Stoneham Melissa, Dodds James
Public Health Advocacy Institute of Western Australia, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia.
Environmental Health Directorate, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Grace Vaughan House, 227 Stubbs Terrace, Shenton Park, WA 6008, Australia.
Health Promot J Austr. 2014 Aug;25(2):139-42. doi: 10.1071/HE14012.
The Western Australian (WA) Public Health Bill will replace the antiquated Health Act 1911. One of the proposed clauses of the Bill requires all WA local governments to develop a Public Health Plan. The Bill states that Public Health Plans should be based on evidence from all levels, including national and statewide priorities, community needs, local statistical evidence, and stakeholder data.
This exploratory study, which targeted 533 WA local government officers, aimed to identify the sources of evidence used to generate the list of public health risks to be included in local government Public Health Plans.
The top four sources identified for informing local policy were: observation of the consequences of the risks in the local community (24.5%), statewide evidence (17.6%), local evidence (17.6%) and coverage in local media (16.2%).
This study confirms that both hard and soft data are used to inform policy decisions at the local level. Therefore, the challenge that this study has highlighted is in the definition or constitution of evidence. SO WHAT? Evidence is critical to the process of sound policy development. This study highlights issues associated with what actually constitutes evidence in the policy development process at the local government level. With the exception of those who work in an extremely narrow field, it is difficult for local government officers, whose role includes policymaking, to read the vast amount of information that has been published in their area of expertise. For those who are committed to the notion of evidence-based policymaking, as advocated within the WA Public Health Bill, this presents a considerable challenge.
西澳大利亚州（WA）《公共卫生法案》将取代过时的1911年《卫生法案》。该法案的一项拟议条款要求西澳大利亚州所有地方政府制定一份《公共卫生计划》。法案规定，《公共卫生计划》应以各级证据为依据，包括国家和全州的优先事项、社区需求、当地统计证据以及利益相关者数据。
这项探索性研究以533名西澳大利亚州地方政府官员为对象，旨在确定用于生成地方政府《公共卫生计划》中包含的公共卫生风险清单的证据来源。
确定的为地方政策提供信息的前四大来源是：对当地社区风险后果的观察（24.5%）、全州范围的证据（17.6%）、当地证据（17.6%）和当地媒体报道（16.2%）。
本研究证实，硬数据和软数据都被用于为地方层面的政策决策提供信息。因此，本研究突出的挑战在于证据的定义或构成。那又如何？证据对于制定合理政策的过程至关重要。本研究突出了地方政府层面政策制定过程中实际构成证据的相关问题。除了那些在极其狭窄领域工作的人之外，对于职责包括制定政策的地方政府官员来说，要阅读其专业领域内已发表的大量信息是困难的。对于那些致力于西澳大利亚州《公共卫生法案》所倡导的循证决策理念的人来说，这是一个相当大的挑战。
