ANAPHI :: Case Study Monograph

ANAPHI Case Study Project
It has been over 2 years since work began on the ANAPHI Case Studies Monograph and it is with much pleasure that it is now available for public dissemination on the ANAPHI website at the following link:

Monograph [32mB PDF]

Each case study has been researched by individual working and writing groups, without which this monograph would not have been produced.

Professor Brian Oldenburg
on behalf of the ANAPHI Case Studies working group

Summary

Resources List [Not Currently Available]

The broad aim of the project was to conduct four case studies that highlight the contributions of ANAPHI/PHERP to building and enhancing public health capacity in Australia.
Particular emphasis was given to how outcomes have been achieved via innovative approaches to and methods for:

Workforce development through education and training,
Research and development, and
Engagement with health systems and policy.

Illustration of the ways in which this has occurred will also help inform analysis of the PHERP investment to building public health infrastructure in this country and how this might be further enhanced in the future.

Four areas or public health challenges have been chosen as the basis for the case studies.

Case Study 1 - Emerging Diseases and Issues;
Case Study 2 - Chronic Disease Prevention and Management;
Case Study 3 - Indigenous Health; and,
Case Study 4 – Moving Public Health Action Upstream

A Steering Committee, made up of a leader for each case study, oversaw the project.

Case Study	Topic	Leaders
1	Emerging Infectious Diseases	Anthony Zwi, University of NSW
2	Chronic Disease Management and Prevention	Brian Oldenburg, Queensland University of Technology
3	Indigenous Health	Paul Kelly Menzies School of Health Research
4	Social Determinants	Jan Ritchie University of NSW; Colin McDougall Flinders University

A full-time Project Officer was employed to provide support and coordinate communication between the case study leaders.

A small writing team was constituted for each case study made up of a number of representatives from ANAPHI organisations as well as a couple of other representatives from government jurisdictions or other organisations.

A variety of evidence informs each of the case studies. A key element of the data and information collection process was the review of key documents and reports from a variety of organisations. These documents and reports are from international and domestic sources and range in nature. Some provide background material whilst others present detailed information regarding relevant processes and achievements.

In early February 2004, ANAPHI representatives received a detailed description of each case study. A data collection tool was circulated in April in anticipation that each ANAPHI institution or consortium should be able to provide material relevant to one or more these cases.

ANAPHI Case Study Data Collection Tool [Not Currently Available]

Project ‘Contacts’ at member institutions provided illustrative examples of their contribution to capacity-building through research and education and engagement with health policy and systems. Reports on PHERP Innovation Projects were included.

ANAPHI representatives were invited to a workshop in Brisbane in May to review submitted material and begin the preparation of draft case studies. First drafts for review and comment were available for circulation within the ANAPHI network in August. In late August, the Steering Committee met in Brisbane to prepare final drafts. Final drafts were submitted to the Project Steering committee during September and the Case Study Report was completed in October.

Report

The case studies are presented to tell a story about public health in Australia. They describe what individuals and structures across the ANAPHI network have been doing and how these relate to important public health matters. The Case Study Report is a summary of some of capacity building activities undertaken by schools of public health over the past five years. It provides a glimpse of some of the innovative ways in which schools of public health are working, often together, to advance sustainable national public health capacity. It also highlights the problems and successes universities face in maintaining and expanding their agendas. ‘Key ideas for action’ are highlighted in each case study in terms of strengthening public health education, research, and engagement with the health system that can be used by the institutions responsible for supporting public health education and research in the 21st century.

Whilst it is recognised that many of the activities described here are embedded in longer term initiatives and programs, the current five year PHERP funding round has been chosen as the primary focus for this case study. Rather than list all projects in each of the thematic areas, some examples are described in detail. This is not an exhaustive list, and other examples could also have been used. The final choice was based on the ability of the example to engage with the underlying theme, the availability of information in sufficient depth and the familiarity of the authors with specific projects. Equity of distribution amongst the ANAPHI network was also a factor for choice of specific examples.
Because of the broad scope of activities covered by the reports, and because they came from many schools of public health, the project represents the largest and most comprehensive pool of data to be collected from schools of public health on activities to date. These case studies bring to the surface the impact and outcomes of activity across the ANAPHI network unavailable in any other documentation. This document goes someway to redressing the lack of documents, discourse and processes that make impact on capacity building difficult to identify.