|Subject Code and Title||PUBH6001: Health Policy and Advocacy|
|Assessment||Assessment 2: Part A|
Part 1: Policy Analysis (2500 words +/-10%) Part 2: Advocacy Strategy (2500 words +/-10%)
|Learning Outcomes||This assessment addresses the following learning outcomes:|
This is a Group Assignment which you will do in collaboration with other students in your class.Your facilitator will allocate the groups.
You may wish to designate tasks for both parts equally to your group members. You may also wish to choose a group leader to pull together different parts of the Assignment. In total there are 2 submissions - Part A and Part B – per group (and not individually).
Note: To prevent social loafing, groups experiencing problems with the level of commitment of individual members are required to contact their course facilitator in the first instance. If problems persist, the group leader should submit a Peer Evaluation Form (available on Blackboard). Marks may be deducted for individual members who do not live up to the expectations of the other group members.
Once you have discovered the group you are in, work out the best way to communicate with your peers for the development of the Assignment, (e.g., through Skype, telephone, Zoom, Whatsapp groups and email or other method). You can also use BB extensively via group discussion boards, wiki, email etc. Do remember that BB group areas are only for your group use, and not visible to other groups
In this part of the assignment, you will engage in policy analysis. Choose a health policy (either current or past), either at the state or federal level, to analyse in this Assignment (eg, mental health policy, women’s health policy, preventative health policy, men’s health policy, the Northern Territory intervention).
The Assignment should be approximately 2,500 words addressing the following questions as a report. (please do not answer the questions as a series of short answers)
The Problem and Context
Frame of Reference/Dominant Discourse
• Are there any underlying assumptions behind these?
Targets, Stakeholders and their Representation
South Australia's Mental Health and Wellbeing Policy deliver an outline for the promotion of noble psychological health and wellbeing in the Australian community and the continuing improvement of the psychological healthcare system. South Australian Mental Health and Wellbeing Policy have involved the stakeholder like Government of South Australia, non-government sector establishments, users, carers and the common community. Mental Health Council of Australia, the National Mental Health Commission, the Academic Department for Old Age Psychiatry and the Australian Ageing Agenda were ignored in the South Australian Mental Health and Wellbeing Policy (Kelly et al., 2010).
Representing the anxieties and interests of users and carers, talking on their behalf, and delivering training and provision to allow them to exemplify themselves. The voices of non-government organizations and local health care providers involved in providing services to the older people were not entertained in the policy, who wanted to include the aged mental health also in the policy and raised the concerns associated with the need of mental health services for older people (Burns & Birrell, 2014).
The interest of consumers and the carers have been included in the policy. The carers are the individuals who deliver current care or support to the mentally ill persons such as family member, and young carers. The consumer is the person whose interest was also paramount in the policy. The consumers are the person who uses or previously used the mental health upkeep and associated services (Allen, Balfour, Bell & Marmot, 2014). The consumers and carers are the ones who were provided with competing for support from the policymakers, and they had the right to receive every service of the policy. The stakeholder has also had the power to provide funds for the policy development, the non-government organization and community health providers were able to initiate campaigning and awareness program about the policy (Whiteford, et al., 2014).
Australia people are experiencing different types of mental health issues. It has been identified in different studied that nearly 46 per cent of people in Australia experienced mental health issues once in their lifetime. The stakeholders know that facts and agreed to support the carers and community health provider to eradicate the mental health problem. The stake holders like SA government were encouraged as they were responsible to respond to the issues of mental health that has been raising continuously. Providing the effective care to the population, increasing the contribution of the mentally ill people in the development and growth of the community and state, lost productivity because of poor health, and unemployment was the motivation for the stakeholders to crate this policy (Minas et al., 2013).
There were different windows of opportunity the policymakers identify to enable them to make the policy. They had the opportunity the use support strategy to reduce the social and financial consequences of the mental health problems among children and the young individual, involving the provision of proper development opportunities for example education and vocational programs, in addition to the opportunities of social participation in the policy for mental health issues reduction.
There were the different solution has been established by the policymakers to eradicate or reduce mental health issues. The expert psychiatric care for individuals with acute episodes of psychological illness. The consumers and carers were educated about the mental health issues a how they can get the support from different health services being provided by the government and non-government organizations. Teams have been assigned to deliver mental healthcare families in the community excluding the hospitals ((Allen, Balfour, Bell & Marmot, 2014). Mental health facilities that deliver assessment, management and care of individuals with a psychological ailment are involved in the policy. Reinforce collaboration and corporations across a variety of sectors, counting housing, employment, public services, incapacity, justice, teaching and health to safeguard a combined approach to the health promotion, avoidance, early intercession and recovery from mental illness were included in the policy as the strategy to address mental illnesses. Support employment strategies that promote employment and vocational programs linked to clinical and community support services.
People with mental illness and their families do not commonly want to expose the problem to other people, as they might experience isolation, discrimination, rejection from the family and the community. Thus it is hard to put their trust in the health care provides, therefore it is the responsibility of the healthcare professional involved in the policy that they must keep the information of the patient confidential. There different type f communities like aboriginal and Torres strait islander people are existing in Australia therefor the service provided must respect the cultural values of those communities and must not hurt their religious beliefs ((Allen, Balfour, Bell & Marmot, 2014).
The main problems most of the stakeholder mentioned that they do receive enough information and resources about the issues from the health care provider. The healthcare provides wants stakeholder to engage in the poverty involvement programs must have proper information about the issues. They must be skilled with effective communication. They must enable the stakeholder to understand how big the problem is and how it is affecting the community. Establishing relationships outcomes in augmented trust. And individuals work composed more easily and efficiently when there is trust in the relationship. Endowing effort in recognizing and building stakeholder associations can upsurge sureness across the health promotion program, diminish doubt, and speed problem resolving. The stakeholder must also be ensured that they will be included in the decision making processes (Morley, Martin, Niven & Wakefield, 2012).
Obesity has become one of the major health problems in Australia, which can be eliminated with the complete support of government and communities. The most pertinent evidence for important community-wide determinations comes from readings aimed at dropping obesity risk factors by dietary alteration and augmented physical activity. These intercessions have frequently used manifold strategies, counting media campaigns, community enrolments, and education courses for health specialists and the common public, changes of physical atmospheres, and health screenings and recommendations. The local health providers should be engaged in the program as they are more familiar with the particular community and the people in the community trust the local health provider more. The local schools and institutes must also be engaged in the health promotion program to educate the children about the prevention of obesity issues (Nichols, et al, 2011).
Using public resources to progress awareness of, and upsurge access to, healthcare interventions. For instance, the health providers can involve community establishments and front-runners early on in the progress stage, use broadcasting, plan proceedings or make usage of carnivals specific to minority ethnic groups like aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders (Mathews, Moodie, Simmons & Swinburn, 2010).
There are some ethical issues can also be raised during the campaigning programs such as people's privacy, their right to freedom of their choice, and autonomy for the sake of endorsing the health of the society or individuals. To address these issues the confidentially of the individuals must be maintained proper and effective relationship should be built with the community leaders (de Silva-Sanigorski et al., 2010).