Andrew Phillips, National Rural Health Alliance
 Rural and remote health research needs to be justified on the basis of the contribution it makes to better health and wellbeing for the people who live and work in the bush.
Such 'research' includes:
- statistical overviews (eg. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare statistical reports)
- evaluation of the effectiveness of government programs (ie. how they improve the circumstances of rural and remote people)
- pure and applied research of the type typically conducted by universities.
As with research generally, statistical analysis takes time and expertise. It is often the case that numbers are required but are not available because there has been no investment in their development. It is important to maintain investment in ongoing statistical reporting so that the numbers and expertise do remain available.
Documents such as the National Rural Health Information Framework (AIHW, 2007) outline gaps in the nation’s statistical reporting ability, many of which are capable, with effort, of being filled. Such investment does not yield immediate benefits, and so has tended to be ignored in the past. Notwithstanding the potential for a more coordinated data collection system such as that potentially promised by eHealth, this needs to be progressively addressed.
Important evaluation research is frequently ignored or is applied as an afterthought. Without adequate evaluation by experienced workers, it is not possible to identify successful government programs (to be continued and expanded) and unsuccessful programs (to be modified or scrapped).
With regard to pure and applied research, it would be useful to invest more heavily in 'practical' research, for example identifying successful and unsuccessful models of service delivery.
A healthy population is one with good financial prospects and access to education, a well-designed built environment (including housing), good stores of social capital, honest and effective governance, physical and financial access to health personnel and facilities and, importantly, a joined-up, coordinated, self-informing health system.
We would like to see much more rural health research which addresses methods for benefiting people’s prospects of good health, rather than measuring their pain, disease and disadvantage. For too long, the negatives of living in rural and remote areas have been highlighted. It is now time to expose and focus on the positives.
Finally, we believe that it may be useful to develop a strategic national rural health research agenda that guides or better coordinates research aimed at improving the health of people living in rural and remote areas.
Reference
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) (2007). Rural, regional and remote health— information framework and indicators—Version 1b. AIHW cat. no. PHE 69. Canberra: AIHW (Rural Health Series no. 6)
|
