Key result
Resource limits and anecdotal preferences hinder evidence-based heart disease prevention policy in rural settings.
Why the study?
Rural Australian populations experience an increased burden of ischaemic heart disease compared to metropolitan counterparts, requiring policy and other efforts to address these differences. This study examined rural health policy makers' perceptions and use of evidence to reduce the burden of IHD in rural areas.
Observational (n=21)
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Addressing resource limitations, access to local data, and training deficits at the local government level is necessary to translate cardiovascular prevention evidence into effective rural health policy in Australia.
BACKGROUND: Rural Australian populations experience an increased burden of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) compared to their metropolitan counterparts, similar to other developed countries, globally. Policy and other efforts need to address and acknowledge these differences in order to reduce inequalities in health burden. This paper examines rural health policy makers' perceptions and use of evidence in efforts to reduce the burden of IHD in rural areas. METHODS: Policy makers and government advisors (n = 21) who worked with, or advised on, rural health policy at local, state and federal government levels, with specific focus on the state of Victoria (n = 9) were identified from publicly available documents and subsequent snowball sample. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted in regards to the use of evidence in policy to prevent IHD and thematic analysis undertaken applying two theoretical perspectives: context-based evidence-based policy making and the conceptual framework for understanding rural and remote health. RESULTS: The rural context, particularly low resourcing, was seen as limiting potential for evidence based policy at local government (LG) level. Lower levels of political pressure and education were seen as constraints to evidence-based policy in rural communities. Participants described the potential for policy to have a greater impact on reducing heart disease in rural areas though they felt under-resourced and out of touch with the scientific evidence. Scientific studies were less valued than local anecdote to prioritise specific policy. At all levels (local, state and federal) low self-efficacy in interpreting evidence and perceived lack of relevance inhibited development of evidence informed policy. CONCLUSION: The rural context constrains the use of scientific evidence in policy making for the prevention of heart disease in rural areas in Australia with multiple factors influencing the capacity for evidenced based health policy. This is similar to findings at the international scale and is for consideration across other developed countries that experience inequalities in IHD disease burden between rural and urban populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alston et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) prevention policy in rural Australia (n=21). Rural Australian context (rural locale, broader health systems, power) vs. State and federal (higher level) government policy perspectives was evaluated on Perceptions and use of scientific evidence in rural health policy to prevent ischaemic heart disease. Rural context constraints—including low resourcing, low self-efficacy in interpreting research, and preference for local anecdotes—inhibited the use of scientific evidence in heart disease prevention policy across 21 interviewed policy makers.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: