In the nineteenth century, Florence nightingale has defined health as absence of disease and illness. The concept of these terms are evolved over time, where World Health Organisation has defined the ‘Health’ as a state of complete mental, physical as well as social well being. In Australia, the National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhoods Development was signed by the COAG (Council of Australia Governments). In October 2008, the government has taken their first initiative for closing the gap between life expectancy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children. The aim of this health promotion initiative is to increase access and the use of child and maternal health services by indigenous families. Since 2009, Mothers and Babies Services represented the Commonwealth’s Own Purpose Expenditure contribution to Element 3 of NPA IECD. It is now an ongoing program, where Government has allocated $32.69 million in 2012-1. The practice and outcome of this program is related with the postnatal and antenatal care, assistance with nutrition, immunisation status and child treatment (health.gov.au, 2012). Therefore, the implementation plan has been applied to prioritise this strategic outcome. In the current essay, social determinant factors and its influence in the mentioned health promotion initiatives will be disused properly to understand the positive as well as negative status of any health promotional tactics.
In the current period, the focused area of nursing is known as public health, which is prioritised on health promotion as well as preventive care. In the developed and richest countries, the risk of illness is fewer than that of the poor countries. As commented by Boyer et al. (2017), these differences in health are prioritised on the importance of social injustice. People life styles and the conditions are strongly influence the children’s longevity as well as health. In this case, there is higher importance of social determinants of health. From this background, major social determinant factors within the community are social and psychological environment that affects the health. Another factor is related with the importance that can ensure good environment within early childhood. On the other hand, the issues of job insecurity and unemployment are also significant factor. As commented by Castañeda et al. (2015), dangers of social exclusion, effects of alcohol and healthier transport systems are the part of these social determinant factors. It is evident that poor social and economic circumstances can affect heath throughout the life. In this case, health standards are showing a continuous social gradient. As commented by Garg et al. 2015), the social determinants often reflects material disadvantage, anxiety, impact of insecurity, lack of social integration and anxiety. There are various number of factor are usually called broad determinants, which are underlie on many health conditions such as disabilities as well as diseases.
As per the opinion of Durkalec et al. (2015), broader determinates can be economic, biological as well as environmental. The author has also demonstrated that the socially based literacy, family/ community organisation, cultural factors and income is also elated with these broader determinants. Therefore, factors influence the risks to health, policies and the investment. Based on these determinants, government can reduce the risk to health and can improve the healthy policies, lifestyle as well as action. In the broader community, the social determinants are significant factor to promote social support as well as investment.
In the health promotional event of ‘Indigenous Early Childhood Development’, the government has prioritised various social determinants for addressing the risk on child development. The service delivery model in the location is determined here for ensuring that services are provided in most appropriate way.
In the current heath program, government has taken standard initiative based on children’s health and development outcomes, where a social; gradient has been followed. As per the current program, three major determinant factors are socio economic, political as well as cultural level. Numerous interventions have been applied in the current event for improving the aspect of postnatal, prenatal, physical as well as social environment. However, in many cases children’s cannot get sustainable or direct effect of care. During the early years, inequitable access to services has potential effect to maintain the inequities. Alley et al. (2016) commented that, reduction of inequities during the early childhood required multi faceted and multi level responses. In this case, government can implement the policies for improving the access to quality services. It is also required to ensure stable, secure as well as flexible workplace for the parents.
Waterworth et al., (2016) argued that inequalities in the health between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non –Aboriginal people has been noted by the World health Organisation. As per the report Badland et al., (2014), life expectancy for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population is lower at all level. Parent often do not have proper access to good health, education and sustainable care due to improper socio economic status. As commented by Castañeda et al. (2015), Aboriginal Victorians have lower household income as they are unemployed and often unable to work. On the other hand, psychological risk factors are also evident that, where Aboriginal Victorians had higher prevalence of all psychological risk factors (rch.org.au, 2018). In this case, major significant area is food insecurity, psychological distress as well as financial stress. In the current health promotion program, the government has prioritised the children health. In the other countries, the government has taken initiative to reduce the parent’s smoking.
They have introduced education program for improving the reading, which can stimulate the cognitive development in childhood. In the current program, socio-economic determinants have been prioritised to deal with the low household income. In Australia, the aboriginal people cannot get sufficient healthcare support, where the current health promotion initiatives have prioritised the accessibility status of the opportunities. Garg et al. (2015) commented that many people have complex social issues, which can affect the capacity to engage with postnatal and antenatal care. As commented by Badland et al., (2014), there is striking consistency within distribution of morbidity as well as mortality within social group. For the Aboriginal people, socio-economic status is strongly corrected with the early childhood development. in the next section, the political factors will be criticised as social determinant of health.
Structured inequities within the aboriginal community are based on unequal distribution of wealth, power, status and income. The national, territory and state government made decision for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. These policies create direct impact on the people’s health as well as well-being. Badland et al. (2014) commented that government often consistently fail to consider holistic view for addressing the social determinant of health. In the current initiatives, impact of the policies on the indigenous people has reflection on the systematic figure of political status. The political determinants here prioritised on the basic human rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their well-being. The government has invested a certain amount in the Mother and babies services. Here approx $31.80 has been allocated towards the primary health care project of the Aboriginal families with children. In the well fare reform, government’s policy is to support its citizenry to thrive. The differences between the Aboriginal children and the non-aboriginal children are present due to history of apartheid as well as segregation. Alley et al. (2016) commented that political factors are the important determinant for the childcare, as those people cannot get proper access to opportunities due to impact of missionaries, acts, policies as well as legislation.
The government has understood that such political determinants can breach the human rights of the children and this status can damage their social status across generation. In the early child hood development, government has tried to better the policies for Aboriginal families and their children. The current promotional event has provoked the practical advice and assistance with nutrition for resolving the mortality issue in the current community. The political factors are prioritised in the higher priority as government has understood that those children are not getting proper health opportunities due to sustained difference between aboriginal as well as non-aboriginal people (aphapublications.org, 2018).
Another social determinant in the chosen health promotion initiative is cultural factors. As commented by Durkalec et al. (2015), disparities between the health of non-indigenous and indigenous population is continues as prevalent in Australia. It has been evaluated that indigenous people are participating in the health risk behaviour than the non-indigenous counterparts. Therefore, it can be assumed that cultural determinants are affecting the health outcome of those people. It has been indicated that reduced health behaviour has positive impact on the health outcome. It has been visualised that during the colonisation of Australia, racism was pervasive. Boyer et al., (2017) argued that indigenous people were forced to line in the mission.
In many cases, segregation and assimilation policies have been introduced. It has been also visualised that continued discrimination and past atrocities have created long-term psychological effect as well as physical impact on the people, which are often trans-generational. For instance, unemployment rate is visualised as disparity, where 5% for non-indigenous and 17% is for the indigenous. Therefore, there is a cultural gap between the indigenous and the non-indigenous people. Therefore, in case of childcare, government support is required to reduce these disparities. In the current healthcare program, the government has prioritised the children’s socio-economic concern through reducing the barrier from cultural context. In this case, the government has allocated proper resource and services to offer standard information on baby care, post natal care and nutritional status. Therefore, the cultural factors are significant social health determinant to construct this health promotion event.
Social determinants of health are referring to money, power and the resources. As commented by Durkalec et al., (2015) many communities embark on the initiatives, which is prioritised to improve health of citizen. The government has used proper structured model to promote health equity. In case of non-indigenous people, better access to health is evident for the children. However, for the aboriginal people, this scenario is evident. In the current health promotion initiatives, the government has faced barriers to fund the organisation. Lack of proper transport capacity issues have been visualised in following program.
In the following initiatives use participatory process, where all sectors of the community has been criticised. The social health determinants have been influenced here by means of community ownership. In community ownership, individuals from all background have been considered. Socio economic such as income equality has been considered here to resolve different problems in health and development. As per the opinion of Castañeda et al., (2015) greater equity in the society may lead to longer life expectancy. Therefore, in the current healthcare initiatives, the government has tried to reduce this barrier on inequality. The aboriginal people has no proper access to healthcare services, where government has reduced the gap between non indigenous and indigenous children. In the current healthcare program, government has allocated the resource properly to give them equal opportunity. Therefore, the government has considered the socio economic, cultural and political determinates to facilitate this initiative program. Entire program has been planned in accordance to this status.