.001) and reported more difficulty with remembering and accessing medicines since lockdown (3.6 vs 2.7; p < 0.001). People with lower health literacy were also more likely to endorse misinformed beliefs about COVID-19 and vaccinations (in general) than those with adequate health literacy. The same pattern of results was observed among people who primarily speak a language other than English at home. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that there are important disparities in COVID-19-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviours according to people's health literacy and language. These have the potential to undermine efforts to reduce viral transmission and may lead to social inequalities in health outcomes in Australia. People with the greatest burden of chronic disease are most disadvantaged, and are also most likely to experience severe disease and die from COVID-19. Addressing the health literacy, language and cultural needs of the community in public health messaging about COVID-19 must now be a priority in Australia.

The Australian Burden of Disease Study: impact and causes of illness and death in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, 2011.

Abstract: This study estimates fatal and nonfatal disease burden among Indigenous Australians in 2011 and compares it with non-Indigenous Australians. The study found that there were 284 years lost per 1000 people because of premature death or living with ill health. Most of the disease burden was from chronic diseases (64%), particularly mental and substance-use disorders, injuries, cardiovascular diseases, cancer and respiratory diseases. The burden of disease was higher among males (54%) than females (46%) and higher for fatal (53%) than for nonfatal burden (47%). The disease groups with the highest burden varied by age group, with mental and substance-use disorders and injuries being the largest disease groups among those aged 5-44 years, and cardiovascular disease and cancer becoming more prominent among those aged 45 and older. Large disparities existed between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, with the total burden being 2.3 times the non-Indigenous rates, fatal burden being 2.7 times and nonfatal burden being 2 times.

Social media campaigns that make a difference: what can public health learn from the corporate sector and other social change marketers?

Abstract: Aim A great deal of enthusiasm and interest exists in using social media for public health communications, but few research studies have examined its success in promoting and adopting protective health behaviours. To begin to understand how best to develop effective online social marketing campaigns, this paper provides a summary of success factors and key lessons learnt from selected social media campaign case studies. Study type Case study review Methods: A selection of case studies was reviewed for lessons in campaign development, delivery and evaluation from both the corporate and public health sectors. Information about the objective of the campaign, the tactics used and the lessons learnt was extracted from each case study. Lessons learnt from across the case studies were then sorted according to themes. Results Lessons from the nine case studies selected were categorised into eight themes: planning, use of social media tools, community, content, personal benefits, promotion, costs and challenges. Outcome evaluation data were lacking in the case studies. Conclusions Overall, the nine case studies show that social media hold promise in changing user behaviours and that social media are highly effective in recruiting participants and motivating them to take small, concrete actions. The case studies also demonstrate that there is room in social media for targeted, inexpensive, small-scale projects, as well as large, well-funded, mass-reach marketing blitzes. Social media campaign process and impact evaluation measures are readily available. Outcome evaluation models and measures are needed to better assess the effectiveness of social media campaigns in changing health behaviours.

A guide to scaling up population health interventions

Abstract: The 'how to' of scaling up public health interventions for maximum reach and outcomes is receiving greater attention; however, there remains a paucity of practical tools to guide those actively involved in scaling up processes in high-income countries. To fill this gap, the New South Wales Ministry of Health developed Increasing the scale of population health interventions: a guide (2014). The guide was informed by a systematic review of scaling up models and methods, and a two-round Delphi process with a sample of senior policy makers, practitioners and researchers actively involved in scaling up processes. Although it is a practical guide to assist health policy makers, health practitioners and others responsible for scaling up effective population health interventions, it can also be used by researchers in the design of research studies that are potentially suitable for scaling up, particularly where research-practice collaborations are involved. The guide is divided into four steps: step 1, 'scalability assessment', aims to determine if an intervention is scalable; step 2, 'developing a scale up plan', aims to develop a practical and workable scaling up plan that can be used to convince stakeholders there is a compelling case for action. Step 3, 'preparing for scale up', aims to identify ways of securing resources needed for going to scale, operating at scale, and building a foundation of legitimacy and support to sustain the scaling up effort through the implementation stage; and step 4, 'scaling up the intervention', involves putting the plan developed in step 2 into place. Although the guide is written as though the user is starting from the point of assessing the scalability of an intervention, later steps can be used by those already involved in scaling up to review their implementation processes. The guide is not intended to be prescriptive. Its purpose is to help policy makers, practitioners, researchers and other decision makers decide on appropriate methodological and practical choices, and balance what is desirable with what is feasible.