Abstract
A ‘rural proofing’ framework, which offers assessment of the potential impacts of policies on rural and remote communities, has been advocated for by state governments and interest groups throughout Australia. It is argued that rural proofing can be used to redress health inequities between urban and rural and remote communities. While implementation of rural proofing in some countries shows promising results, there are many social and spatial contexts that should be considered prior to its adoption in Australia. Rural proofing is not the best option for rural health policy in Australia. It has been imported from communities where the urban/rural divide is minimal. It is based on a rigid urban/rural binary model that targets disparity rather than accommodating the diversity of rural communities. Rural proofing concentrates on tick-the-box activities, where rural communities are not sufficiently consulted. There is no unified federal ministry in Australia with responsibility for rural and remote affairs. Considering potential shortcomings of rural proofing for health policies, it is imperative for Australia to have a specific rural health policy at both federal and state levels.
Highlights
Rural proofing for health policies is defined as a systematic approach to safeguard that the needs of rural communities are meaningfully embedded into government health policies (Swindlehurst et al 2005; Shortall and Alston 2016)
The WONCA Working Group on Rural Practice has acknowledged the importance of rural proofing for health (WONCA Working Party on Rural Practice—Health for All Rural People Planning Committee 2003)
We argue the need for a coherent rural health policy at both federal and state levels to meaningfully promote health equity for rural and remote communities
Summary
Rural proofing for health policies is defined as a systematic approach to safeguard that the needs of rural communities are meaningfully embedded into government health policies (Swindlehurst et al 2005; Shortall and Alston 2016). In 1998, Canada’s Rural Secretariat introduced the ‘rural lens’ to help governments in designing their policies (Hall and Gibson 2016) It was adopted by various OECD countries which include New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Northern Ireland (OECD 2005, 2011). There are many social, political, ideological, economic, and spatial contexts that should be considered prior to the adoption of rural proofing for health in Australia. We argue the need for a coherent rural health policy at both federal and state levels to meaningfully promote health equity for rural and remote communities
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
